a-cosmology-group/acg#299

There’s a simpler description here: “New cosmic ‘baby pictures’ reveal our universe taking its 1st steps towards stars and galaxies”

The new $H_0$ is still inconsistent with the supernova value - it does not resolve the Hubble tension - so $\Lambda\mbox{CDM}$ is falsified once again 👍

thanks for sharing

Dark energy models https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17342

Why the DESI Results Should Not Be A Surprise https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17659

My former colleagues on arXiv:2411.02912, Philippe Laurent, Peter Wolf and Christophe Salomon, with ACES and the PHARAO clock! That’s a multi-decade long project that finally is coming online.

Related https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02655

I think the Gunn-Peterson trough has been observed before, but the work is controversial since nobody knows when the period of re-ionization is. Is it $z \sim 3$, $z \sim 7$, $z \sim 13$?

This paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08779-5 now puts re-ionization at $z \sim 13$…

These are all anomalies produced by the wrong cosmological model. Most of them have a simple interpretation in a non-expanding cosmology.

I don’t believe so, @RedshiftDrift for example how do you explain the cosmic radio background (synchrotron) excess? (not the same thing as the CMB) Page 108 See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12881

Stimulated emission produced by STz can amplify all radiation, including the “cosmic radio background”, in the same way radiation is amplified by stimulated emission in an ASE laser. The IGM plasma, at a temperature of ~1MeV, provides the energy to amplify the radio signals.

This provides a qualitative interpretation of the excess radio synchrotron background (it looks like synchrotron radiation because it’s generated by the same process in accelerated electrons).

That anomaly has a simple interpretation in the non-expanding cosmology, as predicted by STz.

A major issue is that one does not “just” need a mechanism for increased radiation/energy, but for it to be localized in radio waves while not creating excesses in the infrared and xray background

Since the rate of Stimulated Transfers is proportional to the wavelength (as discused here or Eq. (6) in arXiv:2410.02036) then radio waves might be getting more amplification than shorter wavelengths… So that doesn’t seem to be an issue at all qualitatively, but one would have to derive the equations describing the process to get a quantitative answer.

The origins of the planets is not a topic I have looked at a lot, but I prefer a model where the planets are ejected from the Sun. I have lost track of the older paper(s) I saw on that model, but recently found a similar one, though it is in a fringe journal and has many deficiencies:

https://www.sciencexcel.com/article/the-cantilever-fracture-model-of-planetary-formation-in-the-solar-system-and-plate-tectonics-of-earth

I am working on a model for the origin of the Moon that is quite similar, with the Moon being ejected from the proto-Earth. The difference is in the heat sources: solar nuclear fusion for planets versus the Hubble luminosity for the Moon:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202412.1206/v1

My colleague Ekkehard Peik has been working on this for over 20 years!

It’s a small world but you seem to have a truly amazing portfolio of contacts :D

My interests in fundamendal light-matter interactions led me to study quantum optics (at U. of Toronto), precision spectroscopy (at NRC Ottawa, collaborating with JILA Boulder, LPTF Paris, NPL London, MPQ Munich, etc.), and gave me an understanding of energy-momentum transfers in these interactions (following the work of Gerhard Herzberg, Bill Phillips, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Arthur Ashkin, Herbert Walther, etc.) This led me to work with atomic clocks and optical combs (in collaboration with Jan Hall, Ekkehard Peik, André Clairon, Ted Hänsch, etc.) and understand the direct applications these instruments have to space physics. Also, my father had connections with Halton Arp, Grote Reber, Hannes Alfvén, and others who signed the Open Letter.

It’s just by chance that I am a second-generation cosmology dissident, but it’s my personal interests that led me to this “amazing portfolio of contacts” and the science needed to understand the failure of cosmology. 😉

The result agrees with relativistic physics and its current interpretation, but only mathematics and logic have ‘proofs’ - not physics.

Remember when HST saw ‘little red dots’ in the 90s? These turned out to be galaxies at the red edge of HST’s filters. The ‘little red dots’ seen by WST? Same thing: galaxies at the red edge of WST’s filters.

Not really a dark matter contender. This is an analysis using the angular velocity instead of the rotation velocity $V_0$, where they recover the same relations already known in MOND.

From the figures provided by Zimmerman et al., I visually read the values $r = 2R_d$ for which $\omega_{bar}(2R_d) = \omega_0(2R_d)$ [1]. The MOND acceleration and the “angular velocity offset” $\omega_0$ are related as $a_0 = 8\omega_0 V_0$. A sample of 21 galaxies already gives a reasonably accurate value of $a_0$!

The table below lists the small sample of galaxies I used.

[1] E. Schulz, “Scaling Relations of Mass, Velocity, and Radius for Disk Galaxies,” ApJ, vol. 836, no. 2, pp. 151–161 (2017)

They are working with an incorrect interpretation of LRD spectra. They are barking up the wrong tree.

LRDs are not dusty-red objects at redshifts z > 5…, as believed from observations of a Balmer Break.

Instead, most LRDs are bright galaxies at four times the redshift, z > 20… as confirmed by a Lyman break at the limit of the infrared sensitivity of JWST.

It’s interesting to read this:

Take the simple exercise of counting galaxies in the sky. There are simply far too many faint ones. At the limits of today’s observations, there are at least 10 times as many galaxies as there are in the local universe… Very few of the galaxies, though, exhibit strong Lyman-alpha lines, supporting the notion that these emissions can be easily extinguished by dust.

Written in 1997 (Sci. Am) when Hubble discovered too many little red dots! Same old, same old… After 30 years astrophysicists and cosmologists haven’t figured it out… they never learn.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115973 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22600 https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21492https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20722

This makes me think some of the issues with MOND could be lowered via gravitational shielding https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023E3SWC.38902006K/abstract

“unexplained cooling of CMB photons” - arXiv:2506.08833

Well aren’t these authors lucky! It turns out the explanation for this already exists. Cosmic filaments have moving electrons which produce extra redshift on photons of the CMB, therefore lowering the apparent ‘temperature’.

Since the effect is enhanced by radial motion (from our point of view), one would expect a stronger effect caused by radial filaments where they are the densest. This is confirmed a few lines down in the abstract:

“We find a 3 − 4σ detection of a temperature decrement trend towards the spine of the filaments, the larger the mass and the more radially oriented the filament, the stronger the temperature decrement.”

Thanks for this paper @LifeIsStrange, another one confirming my calculation.

It’s on the angular distance test. It’s a little confusing what they are saying. It seems they are looking at diameters of distant galaxies using JWST data. If they view it through the static model, there is no change in diameter with distance. If they use the LCDM model, then the distant galaxies are bigger (or smaller?).

According to LCDM calculations, local galaxies are bigger than distant ones. They term it an evolution, meaning, in terms of LCDM galaxies have grown bigger over time. Where-as with TL calculations there is no significant difference.

Good one for TL models.

LCDM doesn’t predict galaxies growing in D (which they surely will come with some miraculous reason now ..), like we just haven’t realised that in expanding space the galaxies are also expanding. Just like any good religion they will fudge this one into acceptance too.

There have been recent papers by Farrah et al saying that supermassive black holes get larger over time. They call this cosmological coupling. As they are black holes, their masses increase also supposedly. The nearer ones to us are thus bigger, since they are older, in the LCDM model. Is this what this new paper is pointing at also?

Thanks for the link @LifeIsStrange, this is another good paper by Raikov and Lovyagin’s group as a follow up to this paper.

