Unpopular opinion: it’s just a cosmological constant. No fundamental physics to be discovered. Money better spent on interesting astrophysics rather than framed as H0 debate. @skdhhttps://twitter.com/josh_sokol/status/1152302635711705088 …
I'm sure you would have said the same thing about Rydberg's constant, then.
-
-
For the non-physicist, is the above argument that it's no more interesting than, say, getting better precision on something like the Feigenbaum constant?
-
His argument is that there can be no "understanding" of the cosmological constant. It's just a number that the universe gave us, and there's no deeper physics (called "new physics") that could explain its value. My post was a counterexample of such a constant
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.