This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances
Losing energy.. to what?
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Astronomy
3993 readers
3 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
load more comments
(18 replies)
“Contrary to standard cosmological theories where the accelerated expansion of the universe is attributed to dark energy, our findings indicate that this expansion is due to the weakening forces of nature, not dark energy,” he continued.
So both dark matter and dark energy don't exist?
"Tired light" has been theorized before, and it just doesn't hold up to most of the evidence gathered.
It's entirely possible that there's something there, but most data currently backs up the Lambda-CDM model of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Only time will tell if this theory pans out, but I wouldn't put much money on it.
I read several articles to try to understand this. This one was the most helpful to me.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-13-8-or-26-7-billion-years/
I'm sure the article is great... IF I COULD READ IT
Sorry I have so many paywalls and ad blockers going I had no idea it even had one.
Same for me but only on Desktop :/
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly, This makes a lot of sense. Intuitively it seemed strange to me for us to just happen to be in a universe that's barely older than the first set of stars out there, when there's so much matter in the universe that would have needed to have formed over billions of years in the heart of stars, which would then reach the end of their life cycle and nova -- that all this happens to line up awfully closely, especially with all the debris from those dead stars would need to scatter over light years of distance.
The whole "dark matter" thing has never sat right with me. It always seemed like a desperate attempt to explain what we see. I'm not saying I know enough to have an informed opinion, but it has always seemed wrong. It is matter we can't detect in any way except for gravity? Nah. The forces of nature changing due to expansion? Fits better somehow. Anyway, what do I know? I entertained the idea that it was time that was changing due to the expansion, but I couldn't get it to fit. This seems more plausible.
That's exactly what Dark Matter is. Scientists saw that galaxies were spinning faster than expected, did some math, and figured out that based on current, known physics, they wouldn't be able to stay together.
So they said "huh, must be additional matter that we can't account for, let's call it Dark Matter for the time being, cause we can't see it." It might be one big type of thing, it might be a thousand smaller types of things that all add up to this collective Dark Matter, but whatever it is, it doesn't behave the same way we expect normal, everyday matter behaves.
Other scientists said that we must not understand something about physics and gravity at larger scales.
Other scientists said that light must not act the way we expect, and it's throwing off our measurements.
Based on follow up research, there is more evidence for unaccounted for matter, than the other options.
It's entirely possible that none of those options are correct, but most of the data we have right now points to Dark Matter is the best fit for the evidence we have.
load more comments
(2 replies)
When we discover someone we don't understand we often make a simplistic metaphor to fit the data until we have better understanding. Like the Bohr model of the atom, or Newton's theory of gravity. Dark matter plugs the hole right now and does it with a minimum of contrivance (Occam and whatnot)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I too don't really know enough to have an informed opinion, but I don't think "plausible" has much meaning in physics. It's more a question of whether the mathematics supports the theory and/or if it can be proved somehow.
There are plenty of things that the mathematics predicted that seemed completely implausible, but were later verified to be true. "Quantum Entanglement" jumps to mind as something Einstein dismissed as "spooky action at a distance", but it has since been confirmed.
I think you could consider all of physics or even all of science to be made up of placeholders meant to keep things moving until a better explanation comes along.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I didn't see anything in the paper about the rotational speed of galaxies. Was that accounted for?
load more comments
(2 replies)