New theory: No big bangs, no singularities, light is not c..

Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

03 Aug 2010, 9:45 pm

Has anyone else seen this?

Quote:
A new theory explains the accelerating universe without invoking mysterious, unseen dark energy to account for the expansion. But it also gets rid of singularities, an unchanging speed of light...and the most famous astrophysical phenomenon of all, the Big Bang.

The observation of certain supernovas in the late 1990s led astronomers to the very unexpected discovery that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is speeding up. There was nothing in the existing laws of physics to account for this, and so the only solution was dark energy - a mysterious force so named because we've never detected it, and yet it has to make up 75% of all the energy and mass in the universe for it to account for this cosmic acceleration. Also, the existence of dark energy weakens the supposedly inviolate law of conservation of energy, if not negates it completely. Cosmologically speaking, that's a problem.

And yet, clumsy and unlikely as that all sounds, it's the best explanation we've got for our observations of the universe...until now. Wun-Yi Shu, a physicist at Taiwan's National Tsing Hua University, has come up with a bold new cosmological framework that solves the dark energy problem. At its most basic, the theory states that the universe has three basic dimensions - mass, time, and length - and these three properties can be converted between each other. He then proposes two new constants, κ and τ, as the conversion factors between time and length and mass and length respectively.

So what does that all have to do with cosmic expansion? Shu's theory holds that, as the universe expands, mass and time get converted to length and space, and then this conversion happens in reverse when the universe enters a period of contraction. The universe then becomes a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction, an eternal cosmos without beginning or end. So bye-bye dark energy...but bye-bye Big Bang as well. On the plus side, we do get the conservation of energy back.

Still, the Big Bang isn't the only singularity removed from existence in this scenario - all the singularities thought to be at the centers of black holes have to go as well. And maybe the craziest part is that his two new constants, κ and τ, mean that Einstein's old constants, c and G, are now free to change over time. Considering c is the speed of light and G is the gravitational constant, the fact that they might vary - even if it's only in minute amounts over billions of years - is a very big deal, and maybe the most exciting part of this new theory.

Shu points out that his theory has already produced good results, as it explains better than any other cosmological framework the supernova data that started this whole mess over a decade ago. That said, he does face one major stumbling block - his theory can't yet explain the cosmic microwave background, the faint radiation that permeates the universe and is thought to be left over from the Big Bang. As such the race is on - either Shu can account for the background radiation, the cosmology community can find hard evidence of dark energy, or a third, perhaps even weirder theory is just waiting to be formulated that will knit all the mysteries together.


http://io9.com/5603595/there-was-no-big ... -physicist


Kinda interesting but obviously still has holes in the hypothesis.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

03 Aug 2010, 10:17 pm

Interesting...

When they figure out exactly how this mass is converted to length, let me know. There's a modeling agency across the street and they said I'm too short and too fat to be a model.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

03 Aug 2010, 10:26 pm

Chronos wrote:
Interesting...

When they figure out exactly how this mass is converted to length, let me know. There's a modeling agency across the street and they said I'm too short and too fat to be a model.


I'm interested in how you can de-couple mass from length. Is there an object in mass that isn't of a plank's length? Black holes don't count since we don't even really know what's in the juicy center yet.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

03 Aug 2010, 10:32 pm

Quote:
The observation of certain supernovas in the late 1990s led astronomers to the very unexpected discovery that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is speeding up.

The expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble in 1929, not in the 1990's, what was discovered though in the 90's is the accelerating rate.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


graywyvern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 666
Location: texas

12 Aug 2010, 4:55 pm

i thought it was really cool for about a day & a half. but look at this:

http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/

still, i don't trust theories with dark matter, either. that's a bit too much like phlogiston for my taste. like Schrodinger's Cat--it asks me to believe something ridiculous (just because a lot of people are intimidated by its general acceptance), when i can simply say, "go back to the drawing board, & bring back a better theory."

m.


_________________
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity
to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they
do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic
reasoning." --William Blake


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Aug 2010, 10:07 am

graywyvern wrote:
i thought it was really cool for about a day & a half. but look at this:

http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/

still, i don't trust theories with dark matter, either. that's a bit too much like phlogiston for my taste. like Schrodinger's Cat--it asks me to believe something ridiculous (just because a lot of people are intimidated by its general acceptance), when i can simply say, "go back to the drawing board, & bring back a better theory."

m.


Dark matter may make some sense. It is a reasonable hypothesis to explain the motion curves of stars near the rim of their galaxies. They move much faster than they would in a Keplerian orbit in free space. On the other hand, dark energy is really a placeholder for our ignorance. I suspect it will go the way of aether when we learn more.

