Close Menu
    Wissenschaft

    Laut einer Studie existiert keine Dunkle Materie und das Universum ist 27 Milliarden Jahre alt


    Laut einer Studie existiert keine Dunkle Materie und das Universum ist 27 Milliarden Jahre alt

    https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-the-universe-is-27-billion-years-old-rajendra-gupta-theory/

    View 24 Comments

    24 Kommentare

    3. Boop0p on

      Something tells me this study won’t have pushed the needle on the scientific consensus.

    4. eNonsense on

      Yeahhhhh…. This is really a big stretch here. The effects of dark matter have been observed in many ways. This guy’s explanation is that the speed of light is actually not constant, and is also explaining away the Doppler effect explanation for red-shift. That’s like, foundational stuff.

    6. Generic_Commenter-X on

      Interesting, but as the article states:

      „Any model has to meet observations head-on: galaxy rotation profiles, lensing maps, the pattern of hot and cold spots in the [microwave background](https://www.earth.com/news/scientists-capture-baby-pictures-of-the-very-early-universe-cosmic-microwave-background/), and the way [galaxies cluster](https://www.earth.com/news/largest-cosmic-particle-cloud-ever-found-has-stunned-astronomers/) across hundreds of millions of light-years.“

      From what I could gather, the CCC-TL Theory hasn’t yet contended with any of these other observations? That’s hardly a theory.

    7. braunyakka on

      I mean, dark matter and dark energy don’t exist. They are placeholders because physicists can’t make the math work at the moment. Essentially, galaxies don’t behave in a way that is consistent with our understanding of gravity, so we coined the term dark matter to fill in the blank. At some point someone will make the math work and dark matter won’t be necessary anymore.

    8. Askymojo on

      This is just a hypothesis without any evidence at all so far. It’s an interesting idea, but at this point it’s just a „fudge factor“ that fits existing data only because existing data was there first and this fudge factor was designed to fit it.

      But hopefully there will eventually be some way to test this hypothesis in future experiments.

    9. Is12345aweakpassword on

      Published in 2024. Hmm

      The seeming absence of a follow up paper or concurrent peer paper would lead me to believe this is at this point, nothing more than someone’s pet theory

    10. decavolt on

      Misleading title, as usual. The study in the article did **not** say dark matter doesn’t exist.

      FTA (emphasis mine):

      >After years spent probing longstanding cosmology puzzles, physics professor [Rajendra Gupta](https://www.uottawa.ca/faculty-science/professors/rajendra-gupta) has **proposed a model that aims to explain the universe without dark matter or dark energy**.

      >“The study’s findings confirm that our [previous work](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/524/3/3385/7221343?login=false) (“JWST early universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology”) about the age of the universe being 26.7 billion years has allowed us to discover that **the universe does not require dark matter to exist,”** explains Gupta.

      TL;DR – a new model was proposed that suggests dark matter isn’t necessary.

    14. boondoggie42 on

      Seems entirely plausible. Dark matter has always seemed to me to be a fudge factor to make up for the fact that our theories don’t adequately explain how the universe functions.

    15. waffle299 on

      Until one of these models can handle the Bullet Cluster, then make a testable prediction that is different from dark matter, they’re just models.

      This article is far too optimistic, and does a disservice to casual readers by misrepresenting the likelihood this is a challenge.

    17. jaxonfairfield on

      I’m just an enthusiast and not an expert, but it seems to me that CCC+TL (i.e. Universal constants vary over distance and time, and also light gets „tired“ as it travels) is a more complex potential explanation than dark matter (i.e. There’s some force or particle that is hard to detect which interacts with gravity but not electro-magnetism). So with a nod to occam’s razor, it would need significantly more supporting evidence before it was a viable mainstream model.

    18. jpdoctor on

      The lede was buried:

      >Gupta’s approach blends two concepts: covarying coupling constants ([CCC](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ….9…70G/abstract)) and “tired light” ([TL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light)).

      >CCC asks whether the so-called constants of nature – like the strength of forces or the [speed of light](https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-may-consist-of-particles-that-travel-faster-than-light/) – might shift across time or space. If they do, even slightly, many calculations about how the universe evolves would change.

      So sure, if you change constants of nature, lots of assumptions about interpreting our observations will also change. I don’t think you’ll have a lot of luck going down that path, but have fun if you do.

    19. Krytan on

      Dark Matter is a term used to describe an unobserved cause of measurable effects we see.

      To prove Dark matter doesn’t exist, you would need, at a minimum, to come up with an explanation, backed by evidence, of every single impact we currently attribute to ‚dark matter‘.

      I don’t think you can just handwave and say „Not a problem, suppose the speed of light isn’t a constant and the theory of general relativity is all false. Case closed!“

    20. elijuicyjones on

      Saying the speed of light is variable is going to take more than just this “study” and a few spurious-sounding conclusions. I’m all for disproving incorrect understandings and clarifying things but this doesn’t feel like *it* to me. Happy to be proven wrong…

    21. C_Beeftank on

      Isn’t dark matter just a definition for unidentified matter that doesn’t first into our original sets? How could you possibly rule this out?

    24. Faust_8 on

      I’m totally on board with the idea that dark matter/energy *could* be a pocket of ignorance that might get negated by a new theory. But a new theory like this needs a lot of evidence and testing before it could be accepted

    Leave A Reply