this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
26 points (75.0% liked)

science

14545 readers
508 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iopq@lemmy.world 22 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

There are many claims like this, and it's hard to tell who's right. Even the Nobel prize committee said fuck it and awarded the physics prize to some programmers

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 3 hours ago

It's probably not these guys, since I'm pretty sure nobody believes the "tired light" hypothesis.

It's usually pretty easy to tell which new theories can be discarded because they don't explain all the observations that lead us to the dark matter theory in the first place (like e.g. the Bullet Cluster). Or it would be easy if media wasn't full of uncritical clickbait fluff pieces like this that rather make sensationalist claims than contextualizing how a new study fits into the existing science.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

it’s hard to tell who’s right

At a superficial level, sure. But that's in large part because of the nature of the problem. Dark Matter is the quintessential Unknown Unknown. It comes from the argument that we have a universe that is accelerating in its rate of expansion in a way that doesn't follow the understood shape of the universe.

Dark Matter / Energy solves the problem by positing a large invisible mass that's been compressed, like a spring, and is still being released following the Big Bang, propelling SpaceTime out in front of it.

But because all our measurements are occurring in a relatively small timeframe (relative to the history of the universe) and because we're working from a very limited perspective (not like we can pop over to the other side of the universe and confirm our findings), we have to make a lot of estimates and assumptions. Introducing/Dismissing some of these assumptions can "solve" certain problems very easily. But on closer inspection, they raise a bunch of new questions that can just as easily be debated.

Even the Nobel prize committee said fuck it

That's more because AI is "hot" right now and astrophysics isn't paying anyone's bills.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Big claims to grab clicks.

I'm not a fan of dark matter, I find myself liking MOND, but it's going to take a lot of positive results to even begin moving the needle, a problem the sciences have often exhibited, though mostly correctly.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I’m not a fan of dark matter

When you consider how many astrological phenomenon have been discovered in the last century, or even the last decade, its not hard to believe there's a large lump of matter we simply haven't identified yet.

I'm more prone to believe the mechanics of physics are solved and certain volumes of mass are occluded than that physics is wrong and all mass is accounted for.

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

"Enter Rajendra Gupta, a seasoned physics professor who isn’t afraid to question the status quo. With years of research under his belt, Gupta is shaking up our understanding of the universe."

One of these days a room temperature super conductor, or a unified theory of everything, will be discovered, but probably not from an older researcher who is too comfortable not taking questioning seriously.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting idea. I am eager to see whether this can be further confirmed or not.

[–] EherVielleicht@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You weren’t there, man!