Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relaxing the temporal constancy constraint on coupling constants in an expanding universe results in Friedmann equations containing terms that may be interpreted as dark energy and dark matter. When tired light (TL) was considered to complement the redshift due to the expanding universe, the resulting covarying coupling constants (CCC+TL) model not only fit the Type Ia supernovae data as precisely as the ΛCDM model, but also resolved concerns about the angular size of cosmic dawn galaxies observed by the James Webb Space Telescope. The model was recently shown to be compliant with the baryon acoustic oscillation features in the galaxy distribution and the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This paper demonstrates that dark energy and dark matter of the standard ΛCDM model are not arbitrary but can be derived from the CCC approach based on Dirac’s 1937 hypothesis. The energy densities associated with dark matter and dark energy turn out to be about the same in the ΛCDM and the CCC+TL models. However, the critical density in the new model can only account for the baryonic matter in the universe, raising concerns about how to account for observations requiring dark matter. We therefore analyze some key parameters of structure formation and show how they are affected in the absence of dark matter in the CCC+TL scenario. It requires reconsidering alternatives to dark matter to explain observations on gravitationally bound structures. Incidentally, since the CCC models inherently have no dark energy, it has no coincidence problem. The model’s consistency with the CMB power spectrum, BBN element abundances, and other critical observations is yet to be established.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".