Many paradoxes have been created the last 100 years after the complete dominance of relativity theories in cosmology.
We could talk about the End of Physics, in a similar manner as F. Fukuyama wrote about the End of History in 1989.
But, contrary to our thoughts, neither History nor Physics have stopped evolving.
Thus, do we need to start even from scratch, in order to build a new consistent and without paradoxes cosmological paradigm?
Article Why relativity theories cannot serve as a cosmological paradigm
Dear @Demetris, I think that we do always need to rebuild new consistent and without paradoxes paradigms in Cosmology, Physics, Mathematics, and all other scientific theories.
The following article entitled: "Problems with the Current Cosmological Paradigm" by T. Shanks deals with the problems of the existing paradigm. Abstract: The standard LCDM cosmological model continues to face fundamental problems. First, the model continues to depend wholly on two pieces of undiscovered physics, namely dark energy and cold dark matter. Then, the implied dark energy density is so small that it is unstable to quantum correction and its size is fine-tuned to the almost impossible level of one part in ~10^102; it is also difficult to explain the coincidence between the dark energy, dark matter and baryon densities at the present day. Moreover, any model with a positive cosmological constant also creates fundamental difficulties for superstring theories of quantum gravity. We also review the significant number of astrophysical observations which are now in contradiction with the LCDM model. On the grounds that the SNIa Hubble diagram is prone to evolutionary corrections and also that the CMB power spectrum may be contaminated by the effects of foreground ionised gas, we argue that the existence of such systematics could still allow more satisfactory, alternative, models to appear. We suggest that if H_0
Dear Abedallah, thank you for the article that you mentioned, it is very interesting.
It deals, among others with the ΛCDM problems (Λ fine-tuning problem, astrophysical problems etc), but he is trying to fix the problems by standing on the current broadly accepted theories, just an example: "... higher-dimensional ‘brane-world’ cosmologies motivated by string theories ..."
So, the problem becomes more difficult, if we involve string theories inside.
Dear All, I have been thinkiing about universe(s) many years...
Look at the next scheme, where every time the anthropocentric view is getting smaller and smaller:
- once upon a time Earth was the Center of Cosmos (CoC) and we had questions about "what if we reach at the end of Earth?"
- then Sun was the CoC and we had questions "Do all stellar objects rotate around Sun?"
- after our Galaxy(Milkyway) was the CoC and questions about "What is the relation between Galaxy and other objects?"
- then the Local Cluster of Galaxies was the CoC
- after our universe was the CoC with questions: "What existed before big-bang?", "Where the extra created space is coming from, concering the expansion?",
- finally our universe is being our Local Universe inside the Cosmos, just like our Local Planetary System
I think it is a logical induction, from our Local Earth to the concept of a Local Universe.
Dear @Demetris, according to your approach, is there a guarantee that we reached the final correct model?
Dear Abedallah, I accept next Axiom or Postulate or Dogma:
"Nature should in principle be more complex than a creation (Mathematics) of one of of its subsets (Humanity)"
When you try to search in such a level you have to stand on some Axioms and no guarantee exists.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics