Cited by 673Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology

Open access
Di Valentino, Eleonora, Melchiorri, Alessandro, Silk, Joseph·2019·Nature Astronomy

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Varying Ωk or Alens gives a similar best fit of the lensing reconstruction data.

    “This is why varying Ω k or A lens gives a similar best fit of the lensing reconstruction data (see Figure 5 of Ref. [86]).”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [86]

    The discussion of Fig. 5 (page not supplied) says the best-fit closed model and the model with elevated A_lens predict very similar lensing-potential spectra. But those are fits to the PL18 power spectra, not to the lensing reconstruction data; the paper says the closed model predicts too much lensing compared with that data. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fixing the Universe to be flat leads to an anomalous value for Alens > 1, while Alens can be in agreement with its expected value if a closed Universe is allowed.

    “fixing the Universe to be flat leads to this anomalous value for A lens > 1, while A lens can be in agreement with its expected value if we are open to the possibility of a closed Universe.”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [86]

  • BAO + SNeIa + BBN + SH0ES gives Ωk = -0.091 ± 0.037 at 68% CL, slightly preferring a closed Universe.

    “BAO + SNeIa + BBN + SH0ES gives Ω k = -0.091± 0.037 at 68% CL, i.e., slightly preferring a closed Universe.”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [86]

  • BAO + SNeIa + BBN gives H0 = 79.6 ± 6.8 km/s/Mpc at 68% CL, perfectly consistent with SH0ES, but at 3.4σ tension with Planck.

    “BAO + SNeIa + BBN gives H 0 = 79.6 ± 6.8 km/s/Mpc at 68% CL, perfectly consistent with SH0ES, but at 3.4σ tension with Planck”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [86]

  • When curvature is allowed to vary, there is a strong >3σ disagreement between the Planck constraints and the BAO measurements.

    “when we let the curvature vary there is a strong > 3σ disagreement between the Planck constraints and the BAO measurements (see Figure 4 of Ref. [86])”

    From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [86]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Aghanim, N. et al. (Planck Collaboration) Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 (2018). · arXiv
  2. 2018 Cosmological Parameters and MC Chains (Planck Legacy Archive Wiki); https://go.nature.com/2OHvQme
  3. Freivogel, B., Kleban, M., Rodríguez Martínez, M. & Susskind, L. Observational consequences of a landscape. J. High Energy Phys. 3, 039 (2006).
  4. Hinshaw, G. et al. Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: final maps and results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 25 (2013).
  5. Ade, P. A. R. et al. (Planck Collaboration) Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016).
  6. Aghanim, N. et al. (Planck Collaboration) Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06210 (2019). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., & Silk, J.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Melchiorri, Alessandro
Venue
Nature Astronomy
Published
2019-11-04
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
196-203
ISSN
2397-3366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2987576354
Cited by
673
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
48.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Astronomy (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
H2020 European Research Council (681431)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Keywords
cosmic microwave background, positive spatial curvature, closed universe, cosmological tensions, baryon acoustic oscillations, beyond the Standard Model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review