Theory That Aims To Answer Current Big Bang Models Problems

[JasonDoege]

This theory aims to explain dark energies recently discovered exponential rate increase, the matter/anti-matter imbalance, the nature of dark matter, the cause of inflation, and their relationships.

 

If you are willing to give this theory a quick glance to see if it would be worth your time I would really appreciate it. It's not very long or complicated.

Recent discoveries by many professional agencies have observed that dark energies rate is not only increasing like we thought, the rate of increase is increasing too. (quintessence).

 

This could be because of gravitational time dilation. The rate more space is generated increases because there is less gravity In the area in all 3 dimensions as mass moves further away. And as this happens the amount of space available to do more generating is created, so more speed to create and more area of creation. This seems to be confirmed by recent studies and is a discrepancy the current model fails to account for. But an extreme professional would have to analyze the math behind this theory to see if it holds up.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data

This means in space that lacks any mass dark energy will peak where time and space are generated at an extremely high rate. At t=0 all of space would have this property.  This would generate infinitesimal areas of space(infinitesimal cubes, because space is flat) with heights and widths slightly smaller than the space between virtual particles have with their partner when they are generated by a fluctuating string. This is because these excited cubes would generate virtual particles that are split randomly on opposite halves of the cubes almost immediately around them as it generated slightly more space than they needed for them to occupy. 

 

This random distribution would leave an asymmetry in the amount of matter/anti-matter produced on opposite randomly aligned halves of the infinitesimal cubes. The dominantly generated particle or anti-particle on each half during a long enough successive flow would annihilate its opposite on that half leaving pockets of cmbr in space, pockets of remaining particles, and pockets of empty fresh space that was generated without a particle in it. This fresh space would also have roughly the same excited state as the original cube and generate on its own but the generation in an already dominated side would not change the amount of matter/anti-matter in the already dominated area, just it's location. This would account for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry problem.

 

Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original peak would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. The edges of the original cubes generations would align with their neighbors where a small amount of the close enough matter interacted.

Virtual particles become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force.

 

The initially generated space would be spreading very quickly but would slow down as the mass was generated this is concurrent with what we know about the big bang. Lots of generated mass/energy, lots of expansion. That slows rapidly, where dark energy slowly takes over again as its accelerations compound relative to the space/time that's still being generated relative to the rate that the mass around the initial cube is being diminishingly generated.

 

This might also explain what dark matter really is, because the diminishing sphere of gravity around galaxies would exponentially diminish the rate of dark energy and in every point of matter that occupied space that rate would be zero. A professional would have to check the math behind this.

I'm not sure the correlation of size of virtual particle to it's likely hood of generation but larger particles that were generated in this fashion with no anti pair near them would have decayed long before now.

 

If you've read this far I really appreciate it. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by JasonDoege

[JasonDoege]

 

Sorry if I used bad sources. you can just google dark energy rate change and it pops up everywhere, the first page being nasa itself

https://www.bing.com/search?q=dark+energy+rate+change&form=EDGTCT&qs=PF&cvid=7085ba7573d041559fe594060ee1e0fb&refig=23eef2d48866432deca08b0b11de5d2f&cc=US&setlang=en-US&elv=AY3%21uAY7tbNNZGZ2yiGNjfPhTFQyYYprkBUuYHmQorP3mOEioXWDas7nQVE45bHY*JzQUvOeggDBtrcrfjp7YtwXoutiMGsicoh4*Vfk5YLv&plvar=0

 

I tweaked the dark matter theory a bit since then but its not a crux to this theory just an addition. if you have thoughts about the rest of the theory id be grateful, especially if its scrutiny.

Edited December 22, 2019 by JasonDoege

[Mutex]

The elephant in the room is that just possibly the big bang models themselves are wrong, that is the big bang did not happen as advertised. 

 

The actual evidence that 'supports' the big bang models also equally (or better) support a static (by dynamic) universe. The two primary bits of evidence for the big bang is the redshift / distance relationship and the CMBR, both of which can be explain in a non-expanding universe.

 

If fact what would be notable and astonishing would be a universe without redshift distance and background radiation, expanding or not.

[Mutex]

What else can cause the overwhelming majority of red shifted galaxies we have other than an expanding universe? 

 

Gravitational shift or otherwise called Einstein shift of light fits the redshift / distance relationship far better (IMO) the observed 'loose' relationship of redshift / distance. The reason why redshift is not a perfect fit is because the Universe is not perfectly homogenous and isotropic, and objects (typically galaxies) have different  mass and mass distribution. So the redshift/distance relationship is far from even and uniform. (fitting exactly what we observe). 

 

The LCDM or FLRW models require new and speculative physics to explain the redshift, such as comoving space or some new form of Doppler neither of which actually fit the observations (thus the great cosmology crisis). So gravitational shift, which is a real thing and based on solid science (you can observe gravitational shift in a high rise building!!) fits the bill very well.

 

As for CMBR, what would be astonishing (and impossible) would be a universe full of background matter (at a temperature, so black body radiators) NOT having cosmic background radiation.

 

I like virtually everyone else has lived my life fully buying into the BB models, so for me it came as a big shock to decide that actually the evidence does not really support that model (or models) very well at all. To the point where I can only now conclude that the BB models (all of them) are wrong.

