Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Nizzle on 03/09/2009 07:44:41
-
What do we know?
We know that in the very early stage of our Universe, matter did not exist and the Universe was filled with radiation. Only later, when the Universe expanded and started cooling, matter was created out of this radiation.
Standing hypothesis:
Right now, scientists believe that dark matter (which is proven to exist) would slow down expansion of the universe, and that dark energy (not yet proven to exist) is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
My hypothesis:
What if there is no dark energy? What if the acceleration of expansion is merely an effect of a Universe-wide conversion of matter back into radiation (like stars use matter to create light and heat), without a countering conversion of radiation into matter (because the Universe is too cold for that)?
This would continuously lower the total mass of our Universe, and therefore constantly lowering gravitational pull. Combined with conservation of expansion momentum, this might explain the acceleration of expansion of the universe.
And eventually, the Universe will be a very big place, void of matter, but filled with radiation at a much lower density than the big bang, unable to create matter anew.
Could this hypothesis withstand our current understanding of the universe?
-
What do we know?
We know that in the very early stage of our Universe, matter did not exist and the Universe was filled with radiation. Only later, when the Universe expanded and started cooling, matter was created out of this radiation.
We don't know that; it is part of the Big Bang theory.
Standing hypothesis:
Right now, scientists believe that dark matter (which is proven to exist) would slow down expansion of the universe, and that dark energy (not yet proven to exist) is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
I think that dark matter has not been proven to exist. It simply enjoys a better probability of existing than dark energy. Maybe this is just nit picking, but small misconceptions like this can lead to larger misconceptions.
My hypothesis:
What if there is no dark energy? What if the acceleration of expansion is merely an effect of a Universe-wide conversion of matter back into radiation (like stars use matter to create light and heat), without a countering conversion of radiation into matter (because the Universe is too cold for that)?
This would continuously lower the total mass of our Universe, and therefore constantly lowering gravitational pull. Combined with conservation of expansion momentum, this might explain the acceleration of expansion of the universe.
I suspect that there is a universe-wide conversion of matter into radiation by the methods you indicate. However there is also a universe-wide conversion of radiation into matter. Ions in space have all the energy they need to fuse when they collide. And normal everyday matter absorbs radiation to become more massive, thus converting radiation into matter. So I think you've solved a problem that doesn't exist. [:)]
-
The accelerating rate of expansion of the universe may not need Dark Energy to be explained. The expansion of the universe doesn't accelerate objects away from each other through a static volume but instead expands the volume itself, which then carries the objects away from each other, with no apparent acceleration being experienced by the objects.
Opposing this is the gravitational attraction between the objects, which does result in an acceleration through space.
Because the expansion of the universe is not due to a force and it's effect isn't dependent upon distance, but the gravitational force opposing it is, the result will be that the gravitational contracting force opposing expansion will decrease while whatever drives universal expansion doesn't.
What we may be seeing then, in the apparent increase of the rate of expansion, is not an actual increase in the expansion rate but a reduction in the gravitational force opposing it so that the overall rate increases.
I'm not saying that this is the explanation, just that it needs to be considered as a factor.
-
I am never assumptive enough to say to anyone that they are wrong so take my reply as simply that:
Do we know dark matter exists? Depends on how you look at the data. We can not yet account for 70% of the galaxy's mass. We then assume this means there is unknown or "dark matter". One could say that either; okay there is unaccounted for mass or dark matter or one could say we are measuring wrong.
Was there energy before the big bang - assuming the big bang is correct? Well the BB did work and therefore there must have been energy. However, if I took the BB as fact, I would then state that all the energy would have been within the mass that caused the "everything".
It is difficult to speculate any further since I do not yet accept the BB theory. Good luck and keep at it.
-
I also suspect that the Big Bang theory does not represent reality. We suspended the laws of nature in our guesses about its magic. We suspended the laws of nature also in all our other creationist guesses. Couple this magic with our overwhelming desire to find a creator, and my suspicions grow even more.