As @ExpEarth pointed out, this is not a Tolman test (which would require surface brightness measurements). It is an angular size - redshift test.

LCDM predict an increasing (rest-frame) diameter of galaxy by gas accretion and collisions happening after the Big Bang. @Francois-Zinserling the miracle is provided by pre-existing black holes (already there just after the Big Bang) which conveniently attract just the right quantity of matter… However, how the diameter evolves following such a simple equation $D_{rest frame}^{LCDM} \propto 1/(1 + z)$ is impossible to reproduce with complex galaxy dynamics.

This is a very good paper for tired-light models, and only those models that predict an angular distance

$$ D_A^{TL} = (c/H_0) \ln(1+z) $$

like STz and NTL.

The paper also rules out linear models $D_A^{lin} = (c/H_0) z$, such as the model used by e.g. E. Lerner, unless they are complemented by another miraculous size evolution.

It’s an even better paper since I found my name in the references 🤣 🤣

Formula (4) in the transparent style paper happens to be valid for Variable Mass models as well:

$$ D_A^{VM} = D_A^{TL} = (c/H_0)\ln(1+z) $$

Apart from this, our attention has been drawn to 5.2 : Analysis based on the mean galaxy size per bin. There we observe an issue that has been criticized in another thread.

$$ s = \sigma_D/\sqrt{n} \quad \mbox{where} \quad \sigma_D^2 = \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{k=1}^n(\overline{D}-D_k)^2 $$

In figure 3 (copied below) the thickness of the curves corresponds with the variance of the samples mean. To be more specific, the thickness $(s)$ is inversely proportional to the square root of the number $N$ of samples in the given $z$ range. It is noticed that the lone thin orange curve in the picture beneath with the photometric data is in an interval of samples with the largest spread. This means that the variance of the samples mean has no physical meaning here - and anywhere - let it be that it could be of predictive value.

Offtopic. Is it a coincidence that freedom of speech about cosmology seems to be no problem in Russian academia?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00520 Related

Related https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21402

Probably falsified but still interesting https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14916

These stories are drifting away from your topic of cosmological surveys.

@ExpEarth I use this issue as an umbrella for linking any study I find interesting. I am particularly interested in monitoring surveys/new instruments though

Optical image distortion seen through a turbulent medium = schlieren. That galaxy is smooth.

Haojing Yan is an author to follow.

Morphology evolution https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10285

New algorithm for slow rotators https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02522

Also https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507..350D/abstract

https://phys.org/news/2025-08-rotating-galaxy-filament-million-years.html

First gas relic https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20157

First interstellar hydrogen cosmic ray https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20168

JWST detection of a carbon dioxide dominated gas coma surrounding interstellar object 3I/ATLAS https://share.google/C087rwRXbSOTixqKm

I wonder if the emc effect is evidence for the sakata model https://phys.org/news/2025-08-marathon-precise-nucleon.html

Also neural networks allow record high accurate photometric redshift estimations https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10075 And other kind of insight https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02202

I invite the reader to try this new agent which act as an assistant for doing cosmology https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.03424

WOW I somehow missed that it must have been created at the same time as the big bang making it the most impressive JWST observation to date https://phys.org/news/2025-09-cosmic-giant-galaxy-formation-early.html

Also kinda funny that Adam riess push for alternative cosmologies https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00359

New purely cepheid H0 measurements https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09665 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422 https://hal.science/hal-04076345v1/file/Breuval_2023_ApJ_951_118.pdf

As measurements become more and more precise, the values of $H_0$ should converge toward the value I predict,

$$ \mathcal H_z ​= 73.59 \pm 0.06 \mbox{ km/s/Mpc} $$

based on the explanation of the CMB that is still a conjecture (but won’t be for too long I hope).

See also sota simulation speed https://phys.org/news/2025-09-universe-faster-accuracy.html

New gravitation systematics https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11849

Sota low radio background https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11846

Sota nuclear physics https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11743

New gravitation systematics https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11849

Someone was heating up his lunch in the microwave again …

@Francois-Zinserling writes: >Someone was heating up his lunch in the microwave again …

My English is not good enough to understand what’s really meant by the IHMO heavy sci prose in this paper. I cannot follow. Is LIGO an overly expensive way to “measure” e.g. the day and night rithm of scientists? Am I right? Is it a joke? Would someone please summarize in layman’s terms what’s going on?

@HanDeBruijn the joke relates to a signal that was detected some time ago that appeared to be a Fast Radio Signal and had patterns that spelt “alien intelligence”. After the dust settled they realised it had come from their own microwave in the kitchen.

This paper claims the LIGO signals are showing patterns of appearing during our waking - and working - hours. Aliens would obviously be smart enough to figure out when to send us signals … but for neutron stars to only merge during ‘daylight’ is a bit of a stretch. :)

Human activity has cycles that are synchronized with a weekly cycle, weekends and weekdays, day and night, at a time determined by daylight-saving or standard time (e.g. @Francois-Zinserling’s lunch time :smile: )

Human activity also generates electromagnetic interference, acoustic noise, changes in the voltage of power lines and city water pressure, etc.

This human generated interference is picked up by the electronics and mechanics of LIGO. So yes, LIGO an overly expensive way to detect the rhythm of scientists and nearby populations in Washington State.

Incredible breakthrough that allow detection of exomoons https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15304

Breakthrough that allow record high strong lens detection https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16033

Optical detection of gravitational waves within reach https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15841

Democratization of sota simulations https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250918225001.htm

First lensed dwarf galaxy enabling record accurate astrophysical and gravitational constraints https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.20458

In competition with https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.20434

Dark stars https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2513193122

Significant advance in magnetic field estimation https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/2510.03229

Interesting what they are doing there on alphaxiv - pulling in arxiv.org and opening for discussions. I browsed a little but couldn’t find any papers that had actual discussions. Maybe a novelty or maybe it develops into something. @LifeIsStrange have you explored this?

The ‘like’ function is a let-down though but I guess it is an apt depiction of where science finds itself right now.

@Francois-Zinserling I’m very pleased that you brought up this topic which matters a lot to me. There are a few websites like alphaxiv that attempt to do a social network like feed of scientific papers, however 1) those websites are either in a state of abandon or ultra specialized / niche or have major missing features. About comments, I’m not sure when they added the feature but regardless very few people will comment, there is after all almost no one active on the internet, let alone in specialized websites.

For comments the least worse are I guess Hackernews when there is a post, reddit and substack + siloed community like discord. The basic idea of websites like alphaxiv is painfully obvious and criminally missing: Making science more discoverable. There is an ocean of papers published each day and sorting them by like even if it is not optimal is miles ahead of having simply nothing, zero recommendation system which is the current reality. And a consequence of this reality is that since the signal to noise ratio is so diluted almost no one read papers in high quantities. While the like feature when sorted for all time kinda works in all arxiv sciences, the community as in all alphaxiv like websites stereotipycally specialize in machine learning and artificial intelligence (which can however be applied to other sciences Cf the Ai cosmologist). Hence the sorting by like in those specialized fields for e.g the current week works extremely well and is a pure intellectual delight unmatched by any other scientific source on the internet, even the manually curated blogs, youtubers and journalists (phys.org) that I know and as such is empirically the biggest disruption in knowledge sharing of the decade. Of course the like system works extremely well in part because they haven’t yet reached an eternal september https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1hwd1xy/why_does_eternal_september_even_happen_what/

I also use https://huggingface.co/papers/date/2025-10-08 as I also study machine learning (and most sciences) as a hobby.

