11
   

New cosmological model does away with the Big Bang

 
 
DrewDad
 
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:14 pm
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

Quote:
(PhysOrg.com) -- By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.

Shu, an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, explains in a study posted at arXiv.org that the new models emerge from a new perspective of some of the most basic entities: time, space, mass, and length. In his proposal, time and space can be converted into one another, with a varying speed of light as the conversion factor. Mass and length are also interchangeable, with the conversion factor depending on both a varying gravitational “constant” and a varying speed of light (G/c2). Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.

...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 4,857 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:20 pm
@DrewDad,
It could work as some have speculated that gravity attracts both matter and energy so light is stretched from both ends by the emitting entity and earth thus the red light shift.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:24 pm
@DrewDad,
totally awesome, I can dig it. spandex is my life.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:30 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
time is converted into space

This would explain why I have to get rid of crap every year in order to have room in my garage.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:33 pm
@DrewDad,
Fascinating theory - now the debates begin.

BBB
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:44 pm
Since I am no scientist, I never argued with the Big Bang, but it never really made any sense to me. This model, should it prove to be a step in the right direction, might be earier to work with. Where are our scientist posters?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 01:46 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
(PhysOrg.com) -- By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another...


You sure you got this out of a physics article and not some sort of a new-age sex manual??
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:47 pm
Interested in seeing where this theory goes!

And when did length become a basic physical dimension? Does it equate to distance?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:49 pm
@edgarblythe,
I'd love to hear LittleK's opinion on this! Very Happy

Edited: Oops ... there you are.
Razz
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 02:54 pm
@tsarstepan,
My opinion? Really?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:29 pm
@littlek,
You seem to understand a lot more of this science then I do. With me it's fascination but not necessarily understanding of the subjects at hand.

I hope I didn't put a misplaced burden onto your shoulders. Confused If so I apologize.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:32 pm
@tsarstepan,
Not a burden. I just don't feel like I know much about it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 03:57 pm
This "new model" is merely another way of interpreting general relativity, this time with a variable speed of light.

It doesn't eliminate the still inexplicable singularity at the origin of the visible universe: time, space and energy remain undefined at the singularity.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:02 pm
Quote:
Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end
the concept in cosmology of cyclical (no alpha-omega linear history) is by no means new or radical. It was inherent in greek thought as well as others and had been debated continuously within modern cosmology. the Big-Bang is little more that a convenient metaphor especially relating to time which as always been a sticky-wicket for physics and continues to be a major glitch in Einsteins search for a unified field theory. Hawkings essentially just gave up in his search for a resolution.
As Haawkings stated in his Brief History of Time the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. which leads us to the potential that the total amount of time of the universe is also zero.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:24 pm
@dyslexia,
Even this concept (which is not really new) is beyond the realm of science.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:27 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

This "new model" is merely another way of interpreting general relativity, this time with a variable speed of light.

It doesn't eliminate the still inexplicable singularity at the origin of the visible universe: time, space and energy remain undefined at the singularity.

Try reading the article, because it says it does eliminate a singularity:

Quote:
As Shu writes in his paper, the newly proposed models have four distinguishing features:

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 04:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
(which is not really new)
yeah georgeob that's what I said in my first sentence.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:01 pm
Copying and pasting two posts I wrote to a friend's Facebook thread on the issue (minus some embarrassing typos, plus an unknown number of new ones):

------

The theory sounds interesting, but I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude toward it. So far, Mr. Shu has written a mathematical model that doesn't have some problems the standard model has. That's respectable, but not that hard to do, actually.

The hard part, for any new theory, is twofold: First, it should predict something we don't know already. (So far, Mr. Shu's theory only "p;redicts" features of the universe we have already observed, though we have no adequate theory for them.) Second, the theory shouldn't introduce any new problems that the old theory didn'thave. (The article shows no signs that Mr. Shu checked very hard for those.)

Both points may or may not be worked out over time. Until then, I'll just keep an eye on Mr. Shu and his theory. Thanks for bringing them to my attention!

***

PS: Depending on how interested you are at pursuing this topic in-depth, you may be interested in Simon Singh's book "Big Bang". It talks at length about the history of astronomy, when which piece of evidence came in, and how our theories about the cosmos adapted to fit new evidence. I found it extremely interesting, but it requires concentration.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:14 pm
@DrewDad,
I wonder how his model fits with the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) among other things. Even though the BB model has a few aspects which don't fit the data well, it also has a whole lot more aspects that fit extremely well. Any new theory which comes along needs to fit the data with at least as much precision in all areas that the old model addressed. Then in order to get really interesting it needs to make new predictions which exceed the previous model.

My suspicion with this new theory is that it meets some of the mathematical dimensional challenges, but that it may not be quite so robust when it comes to thermal and physical predictions. I'll have to read a bit more about it though.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2010 07:42 pm
@rosborne979,
Yeah Ros, the CMBR was predicted by the big bang theory, then discovered by those guys in the Bell labs who weren't even looking for it. Predictive power is pretty powerful evidence toward the acceptance of a hypothesis.

I'm guessing this new idea is explain away the problem of dark matter? What a pity if it does, I think MACHOs and WIMPs were the coolest scientific acronyms ever....
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New cosmological model does away with the Big Bang
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 01:09:33