this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
48 points (98.0% liked)

Space

1819 readers
103 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  2. Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.


Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Beginning snippet:

Led by Rajendra Gupta, adjunct professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Ottawa, the study asserts that if the basic strengths of nature's forces (like gravity) slowly change over time and in space, they can explain the strange phenomena we observe, such as the way galaxies evolve and spin and how the universe expands.

The study, titled "Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Galaxy Rotation Curves," is published in the journal Galaxies.

Challenging established concepts

"The universe's forces actually get weaker on the average as it expands," Professor Gupta explains. "This weakening makes it look like there's a mysterious push making the universe expand faster (which is identified as dark energy). However, at galactic and galaxy-cluster scale, the variation of these forces over their gravitationally bound space results in extra gravity (which is considered due to dark matter). But those things might just be illusions, emergent from the evolving constants defining the strength of the forces."

He adds, "There are two very different phenomena needed to be explained by dark matter and dark energy: The first is at cosmological scale, that is, at a scale larger than 600 million light years assuming the universe is homogeneous and the same in all directions. The second is at astrophysical scale, that is, at smaller scale the universe is very lumpy and direction dependent. In the standard model, the two scenarios require different equations to explain observations using dark matter and dark energy. Ours is the only one that explains them with the same equation, and without needing dark matter or dark energy.

"What's really exciting is that this new approach lets us explain what we see in the sky: galaxy rotation, galaxy clustering, and even the way light bends around massive objects, without having to imagine there's something hiding out there. It's all just the result of the constants of nature varying as the universe ages and becomes lumpy."

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hypna@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not really qualified to evaluate the merits here, but as a science-interested layman, I'd be glad to see an alternative to dark matter and energy. Setting aside the technical arguments, the dark matter and energy approach smells like questioning the observations when your theory doesn't match observations.

I skimmed the paper for testable predictions, and nothing stood out to me. Fitting existing observations is a good place to start, but if the only prediction is that nobody will find dark matter or energy, things may remain undecided forever.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I’m in roughly the same boat. Dark matter feels like a rather convenient mathematical addition. Excited to see how other physicists respond!

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding is that “dark matter” is a placeholder for “things are behaving in ways that would be explained by additional mass, but we can’t see any additional mass” and “dark energy” is “the universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating, and we don’t know why, so we’ll call it ‘dark energy’ because energy makes things happen”.

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

This video is a great explanation from someone that was actually involved in dark matter research.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Does this hypothesis comes with some predictions that could be tested?

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd need an explanation for gravitational lensing before I could begin to consider dumping dark matter. This might, so it's at least interesting.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Gravitational lensing is pretty simple, no? Mass bends the path of light. When light is passing near a massive thing (star, galaxy), it changes direction. Then when we see that light, what we’re seeing is not only in a different place in the sky (probably behind the massive thing), but it may be distorted or enlarged because of the many slightly different paths the different photons have taken.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 hours ago

I think the point was we need an explanation for why we see the amount of gravitational lensing were do around distant galaxies if we remove the mass that is explained by dark matter

[–] Davel23@fedia.io 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like the "tired light" hypothesis in different words.

[–] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] SARGE@startrek.website 3 points 2 hours ago

If I recall correctly, it's the hypothesis that photons lose energy as they move through the universe, and that's why more distant objects shift red.