Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2409.06569

The Cosmology Tension Gods giveth and the Cosmology Tension Gods taketh away 🤷

Haha 😅, I'll let you know if Enrique from Universe 2845b has any great insights.

Register now, or in another branch of the multiverse, you've surely registered in one of them! (Right?!)

"Tabletops" in space might still be necessary sometimes though 😂.

There are certainly examples of groups revealing results too soon, before double/triple checking possible interpretations 😅.

I think I do disagree on the scaffolding metaphor, but I'm not sure my disagreeing is interesting 😅.

I'd liken it more to halftime at a sports game, or showing partial counts on election day (In terms of how interesting people find it, not how feasible it is to do without compromising other things)

I don't *think* I disagree with any/most of this. Me calling it the "dream" did mean to imply it isn't necessarily feasible, partially for reasons you point out.

It can still be a dream to aspire to get *closer* to, without compromising too much on other important things of value.

One last thing I realised after writing everything above...

Going from ΛCDM to "wCDM", with w0 \neq -1 and wa \neq 0 doesn't, as far as I know, break any other observation (yet!)

So many other solutions to tensions/problems within ΛCDM fix one thing, only to bust something else.

Ah, cool!

You should polish them and make them public somewhere 😁.

"where the dust will settle" 👀

dangerous choice of language in astronomy 😅

This is really cool. I'd love for something like this to be recorded and shared afterwards so that the rest of the world can re-live the excitement.

(The dream would be one day for the scientists and public to be unblinded simultaneously, with expert commentary as it unfolds!)

Yeah, I agree with that framing too. It does seem to look like wo,wa though (e.g. from the binned w(z) plot).

Now that at least the yr1 data is public I'm looking forward to which a posteriori model floats to the top of the a posteriori best fit pile 😅. (Hopefully one well motivated one rises up!)

w0,wa is of course just a parameterisation, but it seems to be a genuinely good one for the observations we've made of this universe in 2025 🤷

And finally, the best fit combined value of wo,wa isn't somehow in tension with what each individual probe wants, it's more or less a consistent story of wo,wa-ness in the data 🤷