> Researchers are hard at work trying to find ways to test the CCC+TL model.
It’s not a scientific theory unless it’s testable. I’m going to withhold judgement on this and take it for what it is: an interesting idea, and nothing more.
The paper under discussion: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6
I wonder if CCC would also explain the Fermi paradox: We're alone because physical laws are exactly right for life only here, even the smallest change reduces the probability of intelligent life significantly
This article confuses dark matter with dark energy. They're totally separate concepts.
Interesting. How do we explain the missing mass in the galaxies then (the observed rotation curve of galaxies needs a bigger mass than that of the stars that it is made of)?
To me "light loses energy" is as absurd as scientists making up "Dark matter". This really tells me they are like math researchers solving problems by assuming a "constant" and solving it.
Outside the field, but generally acquainted with scientific studies of things much closer and easier to study: I wonder how much guesswork really goes into astrophysics vs other areas?
Can this “tired light” theory attempted to be actively tested somehow, instead of analyzing/coming to conclusions upon {b,m}illions-year old data?
Let's talk about the article and then dark matter, I guess:
> We’ve always been taught that the fundamental constants of nature — like the speed of light or the charge of an electron — are unchanging. But what if they aren’t fixed after all?
I mean, sure, what if? Honestly, if you can vary things like gravity, I don't think you need any additional components to explain the dark matter observations.
> The CCC+TL model needs to provide testable predictions that can be confirmed or refuted through observations and experiments
This step is important!
Ok, so dark matter generally: this YouTuber [1](physicist/physics PhD) notes that there are many theories that explain the dark matter observations. But to her, "dark matter" is the data that we need to explain.
Essentially: we have a bunch of weird observations where it looks like there's way more matter than we see. But the actual explanation for what it is, there are tons of those. So throw one more in the pile (this one says "oh there's no extra matter, the universal constants are different over there and light maybe moves slower as it travels farther")
I'm convinced.
Would make things a lot simpler
Thank you for your submission of a proposed revolutionary theory to replace dark matter. Your new theory claims to be superior to dark matter models and will transform our understanding of the universe. Unfortunately, your theory will likely fail, because:
[ ] It cannot explain galaxy rotation curves across all galaxy types.
[ ] It fails to account for gravitational lensing observed in galaxy clusters.
[ ] It cannot explain the Bullet Cluster observations where dark matter appears separated from normal matter.
[ ] It is inconsistent with the cosmic microwave background anisotropies.
[ ] It cannot explain the large-scale structure and formation of the universe.
[ ] It introduces arbitrary parameters without physical justification.
[ ] It lacks a sound theoretical foundation or violates established physics principles.
[ ] It fails to explain the observed velocity dispersions in dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
[ ] It cannot account for empirical relations like the Tully-Fisher relation.
[ ] It cannot be tested or falsified by current or near-future experiments.
[ ] Your claims are unfounded or exaggerated.
——
I’m not a physicist, and cannot fill this in, but I thought I’d provide the template for the first physicist who turns up.
Could somebody else take a turn posting the related XKCD comic? I did it last time.
I am not sure why people become so emotionally invested in the defense of something which they have no evidence of. In the context of religion that investment is called faith, which makes sense in the context religion but not in science. Theology is the exploration of a belief system, but science is the exploration of knowledge.
It seems dark matter and dark energy exist to balance deficiencies observed in our current understanding of particle physics applied to a cosmological model, particularly for observations that span vast distances extremely far away. From a purely logical perspective we should anticipate great deficiencies the further away we look because our entire understanding of the universe is derived from observations of various EMF transmissions only and only from Earth, or near Earth in the case of JWST. That is an exceptionally limited perspective. We have much to learn and more evidence to gather before conflating one avenue of science into a practice more akin to a religion.
I've got another one for you.
"Spacetime" also does not exist. Time doesn't exist as a force of nature or tangible entity, it's nothing more than a subjective measurement. It exists like your height measurement exists, or the measurement of four meters of distance from you to the wall exists. The matter contained in the space of distance being measured exists, and the events between (subjective) time measurements existed, time itself does not exist. You can measure your height from the ceiling to your head (impractical but you can do it). You can measure time based on Mars going around the Sun. Neither entity exists (your height, nor time; both are subjective based on the anchor chosen). It would be silly to think height measurements are a tangible force of nature, we'll call it HeightSpace, now we must discover how it rules over the universe and seek to observe its magic principles.
The bogus nature of "spacetime" has held back multiple fields for many decades. It has wasted a generation of brains that fell for it.
Recent and related:
New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006 - Oct 2024 (36 comments)