**Questioning the Foundations: Assumptions and Alternatives in Balan et al. (2025)** Balan et al. (2025) in “Sub-GeV dark matter and nano-Hertz gravitational waves from a classically conformal dark sector” have presented a detailed and interesting model that seeks to connect the recent observations of nano-Hertz gravitational wave signals with the longstanding puzzle of sub-GeV dark matter, proposing a solution within a classically conformal dark sector. The authors effectively demonstrate the viability of this model under specific conditions, and they are to be commended for the rigor of their analysis. However, it is also important to acknowledge that scientific inquiry is an ongoing process of exploration, and the strength of any conclusion is necessarily tied to the assumptions upon which it rests. In this context, the paper’s reliance on certain foundational assumptions may limit the breadth of its conclusions. Other viable explanations could potentially account for the observed phenomena, and exploring these alternatives could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. For instance, the paper builds upon the observation of a stochastic gravitational wave background by Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs). While the evidence for this signal is growing, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the interpretation of PTA data is complex and may be subject to astrophysical uncertainties. It’s fair to ask whether the analysis gives sufficient weight to these uncertainties. The authors might argue that they do acknowledge the supermassive black hole binary contribution and even include it in their analysis. However, while this is true, the paper’s emphasis is heavily skewed towards the FOPT explanation. A more balanced approach could involve presenting a more detailed analysis of the range of astrophysical uncertainties and their potential impact on the conclusions, or exploring more thoroughly alternative astrophysical explanations for the PTA signal. Quantifying the likelihood of the FOPT explanation relative to other explanations, rather than just demonstrating its possibility, would also add valuable nuance. Similarly, the paper is firmly grounded in the assumption that dark matter exists and aims to provide a candidate within its model. While this is a prevalent paradigm, it is important to acknowledge that alternative theories attempt to explain the observed gravitational effects without invoking dark matter. The authors might contend that dark matter is the prevailing cosmological model, supported by a wealth of evidence, and that exploring alternative theories is beyond the scope of their paper. However, even while acknowledging the dominance of the dark matter paradigm, the paper could be improved by briefly discussing the existence of alternative theories (e.g., Modified Newtonian Dynamics - MOND) and the key differences in their predictions. Discussing how the model’s predictions might be affected if a dark matter alternative were true would also provide a broader context. Emphasizing that while they focus on a dark matter explanation, it is one of several possibilities, and future research could explore alternatives, would further demonstrate the authors’author: Rowan Brad Quni email: [email protected] website: http://qnfo.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rowan-quni-868006341 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604 tags: QNFO, AI, ArtificialIntelligence, artificial intelligence, quantum, physics, science, Einstein, QuantumMechanics, quantum mechanics, QuantumComputing, quantum computing, information, InformationTheory, information theory, InformationalUniverse, informational universe, informational universe hypothesis, IUH created: 2024-11-13T19:54:01Z modified: 2025-03-05T23:08:37Z --- **Questioning the Foundations: Assumptions and Alternatives in Balan et al. (2025)** Balan et al. (2025) in “Sub-GeV dark matter and nano-Hertz gravitational waves from a classically conformal dark sector” have presented a detailed and interesting model that seeks to connect the recent observations of nano-Hertz gravitational wave signals with the longstanding puzzle of sub-GeV dark matter, proposing a solution within a classically conformal dark sector. The authors effectively demonstrate the viability of this model under specific conditions, and they are to be commended for the rigor of their analysis. However, it is also important to acknowledge that scientific inquiry is an ongoing process of exploration, and the strength of any conclusion is necessarily tied to the assumptions upon which it rests. In this context, the paper's reliance on certain foundational assumptions may limit the breadth of its conclusions. Other viable explanations could potentially account for the observed phenomena, and exploring these alternatives could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. For instance, the paper builds upon the observation of a stochastic gravitational wave background by Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs). While the evidence for this signal is growing, it's crucial to acknowledge that the interpretation of PTA data is complex and may be subject to astrophysical uncertainties. It's fair to ask whether the analysis gives sufficient weight to these uncertainties. The authors might argue that they do acknowledge the supermassive black hole binary contribution and even include it in their analysis. However, while this is true, the paper's emphasis is heavily skewed towards the FOPT explanation. A more balanced approach could involve presenting a more detailed analysis of the range of astrophysical uncertainties and their potential impact on the conclusions, or exploring more thoroughly alternative astrophysical explanations for the PTA signal. Quantifying the likelihood of the FOPT explanation relative to other explanations, rather than just demonstrating its possibility, would also add valuable nuance. Similarly, the paper is firmly grounded in the assumption that dark matter exists and aims to provide a candidate within its model. While this is a prevalent paradigm, it is important to acknowledge that alternative theories attempt to explain the observed gravitational effects without invoking dark matter. The authors might contend that dark matter is the prevailing cosmological model, supported by a wealth of evidence, and that exploring alternative theories is beyond the scope of their paper. However, even while acknowledging the dominance of the dark matter paradigm, the paper could be improved by briefly discussing the existence of alternative theories (e.g., Modified Newtonian Dynamics - MOND) and the key differences in their predictions. Discussing how the model's predictions might be affected if a dark matter alternative were true would also provide a broader context. Emphasizing that while they focus on a dark matter explanation, it is one of several possibilities, and future research could explore alternatives, would further demonstrate the authors' rigor.