So... Is there a version "for dummies"?
... asking for a friend.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
79 points (100.0% liked)
Science
9 readers
8 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.
founded 2 years ago
Everywhere we look at distant galaxies, they look like they're moving away from us. We think this because the wavelength of the light they've emitted looks stretched (ie redshifted), similar to how the pitch of sound changes when an ambulance is approaching and passing you.
The fact that this is happening in all directions leads us to believe that space itself is stretching in all directions, because we don't believe that we're in a special part of the universe, like in the center of some event that sent all galaxies flying away from us.
If I understand this article correctly, it proposes that the redshifting could have another explanation. Looking at a distant galaxy is like "looking back in time" because the light takes time to cross the vast emptiness of space to reach us. So what if the redshifting is because the particles back when the light was emitted had different properties than they have now? The model described in the paper explains exactly how those properties could be changing in order to produce the effects that we observe.
That's a very wild theory.
To be fair, "95% of the mass/energy in the universe is undetectable to us except for how they impact the movement of entities at a galactic scale" is kinda wild too.
I'm not a physicist, but this does look like an interesting idea. And yes, I suspect a little contraversial :)
In Lombriser's mathematical interpretation, the universe isn't expanding but is flat and static, as Einstein once believed. The effects we observe that point to expansion are instead explained by the evolution of the masses of particles — such as protons and electrons — over time.
I find it really interesting too. I struggled to understand it though. Is he saying that stuff that is further away is made of elements with a higher (or lower) atomic number?
I don't think so.
I think they are suggesting that the mass of protons etc is not stable over time.
Shrödinger universe quashe wrapped Planck * verse?
It's also worth noting:
In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time. The cosmological constant is set by the field's mass and because this field fluctuates, the masses of the particles it gives birth to also fluctuate. The cosmological constant still varies with time, but in this model that variation is due to changing particle mass over time, not the expansion of the universe.
I so dearly hope this is accurate. I've been against "dark energy", "dark matter", and "perpetually accelerating expansion" for years now. This has the potential to be a Michaelson-Morley moment, where the Ether was disproven by creating a universe that doesn't require it.
However, García urged caution in assessing the paper's findings, saying it contains elements in its theoretical model that likely can't be tested observationally, at least in the near future.
That makes the whole thing rather pointless, doesn't it?
I don’t think so. It’s an interesting hypothesis that has been slung on the table to account for weird discrepancies between current models and observed reality. It suggests a paradigm shift. Suggesting ‘we’re thinking about this is in entirely the wrong way’ is an important part of the scientific process.
Yeah, but the hallmark of a useful scientific theory is that it makes testable predictions.
Some of Einstein's predictions weren't really testable when they were posited. "Not currently testable" doesn't mean they can't be improved upon to be testable, or provoke a shift in thinking that leads to other research pathways opening up. The whole field has been somewhat stagnant and searching for something that can compete with the Standard Model, so ideas like this that could prompt a breakthrough get visibility and traction for that reason alone.
So you would argue that the Higgs Boson was a useful theoretical construct ahead of the building of CERN or that black holes weren't useful in theory until detected?
No. Even if the predictions couldn't be tested at the time there was a clear path to doing it. That's different. This is (in my very limited understanding) more like string theory.
at least in the near future.
They use gravitational waves and parallax as other sources of confirmation for expansion and I don't see those mentioned or accounted for but I'm just a guy who reads science books for layman, what do I know...
I also don't see, how this new model explains, that every galaxy but one moves away from us.
I think that they are saying that they aren't moving away from us, the redshift is caused by this mass change effect not movement or acceleration.
so if I understood this article properly, this is proposing a model where the universe is not expanding but just exists infinitely. also this seems to neatly fit everything together eliminating dark matter and energy
if so, that's crazy! it would be really cool to see some research on this in the future and hopefully see some new developments because of it
If it used Meteor Attack or Static E, then it is indeed a mirage