For finding the papers with the most citations and a given date I use openalex.org but ineptly they do not index arxiv and I do not know an equivalent for arxiv.

What I recommend the most is to try this link where I have selected all astrophysical sciences (which you can filter individually) and sorted by like count. https://www.alphaxiv.org/?subcategories=cosmology-and-nongalactic-astrophysics%2Cearth-and-planetary-astrophysics%2Castrophysics-of-galaxies%2Chigh-energy-astrophysical-phenomena%2Csolar-and-stellar-astrophysics%2Cinstrumentation-and-methods-for-astrophysics&sort=Likes

And here sorted by github stars for open source software in astronomy https://www.alphaxiv.org/?subcategories=cosmology-and-nongalactic-astrophysics%2Cearth-and-planetary-astrophysics%2Castrophysics-of-galaxies%2Chigh-energy-astrophysical-phenomena%2Csolar-and-stellar-astrophysics%2Cinstrumentation-and-methods-for-astrophysics&sort=GitHub

Jwst https://phys.org/news/2025-10-webb-grb-250702b-energetic-cosmic.html

There is also paper2paper

Advance in early morphology https://phys.org/news/2025-10-messy-galaxies-early-universe-struggled.html

Potentially related to https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=131506 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385596004_Plasmas_A_Fourth_Domain_of_Life_RNA_DNA_Consciousness_and_Statistical_Analysis_of_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_in_the_Thermosphere?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390487837_Evolution_of_Life_on_Other_Planets_Are_UAPUFOs_Piloted_by_Gentically_Engineered_Humanoid_Plants_Insects_Canines_Evidence_from_Mars?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19 While Andrew Morgan is most likely a dreamer his work has at least the merit of compiling real empirical evidence including forgotten nasa footage https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394022936_Building_the_field_coupled_future_The_Journey_Towards_Synthesis?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

https://huggingface.co/papers/2510.24591 Automated paper replication!!

From ReplicationBench: Can AI Agents Replicate Astrophysics Research Papers?

Astrophysics, where research relies heavily on archival data and computational study while requiring little real-world experimentation…

Without real-world experimentation astrophysics has gone astray!

All That Glitters is Not Novel: Plagiarism in AI Generated Research

Superkilonova https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23732

Nice imaging https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2510.11819

Seems to be a potentially excessive use of Gödel incompleteness theorem

Let’s ask Google AI: which planet has water other than earth. Answer (italics by me):

Yes, many planets and moons have water other than Earth, including frozen water on Mars and in gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and likely subsurface liquid oceans on moons like Jupiter’s Europa and Ganymede, and Saturn’s Enceladus.

Planets

• Mars: Has frozen water in its ice caps and subsurface ice. Recent evidence also suggests the presence of subsurface liquid water.
• Jupiter and Saturn: Contain water in both frozen and vapor forms, primarily in their atmospheres.
• Uranus: Has frozen water in its structure.

Moons

• Europa: Jupiter’s moon is believed to have a vast, salty, liquid ocean beneath its icy crust, possibly holding more water than all of Earth’s oceans combined.
• Ganymede: Another moon of Jupiter, Ganymede is thought to have multiple subsurface oceans, containing a significant amount of water ice and potentially more liquid water than Earth.
• Enceladus: Saturn’s moon is known to have a subsurface ocean, evidenced by water plumes erupting from its surface.
• Titan: Saturn’s largest moon has more water than Earth, but it’s all in the form of ice, with liquid methane forming rivers and lakes on its surface due to the extremely cold temperatures.
• Other Moons: Several other moons, including Callisto and Pluto, are thought to have subsurface oceans beneath their icy shells.

Okay, let’s repeat: (1) likely subsurface liquid oceans, (2) subsurface liquid water, (3) believed [ .. ] liquid ocean beneath, (4) thought [ .. ] subsurface oceans [ .. ] potentially more liquid water, (5) subsurface ocean, (6) subsurface oceans.

Thus liquid water on planets is in subsurface oceans; therefore you can’t see it. It’s like the existence of gnomes. There are plenty of them, but every time you look, they are all hiding behind trees. The real problem is, of course, that Earth is the only truly wet planet in our solar system.

Jupiter’s moon Titan is even more interesting: with liquid methane forming rivers and lakes on its surface. That’s weird! I’ve always thought that methane is a fossil fuel. But if there has been no life on Titan, then natural gas is not a fosil fuel per se. That would not only represent a problem for Titan, but also for the currently accepted narrative on Earth. Therefore it is believed by some NASA scientists that there must have been Life on Titan.

Ultraluminous galaxy https://phys.org/news/2025-11-superheated-star-factory-early-universe.html

“The Cosmic Speed Problem Nobody Can Explain” actually, that LCDM can’t explain. https://youtu.be/R4uxL4FUU8M

The paper “Overdispersed Radio Source Counts and Excess Radio Dipole Detection” or here

And nice arxiv alternative https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12353

Also it ha recently been discovered that the RAR mondian relation breaks in dwarf LSB https://arxiv.org/html/2510.06905v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20188 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20188

I somehow missed that this DM is not for the Galactic center but for the halo https://arxiv.org/html/2507.07209v3

Notably they make a prediction for neutrino and ctao Also https://arxiv.org/html/2512.03798v1

How does that affect P. Kroupa’s argument about the non-existence of dark matter?

I’m not sure.. IIRC Kroupa analysis of local groups is very interesting. I don’t remember Kroupas arguments specifically for the bullet

“We went in with open minds,” said Nial Tanvir, a co-author and a professor at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. “And lo and behold, Webb showed that this supernova looks exactly like modern supernovae.”

It seems the astronomers are surprised!? There is no evolution of populations - all SNe look the same.

Deepest dust survey https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14176

Also submillimeter up scaling https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13353

Nice images of protoplanetary discs https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00157

The number looks better quoting an area increase: $$\left( \frac{3.1 {\rm m}}{2.4 {\rm m}} \right)^2 = 1.67 \approx 1 + 70\%$$ !

Maybe not necessarily fraudulent if 3.1 meters fits inside available launchers?

thanks! on the same topic: https://phys.org/news/2026-01-philanthropy-fast-track-flagship-telescope.html

What is fraudulent is that we have had 6 meter payload diameter for a long time and starship and new glenn both will support 9 meters soon. The cost of such monolithic mirrors is negligible.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/537/2/1056/7964885?login=false https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffLDGr2pW0Q strange dark matter as quark nuggets maybe not ruled out

new hubble tension theory https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46619140

studies on earth mantle core leakage https://youtu.be/CPoQkE9KaAY?si=p-Q263We_0rulQwE&t=592 this might disprove tectonic falsifications (archimede paper)

LRDs as much smaller than believed https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09900-4

So this is evidence against the cosmological principle? Even if so, does this variance put in doubt the sigmas and systematics analysis of DESI BAO?

nice review https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46641007

falsification of the snie evidence for cosmic deceleration https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13785 on the falsification of classical inflation https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13053 112 pages review of AI opportunities for LSST https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14235 SOTA measurement of the lithium problem https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12438 effect of “plasma lensing” on FRBs https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11122 high z outflow https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13728 dwarf galaxy bias https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13049 z=13.5 galaxy https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11515

Largest sulfur molecule https://phys.org/news/2026-01-astrophysicists-largest-sulfur-molecular-compound.html

JADES dr5 https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15956

The first length agnostic spectra analyzer https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15351

Highest resolution dark matter map? https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17239

five mergers at once https://phys.org/news/2026-01-webb-reveals-galaxy-merger-million.html

“researchers identified an ongoing merger event of at least five galaxies about 800 million years after the Big Bang… This discovery shows those processes were already underway far earlier than models predicted”

This is another falsification of the Big Bang model. :smile:

@RedshiftDrift I believe the estimated age of the (current cycle) universe is roughly correct, the evidence of massive early galaxies is possible assuming extreme catalysis which might potentially not require new new physics. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18618

Another day, another model fitting exercise. Nothing new here - it’s been going on for 60 years, ever since the CMB was discovered. The BB people were predicting from 5K-50K. When it turned out to be 2.7K they adjusted the model accordingly and declared a successful prediction. Now they can “explain” the appearance of mature galaxies where they had predicted none would exist. SOS.

the evidence of massive early galaxies is possible assuming extreme catalysis - @LifeIsStrange

“Assuming” another fix which “might” not require new physics? It will require new physics, like everything else that constitute the Big Bang model.