 

This means Einstein's biggest mistake was in thinking he made his biggest mistake, he was right with General relativity, the universe is static but dynamically active.

[Mutex]

Doesnt that leave you with an Horizon problem, unless you are stating galaxies further away have higher mass than those closer to us. 

Gravitational red shift alone does not explain why most distant galaxies are more red shifted than those closer to us. An additional expansion of space is required. 

 

I would agree space is dynamic, and not completely uniform. The expansion of space between galaxies does not need to be constant, except in idealized mathematical models.

 

 

 

Any model requiring dark matter(imaginary none existent matter) to make it work is likely on dodgy grounds this includes GR.

The fact that the LCDM model requires dark matter, and Rotational curves of galaxies require dark matter, suggests there is glaring hole in both the big bang model and in GR. 

Yes Gravitational shift is real thing based on solid science. Are you saying the estimates of solar masses and luminosities should be changed so that you achieve a static universe. ie via changing what the stars are burning to make your figures agree?

 

Various Inflationary models of Big Bang attempt to address the slight none homogeneity of the CMBR. They also claim great success, A nobel prize was handed out Alan Guth, and also maybe Linde ?

 

 

 

I was originally taught the BB started with a singularity with infinite mass, and never believed it. Later I learned about an inflationary period preceding the original BB, and suspect it "might" be possible in an idealized world. However I would also suspect multiple Big Bangs might have occurred, giving rise to the none homogenious nature of the CMBR.

 

I like part of Penroses Cyclic universe ideas, but definitely not his or any ones ideas on multiverses. That aside I do buy some of the ideas coming out of string theory, and emergent gravity, emergent time etc. A underlying membrane connecting all of space is amusing. Space and time emerge from it at increasingly faster rates in the absence of gravity, eventually separating virtual particle pairs, resulting in a big bang, from unstable particles caused by an inflation of space.

 

The lumped BB models do exclude continual particle creation as described by Hoyle, but again does inflation have to happen everywhere all at once, or can it happen on a smaller scale creating galaxies between galaxies.

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSE IS DYNAMICALLY ACTIVE ? I am not buying static Andromedas coming this way

 

No, there is no horizon problem, it's just in general terms with a generally uniform distribution of matter there is a relationship with distance and redshift, an effect that is exactly described with Gravitational shift (not just redshift either, just shift). Variations in mass density (RSD, relative space density) is just another factor that makes the fit not close. As Hubble and everyone else has observed, it's not a good fit.

 

Gravitation shift is a redshift / distance, further away = more shifted (in general), shift from expansion required unknown physics (as it is neither Doppler shift or Gravitational shift).

 

IF the expansion of 'space' is not constant, or constant at any particular location that is a massive problem for Big Bang models, that means the cosmological constant is not actually constant, so on that basis how can you make any claims about a particular BB start time?

 

​Any model requiring dark matter(imaginary none existent matter) to make it work is likely on dodgy grounds this includes GR.

 

 

I don't think GR requires dark matter, I also think DM is imaginary and none existent. GR is just correct, things are relative.

 

 

Yes Gravitational shift is real thing based on solid science. Are you saying the estimates of solar masses and luminosities should be changed so that you achieve a static universe. ie via changing what the stars are burning to make your figures agree?

 

The  figures don't agree now, with the various BB models, that's the problem the data does not support the conclusion, that is the cosmological crisis. 

 

If the redshift is not the result of an expanding universe, then there is no evidence that the universe is expanding, if it is not expanding (and I don't think the evidence supports that it is) then the only alternative is that it is not expanding. (Static, ie not expanding, but Dynamic, ie, stuff still happens, just not expansion).

 

 

Various Inflationary models of Big Bang attempt to address the slight none homogeneity of the CMBR. They also claim great success, A nobel prize was handed out Alan Guth, and also maybe Linde ?

 

That's the overall problem with big bang cosmology, it's all an attempt to justify observations into a model or a suite of models, the other consideration might just be that the overall Big Bang model is incorrect.

 

I feel that once you stop presupposing a big bang you loose confirmation bias and observations begin to make sense, redshift / distance? Sure that's just gravitational shift we know how that works, CMBR? Sure we know that so far all we can see of the CMB is 'foreground' dust, the reason why it is at a very uniform 2.7k is because thermodynamics and it's just dust (background matter) at a uniform temperature. 

 

 

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSE IS DYNAMICALLY ACTIVE ? I am not buying static Andromedas coming this way

 

I also like some of Penrose's idea, but only in respect the idea of space and time being 'defined' by matter, a universe with only energy/light there is no 'ruler' and therefore no measure of space or time.

 

By 'dynamically active' and 'static' I mean static in that it is not expanding, by dynamic I mean things more around, interact and stuff happens it's dynamic and active, just not expanding.

 

I think that galaxies are 'island universes' and that there are 'continuous' 'big bangs' that continually cycle matter and energy  (in black holes), but that is starting to get into another 'alternative' model of space and time that I have. (a non-geometrical model of relativity).

 

The 'di Sitter' effect/gravitational shift gives us a redshift with distance relationship, it also gives us a blue shift with closeness as well (those objects are in our gravitational 'well').

 

So is Andromedas actually coming this way or is it just close enough and sharing gravity with us such that it is blue shifted? (or a bit of both?)

 

Thanks so much for your reply and considered thoughts.. This is what science is all about..