Some of the theories like gravity waves and Higgs boson took almost half a century to be confirmed by experimentation.
The hard part about this is building tools that can precisely measure mass fluctuations with extremely low error bars at picosecond timescales.
Because we need to both validate the theory and that the device is correctly measuring.
So much of science became only possible because of better instruments. Be it microscopes to see the tiniest phenomena or telescopes to observe the furthest phenomena.
I’m not a physicist much less an astrophysicist and so take what I’m about to say with a hefty grain of salt. But I wonder if this new approach can also explain observations of distant galaxies. Distant galaxies either redshift because they’re moving away faster over time due to dark energy or redshift because their mass is changing. Can this new theory help explain why older galaxies might lose increasing mass over time?
Are you thinking of thermal radiation? And what does losing mass have to do with cooling down?
We observe redshift in the spectrum. Hydrogen emits radiation in very specific frequencies, which are redshifted. This cannot be explained by losing mass, heat or energy.
> So much of science became only possible because of better instruments.
I would argue a stronger claim: experimental confirmation of theories and better measurements must always bootstrap each other. The history of temperature has many examples [1].
Some of the theories like gravity waves and Higgs boson took almost half a century to be confirmed by experimentation.
The hard part about this is building tools that can precisely measure mass fluctuations with extremely low error bars at picosecond timescales.
Because we need to both validate the theory and that the device is correctly measuring.
So much of science became only possible because of better instruments. Be it microscopes to see the tiniest phenomena or telescopes to observe the furthest phenomena.