Remember that “inflation”, “dark energy”, “dark matter”, “black holes”, and “space expansion” (i.e. the entire Big Bang model) don’t have any independent empirical evidence. I agree with @budrap00, the Big Bang model has been a series of fixes during it’s entire existence.

30 years ago, “Big Bang not yet dead but in decline” https://www.nature.com/articles/377099a0 still applies today.

I said no new new physics as in no addition on top of DM/DE/inflation. The linked paper state

there is no fundamental tension with CDM, nor are exotic explanations required.

There are many diverse observational evidence for DM, the issue as usual is that systematics are badly modeled and arguably few people understand that the main issue with DM isn’t the lack of evidence for it but the excess of evidence with distinct incompatible values (such as the frequency peak in the galactic center scattering vs in the halo).

Lcdm is in decline and require some patches and so do all other cosmologies, such is the natural trend of a science that gather more and more stringent observational constraints. At some point the surviving theories will require to be finetuned to converge to predictions of others and conversely.

few people understand that the main issue with DM isn’t the lack of evidence for it but the excess of evidence with distinct incompatible values

I disagree! There is no evidence for “dark matter”. “Dark matter” in only one interpretation of observations attributed to the appearance of more gravity. The issue, as usual, is that mainstream astronomers refuse to accept that other interpretations are possible. Instead they keep adding patches to a failing paradigm.

Pavel Kroupa has shown multiple times that there is no such thing as “dark matter”. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11552

require some patches and so do all other cosmologies, such is the natural trend of a science that gather more and more stringent observational constraints

That is a false narrative of science. What you describe is “modeling”. Quantum mechanics was developed 90 years ago and has not required any ‘patches’ since then, despite an improvement of measurement accuracies by order of magnitudes. The limitations of QM are in the complex problems we can’t calculate at the limits of high energies or large number of interacting particles.

See this new video on Alfvén’s paper https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JApA….5…79A/abstract https://youtu.be/LXA_5zEsP1c

Bad models are not the issue, the real issue is the paradigm. While observations are reliable, their interpretation is flawed and I reject any paper that relies on “inflation”, “dark energy”, “dark matter”, “black holes”, or “space expansion”.

Great video. I particularly liked the emphasis on the circular reasoning which is ubiquitous in modern theoretical physics where the favored models are considered correct by definition and physical reality is therefore required to contain anything the models require it to contain in order for the models to be correct. A logical construct like that would get you thrown out of a course on basic logic but it is the de facto position of the model makers who have taken control of the theoretical physics departments of the scientific academy.

As to the question of when this drift into mathematical mythology all began I think you can trace its origins back to the early 20th century and the appearance of the Expanding Universe and Quantum Mechanics models. Both were not unreasonable hypotheses but both lacked a certain amount of physical credibility.

The EU equations had a singularity at the origin and excessively high velocities for remote galaxies. QM did not provide a credible account for the physical processes that produced the statistical outcomes QM accurately modeled. Neither model was elevated immediately to the status of scientific theory; both were challenged and debated throughout their first 50 years.

But something changed in the latter half of the 20th century and the questionable physics suggested by the models was simply accepted, reasonable alternative models were set aside and the EU and QM models were elevated by consensus to the status of established scientific theories despite their obvious shortcomings.

Of the alternative models, Pilot Wave Theory is often treated as simply a different interpretation of QM but it is in fact a different model with an additional guiding equation that is not present in the standard wavefunction-only version that is the preferred by the consensus. In their physical account of quantum behavior the two systems are remarkably distinct though both predict the same statistical outcome.

In a typical experiment according to standard QM, before a particle is detected it is spread out in a superposition of states. When the particle encounters the detector this spread out state instantaneously collapses. This is explained as a collapse of the wavefunction. a mathematical formalism. This metaphysical handwaving has no correlate in physical reality. At no point in any experiment of this nature or anywhere else has a superposition of states ever been observed.

In PWT the exact same experimental result is described as being caused by the interaction of a particle and a pilot wave. The math is a bit more complicated but the physical account is realistic in the sense of being consistent with the rest of physical reality where we observe distinct particles and waves interacting. PWT is highly disfavored by the QM community - apparently for the unforgivable sin of providing a physically sensible explanation for observed quantum behavior.

The situation with the EU model’s alternative, the Steady State Theory is quite a bit different. The SST shares the same axiomatic assumptions of the EU; it assumes that the Cosmos can be modeled as a simultaneously existing entity and that the cause of the cosmological redshift is some kind of recessional velocity. To those assumptions it adds a continuous matter creation function that effectively balances out the recessional-velocity implied expansion.

Unlike PWT, the SST is not a robust or well-reasoned alternative. It is just a variant of the EU that offers nothing beyond eliminating the origin event singularity in favor of continuous creation. The model remains just as inconsistent with basic physics as the EU. Why was it set aside then? Because not having a big bang event, it did not predict a CMB at all.

That was, however, a spurious objection since prior to the discovery of the CMB theorists employing thermodynamic or tired-light models were making more accurate predictions for a CMB without using the EU model. In other words the SST did not need to predict a CMB and the Big Bang’s erroneous prediction was superfluous. In essence there has never been a robust alternative model to the EU and there never will be as long as the axiomatic assumptions of the EU remain in place. It simply is not possible to make a viable model of the Cosmos by assuming, contrary to basic physics, that the Cosmos is a simultaneously existing entity.

The growing tolerance for theoretical speculation over empirical facts reached its fulfillment circa 1980 when dark matter and quarks went from hypotheses to factual elements of the standard models without the benefit of any empirical evidence. Theoretical physics hasn’t looked back since as physical reality receded to an afterthought in the rear view mirror of the model maker’s bus-load of invisible things.

Kroupa paper is based on a considerable amount of unstated unknowns. For example for El Gordo https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/04/aa45238-22/aa45238-22.html This jwst measurement is 1 third less massive than Kroupa’s citation and is still poorly constrained. I recently linked a similar revision for the Bullet https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03150

The missing satellites problem has become an excess satellite problem.

There is missing gravity and the alternatives to MOND and DM are still considerably underexplored such as modified inertia. The measurement of highest precision of wide binaries find no Mondian acceleration. https://arxiv.org/html/2512.19652v1 This is a major issue that will become untenable with incoming next generation tests of gravity such as GAIA DR4.

