- #1
sbrothy
Gold Member
- 1,297
- 1,178
(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.
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.