[garmaine]

Also that point seemed odd. Isn't unification of two previously separate phenomenon (dark matter and dark energy) simpler in Occam terms? It's using one thing to explain two, even if the actual mathematics are more complex to state. Also there's other troubling cosmological issues that this would appear to address, such as Hubble's constant having slight variation outside of measurement tolerance, which slightly differing fluid densities would explain (vs the current assumption of unknown sources of error).

Sabine's point, if it stands up, is that the author used a different equation of motion in their simulation than they write up in the paper. If true that's sloppy and bad, but it's not a point against the actual theory underlying the simulation, no?

[ajkjk]

Whether it is simpler depends on the details of the unification. Two comparatively simple theories are not made simpler with a very complex unification.

[garmaine]

The electroweak force is most certainly not easier to describe than electromagnetism and the weak force separately. But we still talk about electroweak interaction as being a simpler theory than two separate fundamental forces, because it reduces the number of things that are needed to describe the universe, even with added computational difficulty.

[vanderZwan]

One could also think of it in terms of the the amount of "magic" required to make the simplification work.

[jcranberry]

As far as I can tell Occam terms seem to differ depending on the convenience of whoever happens to be wielding Occam's razor.