LCDM has made major predictions, some with extreme precision, for example: In “The fallacies of ΛCDM falsifications” it is stated:

3.1 The fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background The first detection of CMB fluctuations by COBE took place only a few years after the measurement of the APM correlation function. The shape and amplitude of these fluctuations, as well as their Gaussian or non-Gaussian nature, had the potential to strongly challenge—or even outright invalidate—the Λ CDM scenario. In retrospect, it is interesting to note that, although the signal detected by COBE matches precisely what is expected in the Λ CDM model, this agreement was not particularly emphasized at the time. Yet, this is one of the most astonishing results of the theory: COBE’s observations reveal the amplitude of matter fluctuations on scales 100 to 1000 times larger than those accessible to robust measurements from galaxy catalogues at the time, and their amplitude agrees to within a factor of order unity with theoretical predictions.

I am not saying anything about MOND. I am saying that dark matter does not exist. I would not write that LCDM has made major prediction either. This is an adjusted model which doesn’t even agree with the Hubble constant. “LCDM does give an excellent fit to the power spectrum of the CMB. However, only the location of the first peak was predicted correctly in advance. Everything subsequent to that (at higher ℓ) is the result of a multi-parameter fit with sufficient flexibility to accommodate any physically plausible power spectrum.” https://tritonstation.com/2020/07/31/second-peak-bang-on/

@budrap00 writes:

you can trace its origins back to the early 20th century and the appearance of the Expanding Universe and Quantum Mechanics models.

Not quite. Replacing Quantum Mechanics by General Relativity is nearer to thruth. Especially relevant in this context is the timeline in The 100 Year Wrong Turn in Cosmology by Doug Marett.

assuming, contrary to basic physics, that the Cosmos is a simultaneously existing entity.

Please define what you mean by simultaneously existing. I think that nobody is assuming it.

@HanDeBruijn There is QM and there is GR - it is commonly acknowledged they do not fit well together. In what sense do you think GR, which appeared some years before QM was formalized, is a replacement for QM?

Please define what you mean by simultaneously existing. I think that nobody is assuming it.

If you claim to have knowledge of the state of the Cosmos “today”, as cosmologists commonly do, you are making a statement of universal simultaneity. If you state that the Cosmos is 13.8 billion years old, as cosmologists commonly do, that is a statement of universal simultaneity. The Cosmos is too vast and the speed of light too slow for either of those statements to have any valid scientific meaning.

Both of those misstatements have their basis in the assumption that the Cosmos has a universally applicable spacetime reference frame. That assumption is at the heart of the FLRW equations which “solved” the GR field equations for a universal metric, now called the FLRW metric. That was an oxymoronic exercise since GR was designed to function without a universal frame. The resulting solutions described an expanding or collapsing “universe”.

When Hubble discovered the redshift-distance relationship it was widely assumed to be the result of a recessional velocity. That assumption was used to select the expanding universe FLRW solution of the assumed universal metric as the proper model of the Cosmos. However, neither of those foundational assumptions has any empirical basis.

The assumption of a universal framework has no scientific basis because the Cosmos is not simultaneously observable - because light has a finite maximum speed of @ 3x10^8 m/s. That limitation also means that the Cosmos cannot be simultaneously interconnected which would also mean it can’t be observable as a simultaneously existing entity because it doesn’t exist as such.

Any assumption of a universal framework or a universal clock ticking away has no empirical, scientific basis. It is simply as wrong about the nature of physical reality as Ptolemy’s geocentric assumption was.

@budrap00 writes: >There is QM and there is GR - it is commonly acknowledged they do not fit well together.

Even stronger, according to one of my replies in another thread: >With the Variable Mass Theory, there is a sharp distinction between QUANTUM and GRAVITY, which is expressed by the existence of the two separate timeframes $t$ and $T$. With other words: Quantum Gravity does not exist and never will.

@budrap00 writes: >In what sense do you think GR, which appeared some years before QM was formalized, is a replacement for QM?

In light of the above a meaningless question. There is no such “replacement”. GR (i.e. GRavity) is completely separate from QM.

@budrap00 writes: >those misstatements have their basis in the assumption that the Cosmos has a universally applicable spacetime reference frame.

I could not agree more !! But you are not the only or the first one who has discovered this. Doug Marett has written an excellent piece of proze about the concept of spacetime, more than 12 years ago: Spacetime- Right or Wrong? A quote: >But this is not the only reason why Einstein’s concept of space-time must be wrong. What space-time implies is that all events, past, present and future, are already written in the fabric of space. Such a conclusion relegates all human activity to simply being automatons acting out the frames of a preordained film strip. If we were to believe Einstein we would have to believe that there is no free will at all. That in and of itself should be reason enough to reject the space-time concept without further consideration!

As Sabine Hossenfelder says: I don’t believe in free will. This is why. And You don’t have free will, but don’t worry. No Sabine, the fact that YOU have no free will does not mean that I haven’t. And the fact that YOUR ancestor is an ape does not mean that mine is one.

By the way, Variable Mass has a “here and now” in its theory, but that concept is exclusively attached to the earth and its observers.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936

https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14368

Also section 4.8 is for @HanDeBruijn

Wow !! But, as usual, the paper raises more questions than answers. On page 215 we read:

This is primarily driven by the changes to the atomic energy levels, which scale as $E \sim \alpha_{EM}^2m_e$ [ .. ] the effect of $\alpha_{ME}$ and $m_e$ on the Thomson scattering rate, $\sigma_T \sim \alpha_{EM}^2/m_e$ , has to be carefully taken into account [ .. ]

Yes, I can derive that fine-structure squared for the Hydrogen atom, but it escapes me why it should be valid for other atoms. Can someone please help?

Other atoms are just hydrogen atoms with more charge on the nucleus and more electrons orbiting it. “ $\alpha^2$ “ appears in the solutions with different proportionality constants and complicated coupling between electrons.

Very interesting indeed but there are systematics

Very interesting since a static cosmology solves the problem!

Within this region, J1042+1641 is incompatible with both CDM and SIDM. Our results yield a Bayes factor exceeding 100 , providing very strong evidence for FDM over even the most optimistic CDM and SIDM scenarios. As only 11 cusp lenses lie within this region, extending to larger samples will be essential for assessing its statistical generality and for decisively confirming these findings with future microlensing-free flux ratio data.

Interesting that it rule out self interacting dark matters too but not fuzzy dark matter, which is the “simplest family of ultra light dark matter” with wave like properties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_cold_dark_matter

Whats not clear is how is this study different from previous observations of the already well known core cusp halo problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem And how does the existing candidate solutions fare (baryonic feedback, etc)

Yes, $H_0 = 73.50 \pm 0.81$ km/s/Mpc is the most precise known experimental value for “late universe” measurements of the Hubble constant. It is based on Adam Riess’ covariance matrix that attempts to remove correlations between different works, so the final result is, in principle, not biased by the astronomer with the loudest mouth (who is Adam Riess himself :rofl: )

And it also agrees with my prediction $H_0 = 73.59 \pm 0.06$ km/s/Mpc.

MOND only describes galaxy rotation curves obtained from rotating gas/plasma, not wide binaries or planets…

The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) generically predicts a violation of the strong version of the equivalence principle. As a result the gravitational dynamics of a system depends on the external gravitational field in which the system is embedded. This so-called external field effect is shown to imply the existence of an anomalous quadrupolar correction, along the direction of the external galactic field, in the gravitational potential felt by planets in the Solar System. We compute this effect by a numerical integration of the MOND equation in the presence of an external field, and deduce the secular precession of the perihelion of planets induced by this effect. We find that the precession effect is rather large for outer gaseous planets, and in the case of Saturn is comparable to, and in some cases marginally excluded by published residuals of precession permitted by the best planetary ephemerides.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.5815 It’s about the external field effect https://tritonstation.com/2020/12/18/statistical-detection-of-the-external-field-effect-from-large-scale-structure/

Also Mond certainly predict an effect on wide binaries https://tritonstation.com/category/wide-binaries/

Mond is testable in many ways, even on asteroids https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09555

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04796

speculate on possible resolutions of this tension between SS and galaxy data within the MOND paradigm.

