This model has been in testing for 3 years and it passed all tests so far.
It already past sevral test and it solves a lot of problems that require dark energy or matter. And problems introduced by the James Webb telescope. It also confirmed cosmic chronometer findings on the expansion history.
It does not disprove models, it just shows that dark matter and energy are not needed and explains why we can’t find them.
How does this explain why some galaxies have more gravitational influence than can be seen while other galaxies exactly what we expect from observing the visible matter.
The general consensus I can find on what defines a galaxy is "Most astronomers agree on these basics: galaxies are massive, gravitationally bound systems of stars, gas and dust, with an important but poorly understood complement of dark matter. " and it’s not agreed because even with the measurements we have some that lack dark matter. So it is a good and open question even current theory lacks
This kind of fringe research keeps showing up. It’s very popular among non-scientists and apparently easily dismissed by those who know what they’re talking about. I’m by no means an expert, I’m just here to drop a link to a relevant video: https://youtu.be/PbmJkMhmrVI
There was also research lately, that the universe could be indeed twice as old.
Every week for the past 10 years a Youtube video has come out claiming we’ve found a galaxy that breaks all of our models and that it can’t possibly be that old. Then it goes into a circljerk about MOND vs whatever framework is juiciest that day.
Maybe it’s the math that fucking sucks. Maybe we keep LARPing that we understand the universe because it makes us feel better about our insignificance.
Ok but if we aren’t going to be dismissive know it alls the JWT has posed a lot of new questions about the universe including pointing out that we very likely have quite a lot of things wrong in our established science regarding the universe
No, if i remember right, it was about misinterpreting the distance/light of the stars we use to determine the age.
I assume it’s all the same “tired light” stuff. It feels like a few researchers keep trying to drum up hype for the idea in the mainstream media because they can’t convince the actual experts. The media loves fringe ideas which claim to upend the status quo, but there’s a massive difference between sensationalism and truth.
At a glance, when I was studying these topics a decade ago, the model would have been discarded right away.
CCC+TL works assuming some constants slowly change over time. The issue is, based on QFT (the most successful theory in terms of predictive power accuracy, more than GR), a slow changing fundamental constant is automatically linked to a low mass particle, the type that are very easy to produce in a particle accelerator.
With this model, they therefore have the burden to explain why we don’t detect particles related to these changing constants.
It’s super interesting, I’ll try to read more about it!
TBF they discard fuckton of data from colliders.
I remember one of the recent-ish spacetime episodes mentioning that they probably “detected” the thing they would need to advance some new theories, but their algorithms for deciding what’s garbage data and what’s useful discarded the data ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Edit: hence their new goal at CERN with upcoming upgrades, to increase the amount of collision information captured and retained, instead of just increasing collision energies, which new technologies allow… If only it wasn’t for idiotic ai datacentres hoarding said hardware technology and making it costly for scientists.
So a really solid genuine reason to hate ai.Isn’t CERN now using mistral to help them sort the data out of the noise which is helping discover new particles? The partnership was just announced one month ago so it probably hasn’t resulted in anything yet.
I don’t like generative AI, but this is something it’s really good for. The whole basis of the systems is statistical predictions. It’s really good at taking in a bunch of data and piecing together things that fit. This is also something humans are not good at.
AI is a tool. It’s usually used to just replace jobs, and it’s shit. Using it for things like this is actually very good though.
Yep, I don’t have anything against the machine learning that scientists in places like these do, but let’s be honest it ain’t ai and their models are probably a lot more focused and built by people who, hopefully, know what their actually doing and know how they can verify what’s coming out of them.
Yeah, ML is the better term, but AI is the term everyone knows, as annoying as that is.
This looks like a partnership between CERN’s IT Department and Mistral. The physics work happens elsewhere 🙂
Having more data is always good for statistics. Processing with dedicated algorithms is then hamstrung by the cost of memory, disks, and GPUs 😑
Yeah, love that! Imagine what might be undetected yet just because we don’t know to look for it!
deleted by creator
I thought dark matter was pretty much confirmed because of the universe’s expansion acceleration though ?
There has been some good evidence lately that the universe is not expanding and that originally this theory was built on some faulty information.
This could mean no dark matter and perhaps no big bang.
That and gravitational lensing.
Dark energy “explains” why the universe expands more than we expect, and dark matter “explains” why some parts of the universe stick together more than we expect. Eventually we’ll get a better understanding of how gravity/space/time works and won’t need these bolt-ons anymore
No, it’s still basically a placeholder. Dark matter is basically mass we can’t detect in any way, but the invisible extra mass is required to make our models match up with reality
I think that expansion is more related to dark energy, which is a different placeholder
But we really don’t understand the mechanisms for expansion in the first place… If the universe is twice as old that will certainly change the model. There’s also a growing theory that the universe exists within a black hole, and the spin of that black hole might explain several different strange properties of the universe
But I could swear I saw a report where a guy detected dark matter a long time ago.
There were probably a bunch of caveats attached to it I didn’t pick up on.
If they can detect it, then it’s not dark matter.
Well I think it was indirect, like gravitational lensing.
Sure, probably true. We’ve detected a lot of dark matter actually! Based on a bunch of things, we expect the universe to have more matter than we actually observe. Dark matter just refers to any mass that falls into that category of “previously unobserved”. So as we discover that there are more black holes than we thought, as our telescopes become capable of detecting extremely dim brown dwarves, and as we discover new subatomic particles, we chip away at dark matter, finally shining a light over previously hidden areas of our universe.
But there’s still more unaccounted for.
Very cool! I’m no expert in cosmology but I was familiar with some if the evidence for dark matter, namely rotation curves, and its really cool to hear about plausible alternate theories.
I’ve always felt that dark matter was an ugly hack to hand-wave away problems with the old theory.
In reality I’d call it an elegant deduction - so many different phenomena point to there being more matter than we can see, so the straightforward conclusion is that there must be matter which interacts very weakly or not at all with electromagnetic forces.
The theory works out well, the solution is not hand waving and also rather elegant.
The matter exists, I swear! She just goes to another school of thought. We communicate spookily over long distances.
When I close my eyes, I can no longer see the horse. Ergo the horse has stopped existing.
Your not wrong exactly. The theories hold up perfectly, they work consistently at many different scales. But at the largest scales, when looking at galaxies, or the universe as a whole, the theories don’t hold up. Or, they would hold up, if the galaxies had more mass in them than we can see… So the simplest explanation is that we’re not actually seeing all the mass that’s there.
That has turned out to be right so far. By that I mean, we have found a whole bunch more matter that was previously unaccounted for. We just haven’t found enough of it yet to fill in all the gaps.
But yeah, we stick with the dark matter idea because it has sort of panned out so far - we have found more stuff.
deleted by creator
I think they’re two relative ages.
So the point in time we thought was 300 million years ago was actually 4.6 billion, which makes the universe’s total age not 13.8 billion like thought but rather 26.7 billion (due to other increased windows probably).
