<story><title>No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology</title><url>http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>mbell</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not a physicist, just an interested bystander but some of these arguments don&amp;#x27;t seem to hold water to me:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There’s a more general point to be made here. The primary reason that we use dark matter and dark energy to explain cosmological observations is that they are simple.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A creation term is basically a magic fix by which you can explain everything and anything.&lt;p&gt;Dark matter is an unknown &amp;#x27;substance&amp;#x27; that interacts only through gravity (weakly) and must have a very specific and complex distribution in the universe to &amp;#x27;work&amp;#x27;. That strikes me as neither &amp;#x27;simple&amp;#x27; nor much different than tossing a constant into an equation to make it work. Similarly Dark Energy is an unknown form of energy that in uniformly distributed through the universe, which to me is just a fancy way of saying &amp;quot;we added a constant to make it work&amp;quot;. In both cases I don&amp;#x27;t see how either are implicitly better than adding a &amp;#x27;creation term&amp;#x27;.</text></comment>
<story><title>No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology</title><url>http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/no-negative-masses-have-not.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>benwr</author><text>This is a critical response to &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=18609375&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=18609375&lt;/a&gt; ; in the comments is a response by Jamie Farnes, the author of the paper, and a rebuttal by the blog&amp;#x27;s author.</text></comment>