boud

@pomarede @TillSawala @cosmology

It's good that 'Science' magazine caught up and that Sylos Labini has acknowledged the error :).

However, the 'Science' text omits the fact that the #little_h error (a factor of about 1.4) counts for a lot more of the error (in this particular analysis) than the comoving-vs-luminosity-distance error (a factor of about 1.08 in the centre of the Sloan Great Wall).

https://framapiaf.org/@boud/116874018701117285

@cosmology

For non-cosmologists:

[3] #ComovingDistance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances

[4] #LuminosityDistance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_distance

[5] #little_h https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Dimensionless_Hubble_constant

@cosmology @pomarede @redshiftdrift

In their article that is *still* not on #ArXiv, looks like #SylosLabini+#Galoppo made two elementary mistakes.

@TillSawala has reanalysed the data, and presented a convincing case that SylosLabini+Galoppo forgot about #little_h and accidentally used #LuminosityDistance s instead of #ComovingDistance s [2]. See Fig 9, and p14 (15th page) of the pdf.

So much for #Nature's peer review standards ...

#TillSawala

[2] #ArXiv_2607_01172 https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01172

@pomarede

"Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale"

#SylosLabini + #MarcoGaloppo claim 1 Gpc scale anistropies in #DESI data unexpected at 3 sigma in #LCDM . The paper is not yet on #ArXiv , so we can only go by the pop-science coverage for the moment. The "Science" article has expected comments from expected people :).

@cosmology