I kinda agree, we are in a cosmic wash, rinse and repeat cycle with the vacuum. The 95% and 5% going back and forth between each other. I think the CMB is because the whole damn place, including our 3 dimensions of space are decaying all of the time, which sorta sucks for us.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:15 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > July 27, 2010 > > Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe > > A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the > universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and > no end. > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/ > > As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, > the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is > scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the > Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find > alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely > compelling. > > That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the > National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative > new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass > are related in new kind of relativity. > > Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be > converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the > geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor > between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a > relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the > gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be > constant. > > So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and > space and vice versa as it contracts. > > This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of > expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot > exist in this cosmos. > > It's easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic > model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists. > > That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of > expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in > the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they > accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the > observations that astronomers have made on Earth. > > This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu's universe. > > That's in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on > the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was > discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying > contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work. > > The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a > dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. > For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the > energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate. > > But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation > of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have > conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics > in an attempt to square this circle. > > That paints Shu's ideas in a slightly different perspective. There's no > need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work. > > > That's not to say Shu's theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest > problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic > microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the > the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they > say, is the echo of the Big bang. > > How it might arise in Shu's cosmology isn't yet clear but I imagine he's > working on it. > > Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable > rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well > explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation > of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the > constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential > phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space > and time. > > Rightly or wrongly, that's a trade off that many will find hard. Let's > hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned > debate > > Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang >
