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.
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.
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.
Yeah, love that! Imagine what might be undetected yet just because we don’t know to look for it!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> At the stage of cosmic history when standard cosmology says the Universe was about 300 million years old, a new model puts its age at roughly 4.6 billion years. That gap is the heart of a University of Ottawa proposal that the Universe is 26.7 billion years old, nearly double the accepted 13.8 billion.wth? 300 million, 4.6 billion, 26.7 billion or 13.8 billion? Pick one.
…ah, the other article does a slightly better job here…
In the standard cosmological model, the Universe was approximately 300 million years old during the period known as cosmic dawn, when the first generations of stars and galaxies were emerging. At the same observed redshift, however, CCC+TL would place the Universe’s age at roughly 4.6 billion years.
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).
