Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#2Related paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/adbed1
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#3I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.
EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So they say it's testable. However, we see the effects of "dark matter" (or whatever it really is) today affecting the spin of galaxies, so I don't see how that's compatible with the explanation of these events being "rare".
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#4I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
welcome to modern physics, enjoy your stay.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#5I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
He wants to look for discontinuities in the Hubble relation. Quoting from the article:
> Looking to the future of his research, Lieu says the next step to validating his model of the cosmos could come through observations using earthbound instruments rather than something like the James Webb Space Telescope.
>"The best way to look for the proposed effect is actually to use a large ground-based telescope—like the Keck Observatory [Waimea, Hawaii], or the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes in La Palma, Spain—to perform deep field observations, the data of which would be 'sliced' according to redshift," the researcher notes.
>"Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing."
Not sure how feasible this is though.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#6I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I would argue that it is falsifiable. What I think you are looking for is verifiable and repeatable. It took almost 30 years to verify Einstien. He said about the collection of a hundred papers trying to prove he is wrong, "you only need one paper to prove it wrong."
It's a therotical paper. Leave it to the expermentaliats to design a test to prove it right. Diffraction gratings prove QED. Right. Feynman's biographer said that.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#7I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
Paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.08733
TL;DR - replace one big singularity with multiple singularities.
As in last sentence there is "The only difference between this work and the standard model is that the temporal singularity occurred only once in the latter, but more than once in the former."
tldr
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#8I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#9I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
This is basically the first and most common objection laypeople have. (In fact, this comes up in every single thread on HN about DM, not exaggerating.) Believe it or not, scientists have thought of that as well. They tried, and nothing fits the data as well as the standard model.
The trope is so common that there even is an xkcd for it:
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#10I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
It doesn't, and the problems have only become more problematic over time, but it's the least bad hypothesis that's broadly accepted. I suspect a generational succession is required for new paradigms to be contemplated.
There are many researchers proposing simpler, novel, and testable solutions that seem to go unnoticed. For example, I'm a fan of Alexandre Deur's work. He has some simple and elegant solutions that I've never seen discussed even though they appear "obvious". For example, from 21 years ago: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.05905
That paper is suggesting that one of the reasons why galaxies are spinning faster than some calculations expect is because they're failing to account for the gravitational lensing of gravity itself, which bends gravity down towards the disk.