37 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Damn … they got us again.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Science journalism is the reason I have to keep saying “no, quantum mechanics doesn’t do THAT”

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Hasn’t the tired light theory been entirely discarded?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Pretty much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
reply
-5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Space

!space@lemmy.world

Create post

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators’ instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

🔭 Science
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography

Other Cool Links

Community stats

  • 1.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 811

    Posts

  • 6.2K

    Comments