No Expanding Universe, No Dark Energy?

    But doesn't the Big Bang Theory require the universe to be a closed system? If it were not it would not have evolved to what we observe currently. Also, gravity has nothing to do with the stretching. You're not paying attention.

    Currently, the makeup of the universe is given as 4.9% normal matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.3% dark energy. The universe came into existence with a universe of energy carried by gamma rays, high energy photons, which can be puled up without limit. For anything to happen the universe would have to cool (lose energy). Simple expansion wouldn't do it as the photons could rattle around forever without losing energy. Having the photons be stretched by the expansion does. Having the lost energy becomes dark matter is a bonus and puts things into an interesting perspective, as there is currently 5.47 times as much dark matter as normal matter. This means most of that initial photonic energy never became normal matter. Some was converted before baryonic matter was created, a little during that creation, and most of the rest after.

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    Did you bother to read Lombriser's paper? The mathematical treatment leaves the predicted measurements unchanged. The theory still fits the observed red shifts etc without requiring cosmic expansion. I think you didn't open the links, just support the current dogma religiously.

    Thanks for encouraging me to be less lazy.


    It is a nice paper - but both more useful and less radical than saying that the big bang does not exist.


    Both these theoretical and observational challenges have prompted for the development and search of new physics [11, 12]. In contrast, a less radical approach to venturing beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics and ΛCDM is the simple mathematical reformulation of our theoretical frameworks underlying them. This can offer new perspectives with different physical interpretations and possibly even provide solutions for these theoretical and observational problems.


    Or in more detail:


    The field equations can now be recast into a different geometry $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} = A_{\;\;\;\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta} \hat{g}_{\alpha\beta} + B_{\mu\nu}$ as

    Equation (4)

    This is merely a mathematical manipulation, simply a substitution of the variable one is solving the differential equation (3) for. Just as with any other differential equation, one may always perform such a change of variable, in this case the metric. The physics remains unchanged. Note, however, that freely falling particles in $\hat{T}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g})$ no longer follow geodesics for $\tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}$, which manifests as an additional interaction and breaks a degeneracy for visible matter species between the two frames set by the two different metrics. In contrast, an interacting dark sector is simply receiving additional interactions. Alternatively to equation (4), one could also define modified geometric and matter sectors such as $\tilde{M}_{\mu\nu} \equiv \hat{G}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g})$ and $\tilde{T}^\mathrm{eff}_{\mu\nu} \equiv \hat{T}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g})$ in $\tilde{M}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g}) = \kappa^2 \tilde{T}^\mathrm{eff}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{g})$ or other terms that are equation (3) in disguise. A consequence of these reframed field equations is that one may cast the physics of a system into a spacetime geometry of choice. The implications of that for our physical interpretation and understanding of the observed Universe will be the main subject of this article.


    Thus It is not challenging the idea of a big bang (or bounce). Rather it is saying that mathematically the same cosmology can be described in two ways:

    1. (as is usually popularised) an expansion of space with particles under gravitation following geodesics

    2. (via a conformal transformation which leaves equations the same) a static space in which particles under gravitation following non-geodesics


    The negative is that it breaks the beautiful simplicity of gravity, and therefore requires additional assumptions and constants. The merit is that having recast everything there is scope for more natural explanations of inflation (for sure) and (possibly) dark matter and energy.


    So I am all for it. It seems like a step backwards (abandoning the simple "particles move along spacetime geodesics") that might allow us to go forwards in new directions with more confidence.


    What it does not do is say that the universe is different, or make predictions for new observations, merely that it can be described by different and maybe better maths.


    The best analogy (not however exact) is the difference between different QM interpretations. These do not, and cannot, be differentiated through observations and therefore are physically irrelevant. The analogy is not exact because having reformulated gravity and spacetime in this way the set of "extra stuff that is natural" on top of gravity changes. We have all this "extra stuff" from observations, so the reformulation might have real merit.


    THH

    Quote from GRMattson

    But doesn't the Big Bang Theory require the universe to be a closed system?

    Big bang is bible religion.


    And the closed system is always related to the one you measure.... But there is none as you can't show teh borders...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    that freely falling particles in no longer follow geodesics for , which manifests as an additional interaction and breaks a degeneracy for visible matter species between the two frames set by the two different metrics.

    Unluckily 99.999999% of our space is empty and the metric then is always flat. So it's just the pipi moment (emission of photon) that should account for a new fantasy....

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.