>>13756208Lambda-CDM is not “incorrect” in any sense that it is contradicted by any convincing evidence. it has enough parameters to fit pretty much all the data.
however it is very well recognized as an ad-hoc model, or at best a low-energy limit of some theory we’re not quite sure of (for example, solutions to string theory that end up roughly matching lambda-CDM have been cooked up but are sort of questionable at present)
anyhow my point is that lambda-CDM should not be misconstrued as some sort of conclusive final theory, though popsci idiots sometimes misunderstand it as such. an obvious way to see this, for example, is that it says nothing about the very early universe close to or at the big bang, and most of its success relies on some ad-how incorporation of some inflationary mechanism that conveniently washes out basically all one might hope to see astronomically of quantum gravity effects in the very early universe
