Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end (1 Viewer)

[The Giant Noodle]

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.
“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”
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.

CONTINUED: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Interesting, thanks for posting.

…suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another…

:mrgreen: I’ve been converting time into mass for years *pats beer gut proudly*

Unfortunately, they say that guys loose an inch in length for every 35lbs they put on, so I’ve probably lost length to mass too.

 

[Orion]

I'm pretty sure Hawking already posited a universe without a beginning or end.

Even though I take universal theories with a grain of salt, I think it would be more logical, given the big bang, that this universe is one that is part of a foam of multiverses, and we are but one bubble.

 

[USViking]

If the the speed of light and gravity is not contant then both
Special Relativity and General Relativity will have to be discarded.

However, SR and GR have been copiously affirmed by observation.

Furthermore, the flatness and horizon problems were solved
30 years ago by the theory of Cosmic Inflation, without resort
to contradiction of SR and GR.

In poker parlance I am all in on this deal, and I am all in in favor
of the twin giants of Relativity.

 

[Demon of Light]

The speed of light isn't constant anymore than the speed of sound. It is matter and like all matter light can be affected by other matter, which is all over the place even in "space" though less so. I think this theory seems like the best explanation put forward, though it continues putting forward the absurd notion of time and space as actual physical things rather than terms to identify something which has no physical basis.

The idea is that the universe is in a constant state of flux, moving back and forth with each object merely being affected by other objects. We are essentially describing the circle of life only with regards to cosmology. One life ends another begins they become increasingly complex and so on. Stars die leading to the birth of new stars and on and on.

A system may reach a point of complexity that can be seen as the peak, which then descends into increasing simplicity until an inflection point is reached allowing systems to again become more complicated.

None of which, like every other theory, can ever truly answer the seemingly simple question: "Where all this come from?"

 

[Goshin]

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.
“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”
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.

CONTINUED: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

Intresting.

While I lack the specific education to appreciate the mathmatics of such theories, I like to read the general concepts.

I think Relativity does need to be challenged; it has become too much of a Sacred Cow. I'm sure it is no more the be-all end-all of cosmology and physics than Newton was... correct within a certain context, but not correct in ALL contexts.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Intresting.

While I lack the specific education to appreciate the mathmatics of such theories, I like to read the general concepts.

I think Relativity does need to be challenged; it has become too much of a Sacred Cow. I'm sure it is no more the be-all end-all of cosmology and physics than Newton was... correct within a certain context, but not correct in ALL contexts.

Sacred cows make the best hamburger

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

The speed of light isn't constant anymore than the speed of sound.

No, light "slows down" in matter because it takes time to interact with it. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant to all observers.

 

[danarhea]

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.
“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”
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.

CONTINUED: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

Interesting read, but this theory violates one of the fundamentals of physics, namely causality. If this can be proven, it will throw the whole study of physics into chaos.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Interesting read, but this theory violates one of the fundamentals of physics, namely causality. If this can be proven, it will throw the whole study of physics into chaos.

can you explain?

 

[USViking]

The speed of light isn't constant anymore than the speed of sound...

Yes it is.

The speed of each is affected by the medium they pass through. For example,
sound travels faster through water than through air and light travels slower.

However, sound emitted by a moving object submerged in water will reach
differently positioned observers at different speeds, whereas light emitted
by the same object will reach all observers at the same, constant speed.

It is matter and like all matter light can be affected by other matter, which is all over the place even in "space" though less so...

Whether light is matter is question of definition. If mass is a defining aspect
of matter, then light almost certainly does not conform, because more than a
century of experiment of ever-increasing refinement has failed to detect that
light possesses any mass.

But even if light is a form of matter that would do nothing for your notion
that light and sound share equal status as physical constants.

 

[USViking]

Intresting.

While I lack the specific education to appreciate the mathmatics of such theories, I like to read the general concepts.

I think Relativity does need to be challenged; it has become too much of a Sacred Cow. I'm sure it is no more the be-all end-all of cosmology and physics than Newton was... correct within a certain context, but not correct in ALL contexts.

Relativity is no sacred cow, despite voluminous experimental confirmation,
and it never has been, and never will be.

It has been contested since Day One by alternatives such as he one cited in this thread.

To date only Quantum Mechanics has survived as a serious rival, and even QM had
to accomodate Relativity before it was able to successfully predict any previously
unknown phenomena.

Relativity may well not survive whole. I expect it will survive as well as Newton's
theories have, meaning it will always be part of the answer for why Nature is as She is.

 

[USViking]

Interesting read, but this theory violates one of the fundamentals of physics, namely causality. If this can be proven, it will throw the whole study of physics into chaos.

Quantum Mechanics brought causality into serious question in the mid 1920s,
and causality has been vulnerable ever since.