40
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)
Science
12 readers
1 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
Sure! I’m not too well-versed in this topic, but here’s a gist of it:
First, it’s a very old idea, somewhere from 1920s I think. Proposed as a possible solution way before we found out about the expansion.
One of the main issues is it violates conservation of energy, since in this hypothesis the photons lose energy en route, but there’s still no viable mechanism to absorb or account for that energy. It also doesn’t explain cosmic background radiation, while other theories explain it quite well.
Then there’s blur. If the light loses energy on interactions and all that, the photons should scatter and blur the image. That doesn’t happen.
And then there’s this time-dilation effect. When you look at supernovae at different distances, their explosions “run” at different paces, with further ones exploding slower. In LCDM model that’s easily explained by the light being stretched because of the expansion, and that’s what causes slower “runtime”. With TL’s predictions that shouldn’t happen at all, yet it’s an observable effect.
And there are probably more discrepancies that I can’t remember off the top of my head.