Maybe there are ways to save the theory?

There are even proposed space probes to further test it https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602266

Wrong choice of words, my bad.

MOND predictions only work for data obtained from plasma observations.

The EFE, when tested with the dynamics of plasmas, gives fairly good predictions.

There is no clear and consistent result for wide binaries. https://tritonstation.com/2023/11/13/wide-binary-debate-heats-up-again/

MOND tests fail when they don’t come from observations of plasmas, e.g. the papers cited above:

• arXiv:2403.09555 “The basic conclusion from this work is that the predictions of the MOND theory of gravity are in conflict with solar-system observations.”

• arXiv:2401.04796 “we show that the SS quadrupole constraint implies, to high precision, no deviation from Newtonian gravity”

Space probe tests have not been done yet. They won’t show any MOND behaviour unless the space probes use signals that can be redshifted by the solar corona. This was the case for the Pioneer spacecrafts, which detected an acceleration of $2\pi a_0$, but the issues have been muddled by models of RTG thermal radiation that would coincidentally produce the right acceleration in the right direction.

There is no way to save MOND as a gravitation theory. However, because of electrons-light interactions in plasmas, it can be shown that the dynamics of MOND can appear in plasma dynamics.

P.S. Stacy McGaugh’s blog is very valuable and very well written.

And this agrees with my generalization about MOND measurements. https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/299#discussioncomment-15918607

Also https://phys.org/news/2026-03-ryugu-asteroid-samples-dna-rna.html

But missing in https://aarhuscosmology.github.io/CosmoSliderWeb/

Overall this falsify dark photons and some neutrino extensions. Unsure on the broader implications on light particles. It seems to definitely falsify any new relativistic light particle hence the end of dark photons and majorons, and largely the end of Ev sterile neutrinos, thermalized gauge sectors and a huge limitation for axions but cold (that don’t thermalize/interact) or heavy particles are unaffected (most FDM, wimp, some axions, etc) Basically the end of dark radiation sectors, it’s technically as if half of all dark cosmological theories were falsified, albeit usually not the most popular (radiation based)

Cosmic strings, early dark energy and heavy exotic particle decays might be affected too.

Nice chronological list of particle discoveries https://koppenburg.ch/particles.html

Largest dataset of lensed quasars https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12810

SPHEREx early data https://arxiv.org/html/2603.12390v1

Vr viewer for data cubes https://arxiv.org/html/2603.15490v1

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ae3ddc

The conformal metric is just another epicyclic correction to the scientifically indefensible assumption that it is possible to make a meaningful mathematical model of a universal system, one that is precluded from both observation and existence by basic physics. The Expanding Universe is a zombie idea that keeps failing but is reliably revived by the life-giving serum of mathematicism.

The EU has no scientific basis because it is both logically incoherent and a physically impossible and therefore physically meaningless conception. It does not matter how much the math is improved to fit the model to actual observations - the model is fundamentally wrong. No matter the nature and extent of mathematical shenanigans employed, the Expanding Universe will remain a misrepresentation of the physical nature of the Cosmos - in exact analogy to the geocentrism of the Ptolemaic system. Cosmology will not be a science until it discards its unscientific belief in an Expanding Universe.

We had a good discussion about Vavrycuk’s conformal model before in #108. I pointed out that it has the same effect as with the time dilation seen in a gravitational redshift. He still includes expansion and so it would seem he must be offbase, but here’s an interesting point. If there were a shell surrounding a black hole universe, and supposing the interior space is not flat Minkowski space but does have curvature (maybe because of a finite range for gravity), then that shell would induce not just a gravitational redshift but also a gravitational field pointed towards the shell. This is also in the Ni solutions. In that case, galaxies are also moving towards the shell and this would give the appearance of expansion. And there is more. This whole shell black hole ‘universe’ could be expanding, into something larger, maybe infinite. After all, it would have to have contracted from a larger volume to be formed in the first place.

Highest redshift red galaxy https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15841?utm_source=chatgpt.com

New Kroupa’s paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18135

Most ambitious ground FIR telescope https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18689

Mond can be tested in the lab https://arxiv.org/html/2603.17770v1

Interstellar dust does reach us? https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17740

Dark matter free galaxies https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15860

Closest future supernova https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17011

Calibration free bao https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18986

Tripling the amount of known stellar streams https://phys.org/news/2026-03-astronomers-stellar-stream-candidates-milky.html

SPHEREx study on pah https://arxiv.org/html/2603.23620v1

Nice study on uv dust extinction https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23662

Evidence for IMF variation https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23594

The measurement made by T. Kotani, T. Oka, and R. Enokiya in https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22399 is flawed. See the article by R. Hofmann and J. Meinert, “Frequency–Redshift Relation of the Cosmic Microwave Background,” Astronomy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 286–299, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/astronomy2040019.

@RedshiftDrift While quite interesting, this does not show Kotani’s paper is flawed, it is simply that to infer the observed cmb temp at a given redshift via atomic orbitals they assume standard physics. In the paper you link, the authors shows that some new photon physics, in particular an SU2 gauge can modify the cmb temp redshift evolution. However 1) this exotic physic would need to match known observations and 2) it increase photon and therefore neutrino production As shown by the same authors in a followup paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad4037/meta Any theory that increase neutrino production is almost guaranteed to be falsified given the current Neff constraint, unless 1) Neff observations have an unknown systematic or 2) there are exotic physics that lower Neff which are reviewed in https://arxiv.org/html/2603.22391v1

Everybody can make up “new physics” to explain observations. The problem is that the “new physics” is different for each problematic observation, so I disregard those “explanations” as being just another epicycle being added and scientifically invalid.

Therefore, Kotani’s paper is flawed, there is no increase of T_CMB with redshift. I know that because STz predicts the CMB as having the same temperature everywhere, which provides a second argument against Kotani et al.’s flawed interpretation. STz is based on the gradient force, a well understood physical mechanism that is not “new physics”.

The real question is how to view it e.g. In esasky

https://dp1.lsst.io/

https://data.lsst.cloud/

And the schemas

They have a portal and Jupiter notebooks

Try it here https://cilogon.org/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=cilogon%3A%2Fclient_id%2F22adcdc145791f85b4d1edbf3157e21b&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.lsst.cloud%2Flogin&scope=openid+email+org.cilogon.userinfo&state=VcGzMdwm_K3B33aHeubUJQ%3D%3D&skin=LSST

aliens ? https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20407

superdeterminism https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462

Dirt and defects on glass-plate negatives are very common. The example (Fig. 2) shows a white region around the black spot, a sign of mechanical defect in the emulsion. The paper claims the dots are in sharper focus than stars, and they disappear on a photo taken 30 minutes later. This supports defects, or detection of radioactive decay. I did a lot of astro-photography in the late 1970s, too bad I didn’t keep the negatives - I could have shown you a lot of aliens!

