prosba o komentarz (fwd)

[Michal Frackowiak]

about my scepticism - I 100% agree with your comment in the newspaper. 
it is not enough for the theory to be consistent.

my scepticism is more about the data, not the idea itself - it would be 
great to verify it! but it is amazing how people (theoretists) react to 
even small inconsistencies within the model/data.... and I suppose this 
quadrupole level is a fake alert although it can wake up some brilient 
theoretical ideas.

regards - michal

Boud Roukema wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote:
>  
>
>>Marcin Gawronski wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Boud Roukema wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>hi everyone,
>>>> i definitely think we should respond to this - but i would prefer
>>>>it to be a collective response - there's no reason why only my name
>>>>should be cited - e.g., we could at least have the official "team"
>>>>        
>>>>
> ...
>  
>
>>I am SURE the data is not convincing. but people get excited even if
>>there is only 1 sigma difference between theory and observations.
>>theoretists have very little to do since everything matches perfectly
>>and even 1 sigma is an event... in case of cmb and low multipoles - with
>>a slightly different analysis it does not give such exciting results ;-)
>>
>>regards - michal
>>forgive me but I am quite sceptic about this all.
>>    
>>
>
>i didn't put the following in the text since it's too subtle for a
>general audience (requires explaining what spherical harmonics are
>etc), but Efstathiou's increased quadrupole value provides a better
>match to the Luminet et al quadrupole. :) Of course, the octupole
>increases above the Luminet et al value. :(
>
>In any case, (1) our journalist contact has already had the article
>printed
>
>pA11 Rzeczpospolita 15.10.2003
>http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_031015/nauka/nauka_a_1.html
>
>and (2) he didn't include all our names and (3) he misspelt my first name.
>
>However, given that he works for a "controlled" newspaper, what he
>finally printed is probably not too bad in terms of - except that the
>credit for our collective opinion all goes to me - how's that for
>an example of intellectual capitalism...
>
>As for the real science, i've been in cosmology long enough to remember
>how many, many times cosmologists wrote similar words to "forgive me
>but I am quite sceptic about this all" about a non-zero cosmological
>constant. Until the years 1997-2000 when those people shrunk to a tiny
>minority (including at least one highly respected cosmologist).
>
>Only when the results are really solid will we know one way or the other
>whether cosmic topology is still a useful subject...
>
>boud
>
>
>###
>Baud Roukema z Centrum Astronomicznego Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika
>
>Hipoteza Jeffreya Weeksa i Jeana-Pierre'a Lumineta jest bardzo
>interesuj?ca. Przyjmuj? oni za model wszech?wiata przestrze?
>dodekahedraln? Poincarego. Niestety, nie mamy jeszcze do?? danych, by
>stwierdzi?, czy hipoteza jest prawdziwa. To, ?e jest sp?jna, to za
>ma?o. Mo?na poda? przyk?ad innej idei, przedstawionej np. w pracy
>George'a Efstathiou (http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310207), wed?ug
>kt?rej wszech?wiat jest du?o, du?o wi?kszy i niezakrzywiony. Ta
>hipoteza jest tak samo sp?jna jak przestrzeni dodekahedralnej
>Poincarego.
>
>W Centrum Astronomicznym Uniwersytetu Miko?aja Kopernika
>przeprowadzimy analiz? hipotezy, korzystaj?c z tych samych
>danych. Wykorzystamy te? katalogi galaktyk radiowych i
>kwazar?w. B?dziemy bardzo zadowoleni, je?li hipoteza oka?e si?
>prawdziwa. Na razie sprawa jest otwarta. NOT. ?.K.
>###
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>LISTNAME: cosmo-torun
>HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" 
>WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/
>UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun"
>
>
>  
>