I'm a newbie here. And although I have a technical degree in engineering I don't pretend to be an expert at astronomy or cosmology, although I find the subject immensely interesting.

In thinking about the Big Bang theory I came up with an alternative view to the expanding universe model which logically must be consistent with the same empirical phenomena that lead to the Big Bang Theory:

What do we mean when we say that the universe is expanding? I think we are saying that the scale of the universe is increasing over time. Increasing relative to what? Increasing relative to our methods of measuring distances and velocities between objects. In other words, the "yardsticks" which sciences uses for these purposes.

But logically speaking, what if, rather than the scale of the universe expanding, suppose that physical phenomena are shrinking over time. All the methods used to measure distances and velocities are based on matter and energy. If matter and energy are shrinking, then so are the "yardsticks" used to measure the expansion.

Thinking of matter shrinking relative to the scale of the universe over time is consistent with the same empirical phenomena as thinking of the universe as expanding relative to the scale of matter over time. They are logically equivalent to each other.

Yet the alternative perspective that I propose has the advantage of not requiring a sudden topological discontinuity of space-time at the Big Bang.

Thoughts?

Why wouldn't space shrink, too?

And wouldn't this necessitate infinite space at one point?

If the 'yardsticks' are shrinking, wouldnt this give us shorter measurements?!

And if only matter was shrinking, not space, this still does not explain the ever increasing distances between galaxies.

no science theory can even prove taht the universe is expanding. how can we even measure something that we can't even see.

If the 'yardsticks' are shrinking, wouldnt this give us shorter measurements?!

And if only matter was shrinking, not space, this still does not explain the ever increasing distances between galaxies.

Yes it would give us shorter measurements, but we wouldn't perceive them to be shorter because, well, we ourselves would be shorter as well :D

As far as the ever increasing perceived distances between galaxies, yes the "shrinking matter" view would predict that. Are you familiar with Alice through the Looking Glass and Alice in Wonderland? (Lewis Carroll) Suppose Alice is in a room. She takes a pill to make her small. How does she know she is getting small?

Her first instinct would not be that she is getting small, but rather that the room around her was getting bigger. Especially if there was other furniture in the room, and if the other furniture remained the same relative size to Alice as the relative difference in scale between her and the room progressed. She would also perceive that the "apparent" distance between her and the other furniture was increasing - i.e., receding.

Her first instinct would not be that she is getting small, but rather that the room around her was getting bigger. Especially if there was other furniture in the room, and if the other furniture remained the same relative size to Alice as the relative difference in scale between her and the room progressed. She would also perceive that the "apparent" distance between her and the other furniture was increasing - i.e., receding.

The scale and proportions of a person in a room are far different then galaxies in space. If matter were shrinking at the rate that we see the universe to be expanding, we would all be dots by now!

Why wouldn't space shrink, too?

And wouldn't this necessitate infinite space at one point?

I don't understand your second question. Please expand (forgive the pun :eek: )

As to the question of why space wouldn't shrink, first let me say that it could shrink. My premise is that matter and energy are shrinking relative to space and so if space is shrinking, then matter is shrinking all that much faster.

Second, - if you are talking about the warping of space due to increasing density of matter - the answer is that the density is increasing uniformly. Think of it this way:

Consider a point P. If we wind the clock backwards, then the density of matter at point P will eventually increase as we get closer to the beginning of the universe. Gravitational forces will increase at P. Eventually there will be a tendency for the universe to collapse around P as a black hole.

But the curvature of space at P may still remain constant because at all directions there are points P' and P" at opposite sides of P which exert equal and opposing gravitational forces on P. Therefore the region close to P remains topographically stable.

no science theory can even prove taht the universe is expanding. how can we even measure something that we can't even see.

We can measure what we can't see. I'm sure you've heard of radar and sonar, right?

The scale and proportions of a person in a room are far different then galaxies in space. If matter were shrinking at the rate that we see the universe to be expanding, we would all be dots by now!

