[HN Gopher] New research suggests that our universe has no dark ...
___________________________________________________________________
New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter
Author : squircle
Score : 46 points
Date : 2024-10-06 20:24 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| notfed wrote:
| """
|
| dang 3 hours ago | next [-]
|
| Related:
|
| - 'Research suggests that we _do_ have dark matter '
|
| - 'Do we have dark matter? Probably not, according to
| researchers'
|
| - 'No, we don't have dark matter, researchers say'
|
| - 'Researchers explain why we haven't found dark matter, but it
| probably exists'
|
| - 'Yes, dark matter exists, and here's why, according to
| researchers'
|
| - ...
|
| """
|
| /s
| gmane wrote:
| Sorry, the conclusion in the paper really underlies how poorly
| the results fit the evidence: "The resulting almost doubling in
| the age of the Universe and increasing the formation times by 1
| order of magnitude has been a subject of concern and requires
| that the new model also explain some critical cosmological and
| astrophysical observations" [0]
|
| Call me skeptical of the claims made.
|
| [0]
| https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6#...
| notfed wrote:
| Any article/paper claiming nonexistence of dark matter that
| does _not_ mention the bullet cluster should be sent to the
| spam folder.
| robwwilliams wrote:
| I assume you are referring to gravitational lensing estimates
| of total matter versus visible?
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| The bullet cluster is not the slam dunk proof of dark matter
| that is commonly supposed. For example, see this:
| https://tritonstation.com/2024/02/06/clusters-of-galaxies-
| ru...
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _So the unseen mass in clusters could just be ordinary
| matter that does not happen to be in a form we can readily
| detect._
|
| That is the same thing as dark matter...
| 14 wrote:
| I think there are too many unknowns and we are nowhere near
| close to fully understanding our universe that we should be
| open minded to new ideas and see if they fit into our
| understanding. Dark matter is one explanation to the bullet
| cluster but perhaps there is another we just don't
| understand. Yes if someone has a perpetual motion machine to
| the spam folder but I am always open to hear new ideas to our
| universe.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| It's a double edged sword. On the one hand the model helps to
| explain the "impossible early galaxy" problem (since the
| universe is older than we thought).
|
| On the other hand, if the universe is older there are other
| things that will need more research to figure out.
|
| You should be sceptical, but there is not as yet a reason to
| entirely reject it. I'm not really a fan of the tired light
| theories myself, but glad to see different ideas being
| explored.
| foobarkey wrote:
| Probably not and its just our too primitive understanding and
| "trying to make the calculations work"
| jetrink wrote:
| I think we need a version of the New Battery Technology
| Checklist[1] for this type of article. (Though I understand that
| the research itself often just aims solve specific tensions in
| cosmology, and it is only the reporting that over-hypes it as a
| full replacement for dark matter.)
|
| Dear alternative dark matter theory claimant,
|
| Thank you for your submission of a proposed revolutionary theory
| to replace dark matter. Your new theory claims to be superior to
| dark matter models and will transform our understanding of the
| universe. Unfortunately, your theory will likely fail, because:
|
| [ ] It cannot explain galaxy rotation curves across all galaxy
| types.
|
| [ ] It fails to account for gravitational lensing observed in
| galaxy clusters.
|
| [ ] It cannot explain the Bullet Cluster observations where dark
| matter appears separated from normal matter.
|
| [ ] It is inconsistent with the cosmic microwave background
| anisotropies.
|
| [ ] It cannot explain the large-scale structure and formation of
| the universe.
|
| [ ] It introduces arbitrary parameters without physical
| justification.
|
| [ ] It lacks a sound theoretical foundation or violates
| established physics principles.
|
| [ ] It fails to explain the observed velocity dispersions in
| dwarf spheroidal galaxies.
|
| [ ] It cannot account for empirical relations like the Tully-
| Fisher relation.
|
| [ ] It cannot be tested or falsified by current or near-future
| experiments.
|
| [ ] Your claims are unfounded or exaggerated.
|
| 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26633670
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Ironically, many of those are also levelled at dark matter
| theories.
|
| Tully-Fisher - dark matter fails to explain the Tully-Fisher
| relation naturally, and requires a lot of tweaking and feedback
| effects (arbitrary parameters).
|
| Rotation curves - recent empirical observations shows galactic
| rotation curves remain flat far beyond what dark matter can
| explain [1]
|
| Falsified - we've been trying to find dark matter for a long
| time and failed. The window of possible candidates for dark
| matter is now surprisingly small.
|
| I am not claiming that dark matter is wrong. I am claiming that
| the success of it is by no means proven , and it has many
| problems of its own (including those you list as problems for
| alternative theories).
|
| [1] https://tritonstation.com/2024/06/18/rotation-curves-
| still-f...
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _[ ] It introduces arbitrary parameters without physical
| justification._
|
| Every fundamental theory does this.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > The new model is a hybrid model that combines the tired light
| (TL) theory with a variant of the LCDM model in which the
| cosmological constant is replaced with a covarying coupling
| constants' (CCC) parameter a.
|
| Are the dark-matter-phobes going to pretend this is "simpler"
| than dark matter w.r.t Occam's razor? I bet they are. Can't wait.
| pdonis wrote:
| "Tired light" has been debunked for decades. Unfortunately,
| phys.org articles are notorious for not pointing out things like
| this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-06 23:00 UTC)