The Covarying Coupling Constants theory posits that the fundamental constants of nature,[…], are not fixed but vary across the cosmos.
This undermines current fundamental axiom of science that laws of physics are constant across universe. Until we go there and measure them to be actually different. This hypothesis doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I’m skeptical of this theory as well, but I’d point out that our observations show that at galaxy scales, gravity is much stronger in certain places than we’d predict using our current model of gravity and the matter we can otherwise detect, and at even larger scales the acceleration of the universe’s expansion is being driven by something we don’t understand.
Right now, the dominant theory in cosmology is that each of these observed phenomena are driven by dark matter and dark energy, but we don’t have any direct evidence of the existence of either, just indirect evidence that stuff doesn’t behave as we might expect.
So it’s a choice between theories that don’t make intuitive sense, and break some fundamental assumptions about physics.
Or the effect we see on gravitational lensing that is accounted for by “dark matter”? I don’t see how that could be explained by “light losing energy”…
Not an astronomer but if I read the article correctly the observations gathered about galaxies rotating and colliding would be explained instead by regional changes in what were previously assumed universal constants, which would be very interesting if true but 1 paper isn’t consensus yet
How long until the young earth dipshits jump on this as “evidence” to claim that if there’s room to question whether the universe is 13.8 billion or 26.7 billion years old, that means it must actually be 6000?
“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.
IANAP, but isn’t universal expansion understood to be accelerating? How would “weakening forces of nature” account for that? Assuming this energy could be “lost” (breaking an even longer standing and well tested principle of physics), that loss wouldn’t accelerate anything. At best the speed would remain neutral.
The tired light theory is an alternative explanation to the red shift of distant light that says it’s not because distant objects are all moving away from us but instead that the light somehow loses energy as it travels, which lowers its frequency.
There was another alternate theory that suggested everything was shrinking instead of the universe expanding (thus wavelengths seem longer by the time they get to us).
Personally, I’m more “open to the idea” than “sold” for the idea of the universe’s accelerated expansion. I like theories that eliminate the need for dark matter or energy, especially given that the current ones requiring them assume that they make up 95% of everything. It just seems more likely that we don’t understand things as well as we do than to assume we’re right about everything we think but just need to add 19 times what’s already here to balance it all out.
“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. 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.
This thing is just a mosaic of ordinary CCDs. I’m sure the name has something to do with it’s specific scientific goals, but that’s not explained at all in this article. They didn’t even attempt to make any kind of connection between the veil and dark energy. Or even between supernovae and dark energy.
I’m so glad society has teams allocated to identifying these hard-hitting issues. It’s true - we don’t have enough consumer protections in place for space tourists. A poor innocent space tourist could “go to space” without fully understanding that “space can be dangerous”. Thankfully, these analysts discovered this issue before too many people were “at risk”. Future space tourists will have to sign a waver, or watch a presentation, or something.
The interesting question here is who paid for this “study”, and who from the register accepted the bribes to get this dogshit published.
astronomy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.