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 ;)
Comment on Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances
Losing energy… to what?
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Seems you may be on to something. Virtual particle interactions seems to be a hypothesis for tired light.
To test this I suggest we reprogram the deflector dish to emit a low-power tachyon pulse to see if we can excite the non-baryonic mass interactions.
CitizenKong@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Don’t forget to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!
felbane@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Shit, if only my turbo encabulator wasn’t broken!
RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You sound like you know what you’re talking about. I’m taking notes. 📝🧐
circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s those damn inertial dampeners again
Naz@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
To the dark matter, of course.
;)
xionzui@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
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.
HereIAm@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If the light loses energy, then it must surely lose it to something? And if your last point that energy isn’t being conserved in our universe, in which case we are either in some deep shit with the first law of thermodynamics, or our universe isn’t an isolated system.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Seems energy is not conserved.
preposterousuniverse.com/…/energy-is-not-conserve…
The thing about photons is that they redshift, losing energy as space expands. If we keep track of a certain fixed number of photons, the number stays constant while the energy per photon decreases, so the total energy decreases.
Live_your_lives@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Further into the article he says that, "It would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say “energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.” " So energy is conserved on the whole, it’s just not conserved if you consider photons apart from their greater context.
Scribbd@feddit.nl 11 months ago
Ok. Smarter people probably thought of this, and probably found my hypothesis to be impossible. But what if… It is the the other way around. What if photons are losing energy because they are expanding spacetime. Like tiny little springs expanding out.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
The universe is actually not conserved across the universe, as it is currently understood, because of the expansion of space.
The actual conversation of energy ‘rule’, is a bit more specific.
Live_your_lives@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on.”
Quote taken from Atzanteol’s article below.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
BTW, thanks! This comment sent me down a fascinating rabbit hole. It had simply never occurred to me that energy conversation didn’t apply in an expanding universe!
riskable@programming.dev 11 months ago
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!
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
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.
This doesn’t seem to be at all what tired light proposes though. What you’re explaining sounds like red-shift due to an expanding universe. From what I can tell they claim it actually loses energy through interaction with “other things” in the universe.
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Entropy, capital “E”.
RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
You try being a bright ray of sunshine for everything around you all day every day. Sometimes you just get tired, ya know?