This guy has been promoted for the last couple of months. He came up with a thought experiment, and he even says the thought experiment does not rule out dark matter.
These articles are over hyping a non story.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
-7 points (43.1% liked)
Space
8723 readers
5 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Damn .... they got us again.
Science journalism is the reason I have to keep saying "no, quantum mechanics doesn't do THAT"
Hasn't the tired light theory been entirely discarded?
Pretty much.
So "tired light" could explain redshift, light that loses energy over time, but where would that energy be going? Heat loss somehow? Energy can't be destroyed according to our current understanding so I'm not sure I understand the mechanism of decay
isn't it the same with dark matter? There is no matter that cant interact with anything. We tried and tried in big and bigger Collider to find any trace of dark matter. I think scientist begin to find anything else that could explain the cosmos (even if it is flawed), because dark matter seems more and more unlikely, after all those year looking for it
I think in the dark matter/expansion model the idea is that light is stretched due to the universe itself expanding, but maybe I misunderstood the premise. Regardless of the veracity of the dark matter model, the original question of the mechanism of loss is still relevant I think.
We tried and tried in big and bigger Collider to find any trace of dark matter. I think scientist begin to find anything else that could explain the cosmos (even if it is flawed), because dark matter seems more and more unlikely, after all those year looking for it
We've spent years and years eliminating the low hanging fruit -- as one should do first -- but that doesn't resolve the dark matter problem at all. The more exotic types are really, really hard to detect in particle colliders the scale of which we can readily build.
It would be nice to say "we looked for it, but it doesn't seem to exist", but we can't say that. We're nowhere close to saying that. Detecting particles that are hypothesized to only interact via gravity is insanely difficult.
Our colliders are a joke when it comes to the energy levels they have. So there is no need to assume we can detect special stuff with them. Even the Higgs boson took ages to statistical detect, despite only being 125 GeV.