New astrometric method for blazars https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.26662

Highest redshift blazar catalogue https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24659

and mind blowingly The First Stars or the Last Stars: Confirmation of a Robust Candidate z~30 Galaxy https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/program-information?id=10264

Alma cycles are also very interesting e.g. this planned cmb temp measurement http://almascience.org/aq/?project_code=2025.1.01464.S

Data fusion improve resolution https://arxiv.org/html/2603.05014v2

More papers showing the s8 tension is lowering https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28761

New Andromeda dwarf galaxy https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28492

Strongest balmer break to date and the hope to find low redshift lrds https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28335

$R_h=ct$ wins on the Hubble diagram with its predicted luminosity distance relationship $D_L(z) = (c/H_0) (1+z) \ln(1+z)$.

A static cosmology predicts the same relation, so static cosmology also wins on the Hubble diagram.

New insight on the Faber Jackson relation https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29210

And regarding the evolution of the bTFr and stfr https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28856

According to this paper DM spikes (Eg around black holes) self dilute over time https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28866

Slow star formation, milky way like 8 billion years ago https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01828

Probably the most accurate to date milky way velocity field measurement https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01628

Overview of the too early problem https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01445

most pristine star https://phys.org/news/2026-04-pristine-star-universe.html

Return of the great attractor and effect on the cmb dipole https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02470

Record constraints on the cosmic distance duality relation from Desi DR2 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02433 Which allow to improve supernova magnitudes

On the extreme mass ratios of high z galaxies https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02568

Latest grb study show no hubble tension https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01980

Once allowed, we will combine it with the result of this paper to take advantage of gains from sample variance cancellation [18]. Note the two other companion analyses: [54] explores the synergies between spectroscopic and photometric LRG

New Gupta paper on ccc tl https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03381

Evidence either against black hole stars or their coverage has holes https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03370

New constellations viewer and the limits of frequentists inference https://cmlamman.github.io/galactic-constellations/gallery.html

The Korean space telescope is absolutely groundbreaking. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/13624/136241F/Science-missions-of-the-Korean-space-telescope–a-wide/10.1117/12.3063337.short It will be the second telescope to use linear filters for doing untargeted spectroscopy without artefacts unlike slitless and without the sparsity of an IFU. Unfortunately it has 100 time smaller FOV than SPHEREx, however it has considerably better angular and spectral resolution, and is the first linear filter telescope to also do optical. As a reminder SPHEREx will get the spectra of 100 times more galaxies than DESI.

The alternative technology is to add more narrow filters like J PAS and S PAS that has 100 times more FOV than PAU https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22166

Largest IFU is probably Hetdex. Odin survey is primary contender to J PAS https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ…962…36L/abstract J pas being equivalent to 4000 low red spectrographs

Largest release of RRATs https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01203

Which might be sparsely emitting pulsars https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00845

The first hybrid https://inspirehep.net/literature/3134239

However the picture is less clear https://inspirehep.net/literature/1999736

It’s great that you show how to falsify the theory

If you want to gather more discussion you can do a dedicated post

Yet another mutually exclusive dark matter anhiliation gamma ray line https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00579

Review of all arxiv Astro papers https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12303

This very original paper explore whether pulsars can have mountains https://www.raa-journal.org/issues/all/2026/v26n3/202602/t20260202_822925.html

On the hundred(s) missing milky way dwarf galaxies https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09539

On of the highest redshift Cii https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09347

Strongest evidence for pop III stars https://phys.org/news/2026-04-astronomers-strongest-evidence-universe-stars.html

MOND might explain the bullet cluster https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10811

Dust attenuation to z=7 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09763

Most precise measurement of the EBL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09139

Cmb cooling https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/s1v4-3cky

The end of sterile neutrinos? https://www.quantamagazine.org/experiments-ring-the-death-knell-for-sterile-neutrinos-20260408/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12714 Supernova excess in the local universe

paradigm shifting first observation of a black hole binary via optical time domain photometry instead of the classical xray telescopes https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/ae5bbc The TESS images are sampled at 30 minute cadence from ≈2 days prior to ≈25 days after outburst, providing the highest time resolution optical rising phase observations of any known BHXRB. https://www.earth.com/news/nasa-telescope-captures-the-earliest-moments-of-a-black-hole-awakening/

first of its kind magnetic reconnection measurement https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae48f2

seti https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c38

on the possibiity of measuring explosions at Z=30 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae517d

wonder if tully fisher can disantangle the hubble tension https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999ASPC..167..230S https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae517b

30 new galaxies with spectra at z=9-14 ! https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae4edb

This is the first time such a large number of pulsars have been confirmed from candidates identified in an image-based survey https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae4872

We present the first z = 0 H I column density distribution function https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5178

most precise xray astrometry to date https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae48eb

We emphasize the scalability of the concept and describe paths to a future CASM array with tens of thousands of antennas that could detect one million FRBs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13903

Earliest submilimeter grb detection to date https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14297

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00120 https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06214 https://arxiv.org/html/2509.13654v2

New subtle physical effect that can cause redshift https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41238544/ @RedshiftDrift

Btw if structured light cause extra redshift I wonder if the concept of solid light catalyze it > Structured beams have superluminal phase velocity → reduced Doppler shift → extra redshift

@LifeIsStrange the paper considers structure-shearing Doppler effect (SDE) in “structured beams” (Gaussian, Bessel, etc. beams). The shift can be toward the red or blue.

In astronomy objects are so distant that light beams are essentially plane waves. The redshift they discuss is much smaller than the ‘cosmological’ redshift.

The abstract claims “may provide new insights into the Doppler effect for astronomical observations”, but that’s clickbait. SDE doesn’t provide any insight and none of it is discussed in the paper!

We find strong evidence that gas profiles do not trace dark matter, providing direct evidence for gas redistribution beyond gravitational collapse. Comparing to hydrodynamical simulations, our measurements favor feedback efficiencies exceeding those in the Battaglia profile, suggesting more efficient gas ejection in group-scale halos than previously predicted.

Comparison with hydrodynamical simulations reveals that none of the current state-of-the-art models provide an excellent statistical fit to our radial profile shape, with Illustris ruled out at ∼ 3σ and IllustrisTNG disfavored at 2.5σ. The large amplitude rescaling required for IllustrisTNG (∼ 0.37) further suggests that weaker feedback models produce overly concentrated profiles.

Calibrating r in narrow redshift and mass bins using mock catalogs that incorporate evolving HOD models and match the DESI survey selection function is an important direction for future work.

Together with measurements of the BGS and ELG samples presented in a companion paper [41], this work provides kSZ constraints spanning nearly three orders of magnitude in stellar mass and the redshift range 0.1 ≲ z ≲ 1.6. This lever arm, covering the transition from stellar to AGN feedback-dominated halos, offers a powerful program for testing how feedback efficiency depends on halo mass and cosmic epoch, and can be used in conjunction with thermal SZ (tSZ) measurements of the same sample [89] to constrain the thermodynamic properties of the host halos.

