You try being a bright ray of sunshine for everything around you all day every day. Sometimes you just get tired, ya know?

Wildass hypothesis I just pulled out of my ass with an undergraduate degree in applied physics: maybe interaction with particles emerging from quantum vacuum?

Okay, that sounds like great technobabble. I’m going to watch star trek now ;)

To the dark matter, of course.

;)

This doesn’t answer the question in the context of this theory, but the current understanding is that light does lose energy as it travels through expanding space. As the space it’s in expands, the wavelength gets longer, and the energy goes down. It doesn’t go anywhere; energy just isn’t conserved in an expanding space-time.

It’s probably not that the light is losing energy it’s just that the distance it travels over time (the time we “know” is supposed to take for a given distance) appears compressed because of unknown/unseen gravitational forces.

Think of it like this: If there were only one star in the universe and it emits a particle of light we could calculate the distance it would travel over time. Yet we know that star will still have a gravitational effect on that light… No matter how far away it gets.

That’s what they mean by light “losing energy”. Is the energy actually “lost”? Not really. Is this slowing (aka appearance of lost energy) caused by dark energy/dark matter or something more fundamental like spacetime itself being stretched or compressed due to the gravity of astronomical objects we can see or “dark matter”/“dark energy” or… ? We don’t really know for certain yet!

Entropy, capital “E”.

Or the effect we see on gravitational lensing that is accounted for by “dark matter”? I don’t see how that could be explained by “light losing energy”…

Modified Newtonian dynamics attempts to account for that.

Not an astronomer but if I read the article correctly the observations gathered about galaxies rotating and colliding would be explained instead by regional changes in what were previously assumed universal constants, which would be very interesting if true but 1 paper isn’t consensus yet

I think it goes beyond not being able to “see” it and goes to we can’t detect it at all. Doesn’t dark matter just fill in the mathemagical holes with some numbers to make it all work?

I’m sure the article is great… IF I COULD READ IT

How long until the young earth dipshits jump on this as “evidence” to claim that if there’s room to question whether the universe is 13.8 billion or 26.7 billion years old, that means it must actually be 6000?

As I suspected, I did not understand the summary.

I’m skeptical of this theory as well, but I’d point out that our observations show that at galaxy scales, gravity is much stronger in certain places than we’d predict using our current model of gravity and the matter we can otherwise detect, and at even larger scales the acceleration of the universe’s expansion is being driven by something we don’t understand.

Right now, the dominant theory in cosmology is that each of these observed phenomena are driven by dark matter and dark energy, but we don’t have any direct evidence of the existence of either, just indirect evidence that stuff doesn’t behave as we might expect.

So it’s a choice between theories that don’t make intuitive sense, and break some fundamental assumptions about physics.

So what did cern say they where trying to make?

The tired light theory is an alternative explanation to the red shift of distant light that says it’s not because distant objects are all moving away from us but instead that the light somehow loses energy as it travels, which lowers its frequency.

There was another alternate theory that suggested everything was shrinking instead of the universe expanding (thus wavelengths seem longer by the time they get to us).

Personally, I’m more “open to the idea” than “sold” for the idea of the universe’s accelerated expansion. I like theories that eliminate the need for dark matter or energy, especially given that the current ones requiring them assume that they make up 95% of everything. It just seems more likely that we don’t understand things as well as we do than to assume we’re right about everything we think but just need to add 19 times what’s already here to balance it all out.

That’s exactly what Dark Matter is. Scientists saw that galaxies were spinning faster than expected, did some math, and figured out that based on current, known physics, they wouldn’t be able to stay together.

So they said “huh, must be additional matter that we can’t account for, let’s call it Dark Matter for the time being, cause we can’t see it.” It might be one big type of thing, it might be a thousand smaller types of things that all add up to this collective Dark Matter, but whatever it is, it doesn’t behave the same way we expect normal, everyday matter behaves.

Other scientists said that we must not understand something about physics and gravity at larger scales.
Other scientists said that light must not act the way we expect, and it’s throwing off our measurements.
Based on follow up research, there is more evidence for unaccounted for matter, than the other options.

It’s entirely possible that none of those options are correct, but most of the data we have right now points to Dark Matter is the best fit for the evidence we have.

When we discover someone we don’t understand we often make a simplistic metaphor to fit the data until we have better understanding. Like the Bohr model of the atom, or Newton’s theory of gravity. Dark matter plugs the hole right now and does it with a minimum of contrivance (Occam and whatnot)

I too don’t really know enough to have an informed opinion, but I don’t think “plausible” has much meaning in physics. It’s more a question of whether the mathematics supports the theory and/or if it can be proved somehow.

There are plenty of things that the mathematics predicted that seemed completely implausible, but were later verified to be true. “Quantum Entanglement” jumps to mind as something Einstein dismissed as “spooky action at a distance”, but it has since been confirmed.

I think you could consider all of physics or even all of science to be made up of placeholders meant to keep things moving until a better explanation comes along.

The way I see it, Dark Matter is just a psuedonym for “Whatever is causing gravity to work differently at a galaxy scale than at a solar system scale”. And further, Dark Energy is just a term for “Whatever is causing gravity to work differently at an inter-galactic scale than at a intra-galactic scale or solar system scale”.

But, if we want to entertain the technical aspects of the thought, there’s nothing in the definition of Matter that says it interacts with anything besides gravity (light, magnetism, etc) on its own. Just that it has mass (ie generates gravity) and cant occupy the same space as other mass. We already know via colliders that the higs bosson is the sub-particle solely responsible for Mass, way smaller than the scale of an atom. And we also know that magnetism, electric charge, and by extension light rely on electrons, which exist only at the atomic scale. So its not implausible to think that mass can exist separate from any of the things that we can detect with our other favorite methods (pretty much just different wavelengths of light) besides just the gravity they generate. In this case, gravity IS the thing we’re using to detect it.

I am 100% with you on this.