<p>I read an article on <a href="https://www.spacechatter.com/2024/03/19/no-dark-matter-in-universe/#respond" rel="nofollow noreferrer">spacechatter</a> about recent work that eliminates the <em>need</em> for dark energy in explaining observations.  The pertinent quote from that article is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The study’s findings confirm that our previous work about the age of the universe being 26.7 billion years has allowed us to discover that the universe does not require dark matter to exist,” explains Gupta in a media release. “In standard cosmology, the accelerated expansion of the universe is said to be caused by dark energy but is in fact due to the weakening forces of nature as it expands, not due to dark energy.”  --Rajendra Gupta</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These statements were made in reference to Dr. Gupta's recent publication in The Astrophysical Journal <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> (DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6)</p>
<p>I've read a little (<strong>very</strong> little) regarding the tired light theory, which seems to be what Dr. Gupta is invoking here.  I simply do not have the background to appreciate the details of Dr. Gupta's paper, but I found the spacechatter story to be intriguing.  To my knowledge tired light has been largely rejected by the scientific community so I am left with 3 questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>How sound is Dr. Gupta's approach in his publication and are there substantial problems that preclude it from being a major upheaval within the community?</li>
<li>Does replacing dark energy with tired light have any additional consequences/problems with how we view the universe (e.g., you may have solved problem X, but in so doing you broke Y and Z)?</li>
<li>If we can rule out dark energy does that also preclude dark matter?</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-21T18:15:22.887Z
I haven't read this article in particular but I would suggest being *extremely* skeptical about any research that claims to double the age of the universe.
Darth Pseudonym
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-21T20:05:46.023Z
It annoys me that the "d" word has been appended to both energy and matter. Yeah, dark energy and dark matter are two entirely different things (to the limited extent that they *are* things).
Lee Mosher
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-21T23:08:35.253Z
Not qualified to comment in detail. But the way they cite my work, totally out of context, to support a wild claim about potential inaccuracies in cluster ages leads me to be deeply skeptical about the rest of it. Globular cluster ages are not underestimated/uncertain by a factor two. But it is proper, peer-reviewed science, so deserves a serious look.
ProfRob
<cosmology><dark-energy>
What are the loopholes in recent claims that dark energy is not necessary?
tnknepp
# What are the loopholes in recent claims that dark energy is not necessary?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-03-21)

I read an article on [spacechatter](https://www.spacechatter.com/2024/03/19/no-dark-matter-in-universe/#respond) about recent work that eliminates the *need* for dark energy in explaining observations. The pertinent quote from that article is

> “The study’s findings confirm that our previous work about the age of the universe being 26.7 billion years has allowed us to discover that the universe does not require dark matter to exist,” explains Gupta in a media release. “In standard cosmology, the accelerated expansion of the universe is said to be caused by dark energy but is in fact due to the weakening forces of nature as it expands, not due to dark energy.” --Rajendra Gupta

These statements were made in reference to Dr. Gupta's recent publication in The Astrophysical Journal [here](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6) (DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bc6)

I've read a little (**very** little) regarding the tired light theory, which seems to be what Dr. Gupta is invoking here. I simply do not have the background to appreciate the details of Dr. Gupta's paper, but I found the spacechatter story to be intriguing. To my knowledge tired light has been largely rejected by the scientific community so I am left with 3 questions:

1. How sound is Dr. Gupta's approach in his publication and are there substantial problems that preclude it from being a major upheaval within the community?
2. Does replacing dark energy with tired light have any additional consequences/problems with how we view the universe (e.g., you may have solved problem X, but in so doing you broke Y and Z)?
3. If we can rule out dark energy does that also preclude dark matter?

**Tags:** cosmology, dark-energy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I haven't read this article in particular but I would suggest being *extremely* skeptical about any research that claims to double the age of the universe.  
> **username_2**: It annoys me that the "d" word has been appended to both energy and matter. Yeah, dark energy and dark matter are two entirely different things (to the limited extent that they *are* things).  
> **username_3**: Not qualified to comment in detail. But the way they cite my work, totally out of context, to support a wild claim about potential inaccuracies in cluster ages leads me to be deeply skeptical about the rest of it. Globular cluster ages are not underestimated/uncertain by a factor two. But it is proper, peer-reviewed science, so deserves a serious look.  

---

## 0 answers

