• iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    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

    • SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s probably not these guys, since I’m pretty sure nobody believes the “tired light” hypothesis.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

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