SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the expanding-like-a-waistline-on-Thanksgiving dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Reproduceability is key to science. A one-time “eureka!” could be the first step in a paradigm shift — or it could be a fluke. It’s the second, third, and hundredth measurements that put theories to the test.
That’s why recent measurements of the universe’s expansion have piqued interest. Even though astronomers have applied multiple methods relying on completely different physics, they’re still getting similar results: Today’s universe appears to be expanding faster than what’s expected based on measurements of the early universe. Can systematic errors explain this discrepancy? Or are new physics required?
Now Wendy Freedman (University of Chicago) and colleagues have posted a new, "middle-of-the-road" measurement on the astronomy preprint arXiv, adding a twist to the ongoing debate. The study will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 19 2019, @11:41PM
Fare enough. However, given the complete lack of evidence that infinity is anything other than a conceptual absurdity, betting against the existence of infinite amounts of anything is generally the more respectable option. At the very least, nobody will ever be able to prove you wrong - there's not enough space in the observable universe to put an infinite amount of anything.
Even infinitesimals, the one class of things you might reasonably imagine there being an infinite number of, run into problems with spacetime granularity when considering the real world. There are in fact only a finite number of distinct points that exist between two space-time locations, or so the theory goes. Really throws a wrench in Zeno's Paradox, and may help explain why we are in fact capable of motion