University of Ottawa physicist says the universe is 26.7 billion years old — and needs no dark matter
Scientists claim the universe is twice as old as believed
Rajendra Gupta and postdoc Nikolaos Samaras have spent two years testing CCC+TL, a model in which physical constants drift over time and light loses energy as it travels. The framework reproduces the Big Bang's hydrogen and helium abundances, matches cosmic expansion without dark energy, and explains rotation in 175 galaxies — while giving James Webb's surprisingly mature early galaxies time to grow. It remains far outside the mainstream, with parts still under review.
The success should encourage astronomers to take the new model seriously. It is challenging to understand and apply, but we believe it extends the physics of the Universe beyond ΛCDM limits.
- chrisnight
> while also matching the universe’s historical expansion rate without requiring dark energy.
I wonder which number this matches, since we’ve repeatedly measured 2 different values and we can’t figure out why they disagree. As much as this is currently non-peer reviewed ideas that probably won’t lead anywhere (as with most news articles about new research), radical ideas like this are probably what is needed to get to the truth of the Hubble tension and other paradoxes in cosmology.
- mr_mitm
Discussed before:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714228 (249 Comments)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41847656 (79 Comments)
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006 (40 Comments)
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36784319 (1 Comment)
Needless to say, this result is not considered credible by the scientific community. It's borderline crackpot territory if you ask me.
Further reading: https://www.iflscience.com/why-its-extremely-unlikely-the-un...
- mcv
Fascinating idea. It reminds me of an attempt from a few decades ago where scientists recalculated all fundamental constants from fundamental properties instead of the rather arbitrary quantities we're used to. A surprising finding of that project was that all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1, with two big exceptions: and the age of the universe at 10^40 and the gravitational constant at 10^-40, suggestiong an inverse relationship between the two.
It was probably a coincidence, but now there's another model with changing constants. I'd love to see where this goes.
- kazinator
[2023] https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-pre...
- piloto_ciego
Ok, where the hell is everyone then?
- justauserid
Does someone else get overwhelmed and just give up whenever you start thinking of how everything was created? It's an endless streak. I think by design – as in obviously if you start thinking what made a -> what made that made a -> … and very soon you have a recursive loop without an exit condition. So basically universe creation is possible case of OOM if ever it ran on any fathomable system, unless we posit that the resources will keep increasing for that system. I mean it's the same if we insert a deity like entity in this, because then there's who created that deity. As in – you know there's no end to it, unless you accept that one "<that> just happened" or "whatever".
- jbotz
One possible falsification of this hypothesis (from earlier this year): https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/547/3/stag430/8507252...
- po1nt
I've never liked big bang as a concept. It sounds cartoonish for me like geocentric model. It's way too convenient that entire space evolved from a single point long time ago. It sounds like a child story in comparison to everything else we can prove so far.