Hypergeometrical Universe

Happy Thanksgiving 2016

Happy ThanksGiving,

In the past few days, I provided a rebuttal to the Helyon Peer Review.

Read More

Second Peer Review - 3

But putting all of that aside, I will take a narrow view of the manuscript. It proposes a distance(redshift) relation, and we can quantitatively see how well this matches the data. The proper way to do this is not by making plots, it is to compute chi^2 values from the distance moduli (mu) and covariance matrix in Union2.1:
 
 chi^2 = (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)^T . (covariance matrix^-1) . (mu_observed - M - mu_theory)
 
 where M is a constant that can be fit (the host-mass relation can also be fit, but failing to do so won’t affect the results much). After computing chi^2 values for LambdaCDM and HU, you can see if HU is favored or disfavored by the data compared to LambdaCDM. By my eye, HU is significantly worse, but the chi^2 values will say for sure.

Read More

Second Peer Review - 2

I’m also skeptical that the luminosity of a SN Ia if G were different would scale as G^-3 (or M_ch^2).

Read More

Second Peer Review - 1

This manuscript presents the predicted luminosity distance in the Hypergeometrical Universe (HU) model and compares against the Union supernova compilation. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is suitable for publication. I detail (only the major) issues below.

Read More

First Peer Review - 9

So overall, I am not convinced that the author has properly calculated the actual impact of the geometry of the universe that he proposes. Since he is not modifying physics in a fundamental way, but only the geometry (which is arguably the appeal of his model), many experiments in physics can be reinterpreted in terms of this new setup. As far as I can tell, they would not allow the set up to be possible. Thus unless the author can convincingly prove that the standard well known local physics is not modified in his setup, it is premature to try to calculate the impact on cosmology.

Read More