As a layman, I can't follow, but the paper [1] references AQUAL [2] "This systematic deviation agrees with the boost factor that the AQUAL theory predicts." But that theory doesn't agree with observation? And I'll paraphrase Sean Carroll [3] as saying something like Scalar-vector-tensor theories are just dark matter theories in disguise. Positing an noninteracting energy density, is just positing dark matter.
Comments
As a layman, I can't follow, but the paper [1] references AQUAL [2] "This systematic deviation agrees with the boost factor that the AQUAL theory predicts." But that theory doesn't agree with observation? And I'll paraphrase Sean Carroll [3] as saying something like Scalar-vector-tensor theories are just dark matter theories in disguise. Positing an noninteracting energy density, is just positing dark matter.
1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.04613.pdf
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL#:~:text=AQUAL%27s%20fail...
3 https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/07/31/245-...
I (not the submitter) am hoping to get some good commentary here. I saw it go by and I’m curious how legit it is.
(Disclaimer, I have not read the paper, nor is it my field.)
Taking "greater than 5 sigma" at face value, that sounds reasonably legit...