Posted on 02/13/2022 5:54:10 PM PST by nagant
Dr. Hooper delivers a very interesting lecture discussing the origins of the universe, and where it might be going according to the latest models of physics. Dr. Hooper's "hook" comes in minute 8. He says that an alternative view of universal expansion is that space is shrinking. It couches universal expansion in a way I’ve never considered, that alternatively, universal expansion can be stated as universal shrinkage.
For decades cosmologists have reported that, from redshift observations, the universe is expanding at a fixed rate, the Hubble constant. Recently astronomers took more accurate measures of how fast distant objects are receding, and discovered that actually the universe’s expansion appears top be accelerating. Distant objects appear to be receding at faster rates than they had previously receded.
My question: If local space is shrinking wouldn't that account for the observed discrepancy between redshift recession and direct measurement recession? The standard answer is that “dark energy” is causing expansion to accelerate. If local space is shrinking wouldn't we perceive the outer universe's recession to be accelerating when it's not?
One outcome of the gravitation model says a universe with more than critical mass will expand until it starts shrinking. Because past redshift observers saw receding objects they assumed the universe to be in the original expanding phase. However, they were observing the past universe. It seems to me that local shrinkage combined with past distant expansion would yield an observation of accelerated expansion.
The universe's expansion could reverse all at once, and we wouldn't know that the outer universe was doing anything but expanding. With local shrinkage it seems to me that we would perceive that the universe’s expansion is accelerating.
To me this model would account for acceleration without the need for dark energy. What am I missing?
this model would account for acceleration without the need for dark energy. What am I missing?
***Didn’t dark matter theories arise before we knew that the universe was acceleratingly expanding?
Interesting conjecture.
Egad! It makes more sense that the “dark matter” theory.
Thanks! I’ll finishing watching this tomorrow; I only just got started.
>>>
The tzimtzum or tsimtsum (Hebrew צמצום ṣimṣūm “contraction/constriction/condensation”) is a term used in the Lurianic Kabbalah to explain Isaac Luria’s doctrine that God began the process of creation by “contracting” his Ohr Ein Sof (infinite light) in order to allow for a “conceptual space” in which finite and seemingly independent realms could exist.
This primordial initial contraction, forming a ḥālāl happānuy “vacant space” (חלל הפנוי) into which new creative light could beam, is denoted by general reference to the tzimtzum. In Kabbalistic interpretation, tzimtzum gives rise to the paradox of simultaneous divine presence and absence within the vacuum and resultant Creation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum
Uninteresting (to me) viewpoint...
“Egad! It makes more sense that the “dark matter” theory.”
Did you watch the video?
“Compansion” or companion?
I think if space were shrinking and objects at the extreme ends of the universe were actually coming towards us rather than away, then all the objects would be blue-shifted and the ones most far away would be the most blue-shifted, which is EXACTLY opposite of what we are observing.
I hate shrinkage.
One man’s acceleration universe is another man’s contraction.
It’s not expansion or contraction, it’s “universal dimensional change”.
I think if space were shrinking and objects at the extreme ends of the universe were actually coming towards us rather than away, then all the objects would be blue-shifted and the ones most far away would be the most blue-shifted, which is EXACTLY opposite of what we are observing.
~~~~
Sure, contraction would look blue-shifted if you could view it as it happens. We can only observe distant objects as they were millions and billions of years ago as they were travelling away from us. We don’t know what those objects might be doing today. They could be accelerating toward us, but we would not know it.
Happens to me after a swim in the cold stream not far from here.
It’s not expansion or contraction, it’s “universal dimensional change”.
~~~~
I think you’re onto something there. Another way to describe expansion is time dilation, because time and space are equivalent. As I remember, when scientists finally assigned a number to the Hubble constant other scientists argued that some of the observed redshift could be explained by time dilation, because the photons travel through space/time with different densities dictated by density and movement of matter. How much redshift is due to recession and how much is due to time dilation? I don’t think the question was ever answered.
I think it’s pretty obvious we exist in a computer simulation.
“Compansion” or companion?
~~~~
Self invented. Compression + expansion.
Dolby and DBX noise reduction are “companders”. They compress when recorded, and expand when played.
For all we do know, there is infinity more that we do not as cloudy specks in the universe, and in Time and Eternity. Only God is omniscient.
READ LATER.
“The universe’s expansion could reverse all at once, and we wouldn’t know that the outer universe was doing anything but expanding. With local shrinkage it seems to me that we would perceive that the universe’s expansion is accelerating.”
Not a bad theory!
Though the term “local shrinking” is a bit misleading because it implies something special about our neck of the wood or that the rest of the universe is not shrinking at this moment in time. Another name might be “accelerated expansion illusion” (due to observational time shift between near and distant objects.)
I like it much better than the so-far fictional “dark matter and “dark energy” theory.
Seems to me it should be relatively easy to prove or disprove it, by theoretically answering the question: “What would the universe look like if shrinkage has already started?” And then doing the observations to test those predictions.
We probably already have a lot of applicable observations - it’s just a matter of comparing them to what the “illusion” theory predicts.
Also if shrinkage has started, the must have been a point in time in the past when the universe stood momentarily still - just as it stopped expanding and before the start of the shrinkage. Is there an observational or theoretical way to determine when that occurred?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.