The themal sz survey is https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08850

Wonder how it compare to https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09685

New hubble Pic https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/s/cXO3Ylvpqs

New probes of the cmb includes: The kpsz effect https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12503 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01708 And Fyst rayleigh scattering

Largest sample of high Z stars https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22702

New probe of DM https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22665

Evidence against an open universe https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23492

Svt mog gravity holds for ksz data https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23440

Countless papers about SVOM today on https://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.IM/recent

Largest survey of jwst molecular clouds? https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24759

New sota measurement of the uv luminosity function https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23823

significant tension in our current understanding of early galaxy assembly

First > z=15 candidate proven to be low redshift https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23668

Constraints against primordial magnetic fields https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24835

Constraints of intergalactic magnetic fields from CTAO https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25647

On the peculiar velocities tension in acdm https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24974

New phangs survey https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25627

New sota electron density model https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

Evidence that the lmc is doing its first passage https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5bc3

First evidence for sympathetic flaring https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5804

Open problems in planetary nebulae https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22999

In this nice triton post there are little known theories of modified gravities that match the cmb peaks https://tritonstation.com/2026/04/25/yep-its-a-religion/

“A power spectrum with oscillations is a rather normal characteristic expected from any fluid with clouds of overdensities that emit/absorb radiation or interact gravitationally with photons, and with a finite range of sizes and distances for those clouds. The standard cosmological interpretation of “acoustic” peaks, from the hypothesis of primaeval adiabatic perturbations in an expanding universe, is just a particular case; peaks in the power spectrum might be generated in scenarios that have nothing to do with oscillations owing to gravitational compression in a fluid.” - [M. López-Corredoira and L. Marmet, “Alternative ideas in cosmology,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, vol. 31, no. 08, p. 2230014, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1142/S0218271822300142, arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.12897

They give new data to show that the Tolman surface brightness test supports the tired light model.

TIL about the URC as a distinct concept from RAR https://arxiv.org/html/2604.27320v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13489

Dwarf galaxies https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5bba

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04645

Local evidence against lcdm? https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05454

RAR on pulsars? Not yet measurable cause of the Sun noise https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06659

New sota constraints on gravitational waves https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05444

Inflation driven by pbhs? https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05232

New paper shows spin parity for galaxies https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05570

the first large-scale statistical exploration of stellar rotation in open clusters https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05313

SPHEREx double the number of heavily reddened quasars at high z https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06791

New study on MW DM VS MOND https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10857

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10092

https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24456

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01941

https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3703

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18846

New RAR variant https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11070

Related https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23008

Note that this previous falsification can be reused https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.07215

An alternative to sparc https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13489

And of course big sparc https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13329

Nice new McGaugh paper BTW https://tritonstation.com/2026/05/11/extended-tully-fisher-relations/

The intrinsic scatter for the best data (the WISE-SPARC sample of Duey et al. 2026

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06082

“ $88^{+5+2}_{−4−1}%$ of the MOND dynamical mass“ - from https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06082 What’s that? Stastistical and systematic errors?

By re-analyzing data, astronomers can change the final value by a factor of almost two. How convenient!

This notation is most likely systematics which is great to estimate for once. +7% mass as max error bar is not a factor of two? Unless you mean a factor of two of the statistical error, which is not surprising, in 2026 systematics are usually much larger than the error bars/sigmas.

Btw this is a pro MOND paper from Kroupa

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13549 First weak lensing unions release which will eventually become the best weak lensing survey albeit not as deep as hscssp

Yet another study against evolving dark energy https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13546

Unions papers https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13547 https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13543

Is dark matter amounts exaggerated by lens modeling? https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12593

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12810

New measurement of electron temperature/density https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15048

Highest redshift Alma dust continuum detection to date https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14922

Identification of low redshift LRDs https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14233 number density 10,000 times lower than in the first billion years of cosmic time

Highest redshift lowest metallicity galaxy https://phys.org/news/2026-05-webb-universe-galaxies.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18992

Nice cmb optic depth paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18939

Intriguing paper on diffusion theory https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae6332

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae6329 Hetdex

These results establish the most detailed long-term geometric characterization of the IBEX ribbon to date https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae64f8

The First Uncontaminated X-Ray Maps of a Galactic Center Supernova Remnant https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae5dbe

New evidence for MOND https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae61a6

Potentially groundbreaking spectrograph https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23814

Rare Alma study of voids https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23399

New rotation curve analysis https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23302

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24918 Dwarf galaxy evolution

Among highest redshift supernova type II https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24088

https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/new-discovery-rewrites-what-we-know-about-the-speed-of-light/

One of the largest study on the BJFR https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26965 Agree with MOND with EFE

Evidence for rh=CT and new small scale LCDM issue https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28903

Review of lcdm small scale issues https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29899

On the number of protoclusters https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28930

Highest redshift bar https://phys.org/news/2026-05-jwst-stellar-bar-early-universe.html

First? Lrd with balmer line https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00258

New best measurement for antihydrogen https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10556-x

Best Lrd black hole mass measurement https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10579-4

giant ring https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17534

Sota constraints on high z gas flows https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12686

https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13642

Strongest evidence for Lrd as black hole star https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae4ed7

https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13393

Little blue dots https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22386

Highest resolution dust map https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b7e

New constraints on helium abundance https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae64fc Iirc it helps constrain neff

These results suggest a possible deviation from CDM at low subhalo masses https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae6776

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae6f04 Comparison with SDSS broadly confirms these evolutionary trends but uncovers a nonzero central galaxy population in observed voids—absent in ΛCDM predictions—that may challenge current galaxy formation models in extreme underdensities

notably there is a z = 22 candidate

https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08890

In doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae710a: “Candidate 385830 is at za = 21.99… This is the highest-redshift candidate in the whole sample… As a result, for the EAZY fit, the 1σ uncertainty range on the redshift is z = 15.26–22.” We’ll see when a good spectroscopic measurement becomes available.

Evidence for cosmic deceleration https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/549/3/stag844/8701424?searchresult=1

Mond viable for bullet after all? https://phys.org/news/2026-06-bullet-cluster-reopen-dark-debate.html

More comments by Francesco:

There is indeed evidence for bulk flows extending over scales of several hundred Mpc, precisely in the direction [of the] large-scale cosmic flows. You may find particularly interesting the papers by Tully and collaborators, which are cited in our article.

The problem for the ΛCDM model is, again, that because it does not predict structures large enough on these scales, it also predicts bulk flows that are both weaker and coherent over much smaller distances.

This is a fundamental challenge not only for ΛCDM but, more generally, for any cosmological model based on the same framework. The physics of the early Universe leads to an almost scale-invariant primordial power spectrum, which implies that density fluctuations become very small on scales larger than roughly 100 Mpc. As a consequence, there is simply not enough cosmic time for gravitational instability to produce coherent structures extending over gigaparsec scales.

you may read it at https://rdcu.be/fqejs

Free link doesn’t work sadly @RedshiftDrift

The role of the SKA on AME https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27110 Note: lots of new papers about the SKA recently

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-026-02816-7

New most accurate DESI analysis: evidence for evolving dark energy is reduced https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23936

On the use of Ska VLBI for astrometry https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27692

New pristine galaxy https://phys.org/news/2026-05-chemically-primitive-galaxy-billion-years.html

oldest ultra faint nearby galaxy ? https://phys.org/news/2026-06-ultra-faint-galaxy-andromeda-billion.html

“Most accurate” in terms of consistency over the history of the Universe… “Local” tests of GR are much better.

@ericcosmos it is extremely simple to unsubscribe this thread you just have to go on this page on github and click the unsubscribe button

As you can see, @ericcosmos , this thread has been initiated (Return to top) by @LifeIsStrange . Being the “boss” of it, he takes the freedom to publish anything he finds relevant to cosmology. I don’t know what others think, but for me that’s okay. I’m doing the same with my “own” threads.

Followup study of the highest redshift quasar in submilimeter https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03430

spectra of half a million galaxies and quasars

Impressive!