I completely agree!!!

shrinking matter??? interesting... but problematic.

shrinking matter??? interesting... but problematic.

All human theories are problematic in some way or another.... I'm happy you found it interesting. :)

YES.. IT is inrigueing.....

oddball.... aand strange.....

mot.... but has a high probublility of truth..

but... highly problemetiic.......

-MT

Expanding space and the Big Bang theory explain why the universe isn't collapsing due to the gravitational force. If matter was shrinking, there would still be an overall net attraction, which would result in the blue-shifting of starlight. And if you try to get around this by pretending that the matter is shrinking so fast, that it is the cause of red-shifting, you have a problem with the objects in our local area that are lumping together and are already blue-shifting. You also have a problem with some of the distant objects that are "receding" so fast due to the expansion by the square of distance, that they relative rate of separation is close to the speed of light. Another problem (and this one alone cinches it) is that a uniform expansion explains why more distant objects are receding faster than nearer ones, while the contraction of matter would result in a uniform spacing of local shrinking.

The Big Bang theory explains a TON of observations. It isn't just a wild guess, it is an extremely strong theory. There are additions here and there, like hyper-inflation, and there are current problems, like the accelerating expansion, but nothing else comes close.

Expanding space and the Big Bang theory explain why the universe isn't collapsing due to the gravitational force. If matter was shrinking, there would still be an overall net attraction, which would result in the blue-shifting of starlight. And if you try to get around this by pretending that the matter is shrinking so fast, that it is the cause of red-shifting, you have a problem with the objects in our local area that are lumping together and are already blue-shifting. You also have a problem with some of the distant objects that are "receding" so fast due to the expansion by the square of distance, that they relative rate of separation is close to the speed of light. Another problem (and this one alone cinches it) is that a uniform expansion explains why more distant objects are receding faster than nearer ones, while the contraction of matter would result in a uniform spacing of local shrinking.

The Big Bang theory explains a TON of observations. It isn't just a wild guess, it is an extremely strong theory. There are additions here and there, like hyper-inflation, and there are current problems, like the accelerating expansion, but nothing else comes close.

The notion that A is expanding relative to B is empirically identical to the notion that B is shrinking relative to A. Therefore any scientific observation that one can make about one must necessarily be true in the other as well.

Take the case of gravity which you cited:

Gravitational attraction between objects is related to the inverse-square of their distance to each other. But under the "shrinking hypothesis," the yardsticks which we use to measure this distance are also shrinking. Therefore the perceived distance from an anthropocentric point of view, is increasing and the gravitational attraction between them is growing weaker.

In the case of frequency shifting, yes, the shrinking hypothesis predicts that as matter shrinks, wavelengths shrink (blue-shift). However our yardsticks for measuring distance are also shrinking, therefore this blue-shift is not perceptible to us. Even the color receptors in our eyes are shrinking, which makes them sensitive to ever shorter wavelengths of light.

it is my belief... that the fundamental particle... is simlar to electrostatic lines of force....

one dimensional lines..

there for... the imaginable limit for its size... is difficult to guess.


but...

im afraid that if matter was shrinking... it still wouldnt account for alot of the evidense we see..

for example... things dont seem larger in the past.

galaxies are expanding....
super clusters are expanding...

and so... i reserve some doubts about shrinking.

but it is interesting... i never thought of that.

-MT

im afraid that if matter was shrinking... it still wouldnt account for alot of the evidense we see..

for example... things dont seem larger in the past.

galaxies are expanding....
super clusters are expanding...

and so... i reserve some doubts about shrinking.

but it is interesting... i never thought of that.

-MT

You bring up an interesting point regarding things not appearing larger in the past. What would we see in deep space (that we don't already see) that would indicate that things were (or were not) larger in the past?

Remember, my "shrinking hypothesis" is based on a logical identity. Saying that "A" expands relative to "B" is logically identical to saying that "B" is shrinking relative to "A." There can be no values of "A" and "B" for which one statement is true and the other not true.

