Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe? I believe so -
The idea of an eternal universe is highly speculative and doesn't quite fit with our current understanding of the universe's origins, such as the Big Bang theory. Any idea that has been around for a century cannot be easily dismissed but the James Webb Space Telescope is casting potential doubts on the Big Bang. If this continues, we may well find ourselves in need of another theory explaining cosmic origins.
When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. ("Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku, Penguin Books, p. 276-277) Einstein's equations say gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. (Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1925-027-01/S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/)
The farther away a star or galaxy is, the more the advanced part of waves from it will reach into the past, giving us a greater inaccuracy regarding its true distance. This increase is analogous to redshift increasing with distance. We might call it readshift - re(tarded) ad(vanced) shift. Readshift would explain the astronomical results which were interpreted as accelerating expansion of the universe. Surveyed supernovas would appear fainter, therefore apparently farther away than they truly are. Unless advanced waves are considered a possibility, the only rational way to move a supernova from its apparent, distant position to its true nearer location is to conclude the universe has expanded.
A backup to this point of view is presented in the article link at paragraph's end, in which a fresh perspective on the nature of electromagnetism is envisioned. The perspective uses John Wheeler’s geons and confines James Clerk Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetic waves by oscillating electric and magnetic fields to a quantum-scale role. The confinement restricts the motion of photons – and via George Yuri Rainich, gravitons – to a “bobbing up and down” in the cosmic sea which is perpendicular to the direction of waves’ propagation. The severely limited movements of gravity (space-time) and electromagnetism mean the universe never expands or contracts. (8) (PDF) Measurement of Gravity Leads to Gravitons Decaying Topologically. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375758112_Measurement_of_Gravity_Leads_to_Gravitons_Decaying_Topologically [accessed Nov 22 2023].
Surely an alternative to the Big Bang in which there’s no expansion or contraction (no oscillation in either space or time) must be an infinite, eternal cosmos. How is it even possible to think of creating something that has always existed? A model of the cosmos might be built that uses the infinite number pi and imaginary time, and resides in Virtual Reality (artificial, computer-generated simulation). The entanglement (quantum-mechanics style) in the simulated universe is unable to remain separate from the entanglement existing in our perceived reality because computers using so-called "imaginary time" (which is defined by numbers with the property i² = -1) remove all boundaries between the two universes. This enables them to become one Augmented Reality (known now as technology that layers computer-generated enhancements onto an existing reality but seen here as the related layering of virtual reality onto other points in time and space). The poorly named imaginary time of physics and mathematics unites with pi (both are necessary to generate a non-Big-Bang cosmos i.e. an infinite universe which, because space and time can never be separated, is eternal). This manipulation of time, space, and the universe with virtual and augmented reality might possibly be produced by the two-valued binary-digit system used in electronics traversing a wormhole, or shortcut between folds in space and time, designed by humans of the far future. The augmented reality which is layered on “other” points in space-time actually isn’t transmitted to other points. Because of the quantum entanglement of every particle (massive or massless) of everything in spacetime caused by advanced and retarded waves cancelling each other, only one point ever exists. Thus, transmissions to any (apparently other) places or times wouldn’t be restricted to the speed of light but can be made instantaneous by technology of the far future.
If time is quantized - like iSpace theory able to derive constants of nature from integer geometry without resorting to any human artefacts whatdoever has shown beyond reasonable doubt - and velocity c is exact (which is theoretically defined this way and can experimental hardly be doubted) it follows from simple length = time * velocity that length is quantized for sure. But if so it’s easy to see (from iSpace theoretical view) that also force must be quantized as well (in addition to fully accepted fact that angular momentum is quantized) as force is just Volt * Ampere * Second over length and Ampere is quantized in units of GoldenRatio in both iSpace-IQ and iSpace-SI units and as iSpace has proven long ago quantum hall resistence h/e^2 = (2*Pi3*6961 Volt / (GoldenRatio Ampere)) exactly (with Pi3 = 3 in simple changed distance definition based 6 cells around 1 cell based integer circle geometry) so Volt is quantized as well.
Now - puh … - have my excuse for the above given really long one-sentence proof that everthing is quantized - and necessarily so as a logical fact - and beyond reasonable doubt given the results of iSpace theory has helped to derive (see my RG home for detsils on exact value and inner inter-constant dependencies not known by mainstream physics as of today.).
And this finally brings us b for t above given really long odney Bartlett stating this question properly that there very well can be a fully static big bang free universe when thinking over the border of our little plate. As iSpace has shown - proven - above in one sentence that everything is quantized then nececesseriky follows from that a static integer geometry based 10D universe, with 3D space as perceived by us everyday and sume fully discrete LEGO style 7D subspace time forming some fully independent quantum arena as otherwise effects of likewise experimentally precisely confirmed relativity could not be explained nor united like iSpace theory allows and showed.
Joseph A Sprute
Is above a somewhat spiritual (or even religious) motivated answer - or do you have any hard mathematical facts what all if the above actually means in one everyday lab situations live?
Joseph A Sprute
I confess openly I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about (Insi suspect you don’t know really, either ..) but more so, what’s that got to do with science? But I have no time and willingness to discuss that (here) either. My fault answering into a way too vague stated question of Rodney Bartlett hence have to read replies like yours (as being informed by RG machine).
Maybe people should look at this possibility:
Article Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI)
Rodney Bartlett >: "Any idea that has been around for a century cannot be easily dismissed but the James Webb Space Telescope is casting potential doubts on the Big Bang."
The idea of "Big Bang" has been around for only a century; but the idea of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe is few centuries old, from the time of Epicurus (341 - 270 B.C.), to be exact and still breathing strong, specially after the recognition of the "Evil Quanta"!
"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" : http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
The Dialectical Universe: https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445
The "big Bang" model explains many observations. BUT it also fails to explain may other observations. So, the die-hard fans add other ad hoc features such as dark matter, dark Energy, inflation. Even then the are many other observations that elude the Big Bang. First, Hoyle, then Narlikar proposed a Quasi Steady State Cosmology which had sources of the stuff of our universe entering via Mini Creation Events. This model explained many of the problems of the Big Bang. But there are still observational issues such as Source work well with spiral galaxies but fail in Elliptical galaxies.
So, the Big Bang is impossible physics. What is required is a more complete model - that is, a more possible physics with a new paradigm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxoUAlek_9Q&t=4s
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Modeling