The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, a potentially controversial new study suggests.

This rethinking of the cosmos also suggests solutions for the puzzles of dark energy and dark matter, which scientists believe account for around 95% of the total energy and matter in the universe but remain shrouded in mystery.

The novel new approach is detailed in a paper published June 2 in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, by University of Geneva professor of theoretical physics Lucas Lombriser.

14 points

I’m not a physicist, but this does look like an interesting idea. And yes, I suspect a little contraversial :)

In Lombriser’s mathematical interpretation, the universe isn’t expanding but is flat and static, as Einstein once believed. The effects we observe that point to expansion are instead explained by the evolution of the masses of particles — such as protons and electrons — over time.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I find it really interesting too. I struggled to understand it though. Is he saying that stuff that is further away is made of elements with a higher (or lower) atomic number?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I don’t think so.

I think they are suggesting that the mass of protons etc is not stable over time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Shrödinger universe quashe wrapped Planck * verse?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s also worth noting:

In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time. The cosmological constant is set by the field’s mass and because this field fluctuates, the masses of the particles it gives birth to also fluctuate. The cosmological constant still varies with time, but in this model that variation is due to changing particle mass over time, not the expansion of the universe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

So… Is there a version “for dummies”?
… asking for a friend.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Everywhere we look at distant galaxies, they look like they’re moving away from us. We think this because the wavelength of the light they’ve emitted looks stretched (ie redshifted), similar to how the pitch of sound changes when an ambulance is approaching and passing you.

The fact that this is happening in all directions leads us to believe that space itself is stretching in all directions, because we don’t believe that we’re in a special part of the universe, like in the center of some event that sent all galaxies flying away from us.

If I understand this article correctly, it proposes that the redshifting could have another explanation. Looking at a distant galaxy is like “looking back in time” because the light takes time to cross the vast emptiness of space to reach us. So what if the redshifting is because the particles back when the light was emitted had different properties than they have now? The model described in the paper explains exactly how those properties could be changing in order to produce the effects that we observe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s a very wild theory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

To be fair, “95% of the mass/energy in the universe is undetectable to us except for how they impact the movement of entities at a galactic scale” is kinda wild too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I so dearly hope this is accurate. I’ve been against “dark energy”, “dark matter”, and “perpetually accelerating expansion” for years now. This has the potential to be a Michaelson-Morley moment, where the Ether was disproven by creating a universe that doesn’t require it.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

They use gravitational waves and parallax as other sources of confirmation for expansion and I don’t see those mentioned or accounted for but I’m just a guy who reads science books for layman, what do I know…

permalink
report
reply
2 points

I also don’t see, how this new model explains, that every galaxy but one moves away from us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think that they are saying that they aren’t moving away from us, the redshift is caused by this mass change effect not movement or acceleration.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

However, García urged caution in assessing the paper’s findings, saying it contains elements in its theoretical model that likely can’t be tested observationally, at least in the near future.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

That makes the whole thing rather pointless, doesn’t it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I don’t think so. It’s an interesting hypothesis that has been slung on the table to account for weird discrepancies between current models and observed reality. It suggests a paradigm shift. Suggesting ‘we’re thinking about this is in entirely the wrong way’ is an important part of the scientific process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, but the hallmark of a useful scientific theory is that it makes testable predictions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

at least in the near future.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science

!science@kbin.social

Create post

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

Community stats

  • 20

    Monthly active users

  • 751

    Posts

  • 1.5K

    Comments

Community moderators