Graduate Could Re-Analyzing Redshifts Reveal New Physics?

Thread starter sbrothy
Start date Feb 8, 2024

Click For Summary

The discussion centers around the potential for new physics to emerge from re-analyzing cosmic redshifts, as suggested by a recent article addressing LCDM tensions. The article raises questions about the consistency of current models and the possibility of uncovering missing physics through redshift evaluation. An older paper from 2011 argues that little new knowledge may be gained from this approach, highlighting the ongoing debate in the field. The inquiry reflects a desire to understand whether a fresh analysis of redshifts could yield significant insights into cosmic phenomena. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity and evolving nature of research in cosmology.

Feb 8, 2024

sbrothy

Gold Member

(arxiv, Feb, 2024) LCDM Tensions: Localising Missing Physics Through Consistency Checks.

So, another article which - to me - looks intriguing but sadly passes pretty far over my head. I'm always a little sceptic about articles whose authors start out with a poetry quote - or, as is "often" the case - a Doglas Adams quote.

It seems to make a case for new physics to be found re-evaluating redshifts.

I then found this old paper: (arxiv, 2011) The New Physics of Cosmic Redshift which seems to say that there's nothing, or at least not much, new knowledge to be found there, but, ofcourse a lot of time has passed between the two.

I guess I can't expect anyone to read through all this just to give me their opinion, so I'll settle for an answer to this "simple" question:

Is it conceivable that there's new physics to be found hiding in the re-analysis of the redshifts of the objects out there?

I'll understand if my question is too naive or vague to merit a serious answer (much less one I can actually understand), It just seemed to me that they're talking about a relatively "simple" approach.

Regards.

Thread 'Estimates — True Size of the Universe?'

I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

View full post »