There can be no rational question as to whether there was an event that began the universe and time. Such a thought is pure fantasy. But I have questioned for quite some time as to whether there was actually any kind of explosion that could justify the appearance of an expanding universe.
The reported evidence concerning the idea of an expanding universe comes entirely from the notion that an object speeding away yields a red-shifted spectrum of light and thus very distant objects that can be discerned as having a red-shift light have been taken to be speeding away.
I agree that objects at extreme velocity would yield such a red-shift effect. But there is rationale that provides for such a red-shift effect that doesn’t require high velocity at all, or any velocity. It is possible that there is no expanding going on at all and never has been.
As a light wave, or a photon, travels through billions of light years of space, it is possible, even probable, that the wavelength involved elongates. This would be due to the extreme amount of subtle interference with the wave as it travels such extreme distances. The peak gets delayed a hair more as the wave travels through mass/gravity fields. As the peak gets delayed, it shifts back slightly allowing the front, not delayed as much to proceed a little further out in front. The end effect would be that the apparent wavelength has increased.
This effect would be most prevalent in the most distant objects. And it has been noted that the most distant objects are also the ones with the most red-shift. And it has been theorized that no matter where the observer is, he will see the same red-shift effect as though everything were traveling away from himself.
Thus the idea that if one were to reverse time, space objects would return to a point of origin is very probably false. It is far more likely that they are not actually expanding away from each other at all, or if so, doing so comparatively little. Reversing time would not shrink the universe at all. Far distance objects would remain far distant and still display the same red-shift effect as they always have and always will simply because the light coming from them must always travel so very far as to lose its original shorter wavelength.
There was never any kind of Big Bang at all, not even an explosion.
Your theory doesn’t explain why distant bodies continue to redshift. By your reasoning, the redshift would be somewhat variable depending on what interference the light encounters on its way to us. However, from what I understand, we are only observing a continual redshift and some objects are just becoming fainter in general. So you’d have to explain why those wavelengths continue to elongate over time or admit that those objects are moving away.
Also, your theory only attacks the idea of an expanding universe. I don’t see why that would necessarily rule out a big bang resulting in a universe that stopped expanding at some point.
Like most folks here at ILP I don’t possess the requiste understanding of astrophysics to comment fully on your speculations. But it seems that your conclusion here is predicated on assumptions that cannot really be pinned down.
Can you and others here prove that an event occurred tens of trillions of years ago? Or is this, itself, a blind speculation?
What kind of audacity does it require from a scientist, that he believes he can accurately predict events which happened 1 trillion years ago, when most people cannot even remember or speculate what happened 1 day ago, yesterday or tomorrow?
Try 13.7 billion years, +/- 60 or so million. Also, while I can’t prove it began, I can certainly infer that the method by which it will end happens to jive pretty damned well with the whole “all matter condensed…” thing. Bose-Einstein condensates say goodbye to Red Dwarfs, if you need a hint.
I told you, I am not qualified to make one. But that does not stop me from being fascinated by the arguments of those who do deem themselves qualified. But James seems adament about something he is not qualified to be adament about. There are still too many variables open to speculation here.
Sure, he is certainly qualified to weigh in on the subject. But to insist there was never any big bang when most astronomers seem rather certain that there was requires evidence that goes well beyond things that are “probably” true or “more likely” to be.
I agreed to Doppler shift effects.
What I am disagreeing with is that ONLY Doppler shift explains red-shift.
The BB theory stems from the notion that only Doppler shifting can explain red-shift.
And it leads to some untenable conclusions.
My theory allows for Doppler shifting but not exclusively and leads to a more tenable conclusion that the universe actually isn’t expanding, but that doesn’t mean that nothing is moving at all. Some things would be blue shifted due to motion toward the observer and some would be red-shifted even more due to moving away from the observer.
There is a quasar that the BB leaves as unexplainable because it displays no red-shift at all and yet is extremely far away and the objects around it are all red-shifted. The BB doesn’t allow for such an occurrence. My theory would be merely that the quasar is moving toward the observer just enough to blue-shift compensate for the normal red-shift to be expected (due to its distance).
I agree that when I made that last statement, I expressed it with exaggerated confidence. I actually thought about that at the time and considered trying to reword it, but as you noted, I had already explained my position as proposing an additional possibility and in my view, a probability.
Yes, my theory includes why objects would continue red-shift. And yes, the degree of red-shift would vary, but extremely little considering that it is the result of billions of light years of experience averaged. During all of that travel, there would high and low points of shifting, but through such extreme distances totaled they would have a very narrow variation, probably too small to reasonably measure.
And i am not aware of any theory proposing that the universe stopped expanding.
James,
I wonder if this disbelief of yours is connected to your sense that the universe could not have had a beginning. IOW that you consider the idea illogical and consider this more than likely to be false and are looking for holes in the assumptions of current astrophysics. If so, I just wanted to mention that there are models that have both the big bang - some where this would be referred to as ‘a’ big bang - and notions of an enternal universe or meta-universe. As I write this I realize that you must have come in contact with these ideas, so I wonder what is it that makes you think those hypotheses are not correct.
On the contrary, long ago, my first thought was that just because something is expanding doesn’t mean that it totally began at some point. The idea of a grand singularity got ruled out long ago as being physically impossible under current laws of physics, but later, in my own RM work, got totally dismissed as being entirely irrational.
But after that realization, I was willing to accept (and stated many times in many places) that perhaps there was an extremely large explosion that resulted in the appearance of an expanding universe. And then more recently, I am finding more and more evidence that even the explosion notion isn’t adding up either.
The “red-shift due to distance of travel” idea came through an understanding of what the light is actually traveling through all that time. One can imagine something like a water or sound wave traveling for quite a distance and only being slightly affected. But a billion light years is an extremely, extremely, e x t r e m e l y long distance. And even the most minuscule affect over such an extreme journey is going to have a final total affect that should be noticeable, and should if anything cause a red-shift for understandable reasons.
The evidence is adding up to favor the notion that extreme distance of travel for light will result in red-shifting and thus challenge the BB theory that stems from the notion that there could be no other explanation.
