This model has been in testing for 3 years and it passed all tests so far.
It already past sevral test and it solves a lot of problems that require dark energy or matter. And problems introduced by the James Webb telescope. It also confirmed cosmic chronometer findings on the expansion history.
It does not disprove models, it just shows that dark matter and energy are not needed and explains why we can’t find them.
At a glance, when I was studying these topics a decade ago, the model would have been discarded right away.
CCC+TL works assuming some constants slowly change over time. The issue is, based on QFT (the most successful theory in terms of predictive power accuracy, more than GR), a slow changing fundamental constant is automatically linked to a low mass particle, the type that are very easy to produce in a particle accelerator.
With this model, they therefore have the burden to explain why we don’t detect particles related to these changing constants.
It’s super interesting, I’ll try to read more about it!
TBF they discard fuckton of data from colliders.
I remember one of the recent-ish spacetime episodes mentioning that they probably “detected” the thing they would need to advance some new theories, but their algorithms for deciding what’s garbage data and what’s useful discarded the data ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Edit: hence their new goal at CERN with upcoming upgrades, to increase the amount of collision information captured and retained, instead of just increasing collision energies, which new technologies allow… If only it wasn’t for idiotic ai datacentres hoarding said hardware technology and making it costly for scientists.
So a really solid genuine reason to hate ai.Isn’t CERN now using mistral to help them sort the data out of the noise which is helping discover new particles? The partnership was just announced one month ago so it probably hasn’t resulted in anything yet.
Yeah, love that! Imagine what might be undetected yet just because we don’t know to look for it!
But I could swear I saw a report where a guy detected dark matter a long time ago.
There were probably a bunch of caveats attached to it I didn’t pick up on.
I’ve always felt that dark matter was an ugly hack to hand-wave away problems with the old theory.
Very cool! I’m no expert in cosmology but I was familiar with some if the evidence for dark matter, namely rotation curves, and its really cool to hear about plausible alternate theories.
> At the stage of cosmic history when standard cosmology says the Universe was about 300 million years old, a new model puts its age at roughly 4.6 billion years. That gap is the heart of a University of Ottawa proposal that the Universe is 26.7 billion years old, nearly double the accepted 13.8 billion.wth? 300 million, 4.6 billion, 26.7 billion or 13.8 billion? Pick one.
…ah, the other article does a slightly better job here…
In the standard cosmological model, the Universe was approximately 300 million years old during the period known as cosmic dawn, when the first generations of stars and galaxies were emerging. At the same observed redshift, however, CCC+TL would place the Universe’s age at roughly 4.6 billion years.
I think they’re two relative ages.
So the point in time we thought was 300 million years ago was actually 4.6 billion, which makes the universe’s total age not 13.8 billion like thought but rather 26.7 billion (due to other increased windows probably).
