4 ms·
Neat idea. If/when the paper gets published I hope I stumble upon it. One thing that I don't get with the hypothesis is how it deals with conservation of energ
by gizmo686 13y ago
Neat idea. If/when the paper gets published I hope I stumble upon it.
One thing that I don't get with the hypothesis is how it deals with conservation of energy. Its well understood that mass is a form of energy, so if atoms were to simply grow in mass, then that would either require some other energy source, or violate conservation of energy. Obviously, this is a huge an obvious problem that should preclude this hypothesis from serious consideration. The fact that this does not do so suggests to me that this issue is somehow resolved within the theory.
- JonnieCache 13y agoConsider yourself stumbled. The paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878/
- rprospero 13y agoWell, it doesn't have any more of a conservation of energy issue than the current theory already does. Loosely speaking, cosmology currently states that the acceleration of the galaxies away from each other comes from dark energy. However, if we don't use that dark energy for pushing the galaxies around, we should have enough left over to increase the rest mass of every particle in the universe. Neither theory has a good explanation as to what this dark energy is, but both theories have it.