Just like saying A > B is logically identical to saying B < A. They are merely different ways of stating the same thing.

Am I wrong here?

hummm...

but... as far as anyone knows... matter.. isnt expanding or shrinking.

space supposively is....

i for one... dont believe it is expanding at all.... it just looks that way.

in which case... there is no need for shrinking.

but it may look that way.

-MT

I SAY... space is in motion... 4 D motion.. which is 2 directional.

so it looks like expansion... and if it could.. it would.

i believe space cannot.. expand.. it resists.

and that resistance... caused the birth of the fundametal particles...

as.... one dimensional lines... of... SPATIAL TENSION.

-MT

Since there is an acceleration in the expansion of the universe , this means that as we go back in time the speed of the expansion slows down, so in the beginning there was nothing moving.

I think there was a Big clump of matter that formed in to very close stars and then started expanding due to the radiation and explosions. Speaking of pushing of radiation heres an Example of the push. This galaxy has been pushed into a ring by the radiation force of the central Supernovae Object.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11072&page=20

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0209/hoag_hst.jpg

Hoag's Object: A Strange Ring Galaxy
Credit: R. Lucas (STScI/AURA), Hubble Heritage Team, NASA

Is this one galaxy or two? This question came to light in 1950 when astronomer Art Hoag chanced upon this unusual extragalactic object. On the outside is a ring dominated by bright blue stars, while near the center lies a ball of much redder stars that are likely much older. Between the two is a gap that appears almost completely dark. How Hoag's Object formed remains unknown, although similar objects have now been identified and collectively labeled as a form of ring galaxy. Genesis hypotheses include a galaxy collision billions of years ago and perturbative gravitational interactions involving an unusually shaped core. The above photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in July 2001 reveals unprecedented details of Hoag's Object and may yield a better understanding. Hoag's Object spans about 100,000 light years and lies about 600 million light years away toward the constellation of Serpens. Coincidentally, visible in the gap (at about one o'clock) is yet another ring galaxy that likely lies far in the distance.


There is no need of Big bang for expansion of Universe, that Stephen Hawking is a Dumb moron.

exactly....


there was no big bang.

only the explosion of solid nucleon mass's....

into super clusters...
into gaLAXIES..
INTO solar systems....


all... following a natural progressive pattern.

-MT

I think that Superstring theory also did away with the need for a sudden Big Bang as well. You should therefore be able to extrapolate back in time before the Big Bang. It dispenses with the singularity problem, but at the cost of multiple dimensions and universes.

Whether one views space as expanding or matter as shrinking, particles close to the BB were crowding each other out. The wave functions of elementary particles folded onto each other so tightly that it is not meaningful to think of these particles as being separated in space any more - hence a merging of the basic forces in nature.

As one projects backward even further, the superstrings themselves began crowding each other out spatially as well, suggesting that the multiverse merged into a single universe analogous to the way the forces merged close to the Big Bang.

STRINGS??? or lines of spatial tension?

-MT

STRINGS??? or lines of spatial tension?

-MT

Strings are multi-dimensional. I think it's 10 or 11 dimensions - I can't remember which. Although they are called strings I don't think one should put too much emphasis on the "long and slender" image which we associate with real world strings. I believe that the string concept is meant to be an analogy to the string of a musical instrument, which can be made to vibrate in different ways, producing different sounds, and defining different vibrational shapes.

Since particles, like sounds, may also be described as waves, particles have their own "music." But this music describes all of the known properties of the particles, therefore the need for extra dimensions.

In String theory, strings are very very tiny. They are orders of magnitude smaller than quarks.

exactly my point...

i dont believe in strings... i believe in lines of force... spatial tension.


and its one dimensional....

by adding vector forces to it... we can increase its dimensional quality.

if your interested i can post some pictures.

-MT

The string theory is based on a of flaw in AstroScience, ie. Space Bending.

When there is no space bending, there cant be a string theory.