Dark matter could be the super-symmetric particles that have yet to be detected. That is a matter of improved technology or alternatively a theory that replaces the Standard Model and does not require their existence. I think it is clear there is a lot more in the Cosmos than we can currently see with our various telescopes in different frequency ranges. The existence of a kind of matter than only interacts gravitationally makes sense. It is like neutrinos in that respect. Hardly detectable, but still existing.

ruveyn



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

13 Aug 2010, 7:43 pm

Physics starts with a world view, The flat Earth being the center of the Universe.

Slow step at a time it became a globe, moving around the Sun.. This same thinking applied to how the universe started, there was nothing, then the Big Bang. Background radiation, Microwaves, have been used to prove and date this event.

The Universe based on expanding from one spot is not the only possible origin.

The Universe lacks a clear Beach Ball shape, as would be expected by the Big Bang. No single place has ever been described where there is a clear edge, with endless void beyond.

The idea that the Universe is expanding is based on Red Shift, local events moving apart, which could be explained by the Earth, Sun, Milkyway, moving away from them. The Universe is not expanding, the Earth is ret*d.

Our best study results show the Universe to be lumpy. Clumps do not fit a Big Bang., or an expanding Universe.

The same light results that are used for expanding, also show moving apart, and then not everything is moving apart, some are converging. Galaxies move through other Galaxies, both being mostly empty space, but it does change the gravity.

Physics seems to be a local measure. The Big Bang a Creationist view, a static local universe, just for us.

Converging, diverging, as seen from Earth, which is all again moving in other Cosmic patterns.

The Dark Matter needed to make the expanding numbers work would have to be replaced with Light Matter to account for converging parts.

From the size and scale of what we can observe, I think 15 Billion years is a human number, like 4004 BC, and the actions of the Universe on an infinite scale.

The Speed of Light, Time, Gravity, are all Earth centered thinking, which are limited.

I await the Google Map of the Universe, with the temporal rewind.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

13 Aug 2010, 11:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
graywyvern wrote:
i thought it was really cool for about a day & a half. but look at this:

http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/

still, i don't trust theories with dark matter, either. that's a bit too much like phlogiston for my taste. like Schrodinger's Cat--it asks me to believe something ridiculous (just because a lot of people are intimidated by its general acceptance), when i can simply say, "go back to the drawing board, & bring back a better theory."

m.


Dark matter may make some sense. It is a reasonable hypothesis to explain the motion curves of stars near the rim of their galaxies. They move much faster than they would in a Keplerian orbit in free space. On the other hand, dark energy is really a placeholder for our ignorance. I suspect it will go the way of aether when we learn more.

Dark matter could be the super-symmetric particles that have yet to be detected. That is a matter of improved technology or alternatively a theory that replaces the Standard Model and does not require their existence. I think it is clear there is a lot more in the Cosmos than we can currently see with our various telescopes in different frequency ranges. The existence of a kind of matter than only interacts gravitationally makes sense. It is like neutrinos in that respect. Hardly detectable, but still existing.

ruveyn

It can also be explained by some modification on the equations of gravity, with only a negligible difference on the scales of Earth and the Solar System. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

Inventor wrote:
The idea that the Universe is expanding is based on Red Shift, local events moving apart, which could be explained by the Earth, Sun, Milkyway, moving away from them. The Universe is not expanding, the Earth is ret*d.

The Red Shift is seen in every directions, the whole "surface" of a sphere shape. So it can't be simply the movements of Earth, Solar System and the Milky way, it must come from a general tendency in all the Universe.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


danandlouie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 796
Location: rainbow bridge

18 Aug 2010, 1:55 am

we sometimes drive far from the city and climb a hill that overlooks a horse farm. we watch the horses graze and see if any geometric forms are created. louie is very old for a sorta bassett/clumber thingy and he falls fast asleep while i try to catch falling leaves. thus the universe was created and will be destroyed.

will a time occur, no matter how distant, that anything, anything at all, will be knowable?



MattTheTubaGuy
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 96
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

22 Aug 2010, 11:32 pm

sounds pretty wacko to me.
Bad Physics seems to think that it is just nonsense.

converting between mass, time and length? that's just stupid to be perfectly honest, plus the article can't even get the discovery of the expansion of the universe right, which was a long time before the 1990's.

dark matter is stuff that we know is there, but don't know what it is yet.

I am halfway through a science degree majoring in physics and astronomy, so I'm not an 'Expert', but I do know a little bit about this stuff.


_________________
"Never memorize what you can look up in books" Albert Einstein
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." Walt Disney


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Aug 2010, 1:07 am

Inventor wrote:
Physics starts with a world view, The flat Earth being the center of the Universe.



Even Aristotle knew the Earth was spherical (approximately).

ruveyn