[edgefield0]

A few years ago, a published article suggested an alternative to the universe expanding is increasing mass. Older objects increase their mass and therefore are red shifted. Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention?

Edit: changed mass decay to increase in mass. I misremembered the theory.

[pdonis]

> Why is this alternative plausible theory recieving such little attention?

If you're referring to the paper published by Wetterich in 2013 [1], it's because it isn't plausible at all: his theory requires that atoms are shrinking, and that is easily falsified by local experiments.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878

[hchasestevens]

Hm - but older from what perspective? Since light travels at c, aren't all journeys light takes instantaneous from the point of the photon? My understanding as well being that all known natural processes (like beta decay) are time-dilated at relativistic speeds.

Also, how would this jibe with the parallax-based observations mentioned in the article?

[pault]

But light only travels at c in a vacuum, if I remember correctly. So the journey isn't instantaneous, but still very very short. :)

[casperc]

I would love to hear someone talk about this actually as it has been my pet theory for the last 15 years since high school physics.

My reasoning was p = mv. m drops (through various processes in a star emitting energi==mass) and since p is constant, v increases.

Probably totally naive, but it is just a thought which has stuck around with me.

[whimsicalism]

If the star is emitting massive particles, then it doesn't have constant momentum.

[wruza]

But you are the oldest, because every distant object that you see only shows its past. The further, the younger.

[edgefield0]

Good point. The theory is that mass is increasing not decaying. Here's the paper: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologi...