Dust from Outer Space Found in Antarctica (A 'Galaxy' Most Popular)
Image of the Day: The First Stars of the Milky Way (A Weekend Feature)

"The Big Bang Never Happened" The New Standard?

Storytelling-10-02-01 While there is scientific consensus that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, there's a growing chorus of doubters among the world astrophysics community, led by the fascinating new work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan who has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity.

Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. In other words, as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

The Shu universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities such as the Big Bang cannot exist in this cosmos. During a period of expansion, an observer in Shu's universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some bizarre contortions with the laws of physics to make the Standard Model work. The most commonly discussed x-factor is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate, ignoring the law of conservation of energy in an attempt to square this circle.

With Shu's theory there's no need to abandon conservation of energy. However, he faces a major problem explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang occurred. 

Shu's approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time.

Casey Kazan


Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang


In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two.

Or there is equivalence between expansion and contraction of the Universe of variable size; or the size of the Universe is constant and it is the rate at which time flows that speeds up or slows down. The clock speed on the CPU of the simulation is variable!

Sheesh, we thought we knew so much more 50 years ago.
Now it's like we need to start from scratch.

Mass is seconds per metre squared, as it follows from uncertainty being 'forced' to happen. Uncertain geometry paper has been available for a while now. Energy does not have to be conserved, it just has to maintain relative measure in the practical locality of test.

"Sheesh, we thought we knew so much more 50 years ago.
Now it's like we need to start from scratch."

The result of better technology. Like the difference between Lovell's smooth, canaled Mars and Mariner's cratered desolation.

"Start from scratch" good. Start from scratch" science.

"However, he faces a major problem explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang occurred."

So, basically, his theory totally fails to explain the most important data we have. Next!

"However, he faces a major problem explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang occurred."

So, basically, his theory totally fails to explain the most important data we have. Next!

It seems the only constant of Science is shifting paradigms!

Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting this.

I'm Ok with most parts of this new idea, but what do they suggest triggers the periods of expansion?

I guess the most obvious thing to blame would be the centripetal force of the contracted universe-mass as it spins, but that's just my best guess. Anybody else have any ideas?

Oh, by the way. Everybody please check out https://sites.google.com/site/edocsil6437/science and tell me what you think of it. There's a 'comments' page on the left side of the screen. I welcome criticism and arguments.

It would seem to make sense that the speed of light will decay over time. Everything else in nature decays over time. Assuming space continues to expand, gravity will likely decay over time as the universe expands well beyond its current bounds. Again assuming space continues to expand, it would seem likely that what is represented as "dark matter" and "dark energy" will also decay over time as the density and temperature of the universe approaches zero.

What happens if space ceases to expand (doesn't contract) but time continues? Can that happen, or, at that point, is contraction automatic?

Perhaps after a huge amount of time (and both atomic and subatomic decay), the things that we view as mass, energy, dark matter and dark energy are governed by another set of physical laws and dimensions that we know nothing about.

Einstein hated the concept that the Universe had a beginning or an end, if I'm not mistaken...

The CMB can be explained as the ambient temperature of starlight heating the void it passes through. It turns out that it's exactly the same temperature as space heated by radiation from the presumed big bang: 3 degrees Kelvin. No need for a Big Bang at all. Expansion and contraction are different matters entirely and not so easily explained.

Shu's universe must alternate between expansions and contractions, which is another unlikeable human term resembling a beginning or end. A universe of Black holes should be without a final upper and lower boundary size scale or mass limit. Gravity could be local dark energy expansion into forming an enormous singularity that will definitely exit in our future time which is relativity. If we could travel at light speed we could watch the 150 billion light year distant dark flow mass form in our cosmic horizon. I believe fractal information event horizons that are self-similar contain equivalent entropy such that a tiny neutron is size scale identical with a neutron star much like grains of sand form huge sandstone deposits. A supernova is brighter then the galaxy, and an atomic bomb is like the sun. Consider ourselves very oridnary and nothing unique and assume it was not the 1 out of everything probability.

the universe is a 4-d mobius strip.

i think the universe approaches of something, with more gravity or other laws.

Fred Hoyle.

I see the underlying universe as a super cooled fluid. Some event happened (bit sketchy on that bit) which caused a disturbance and allowed our atomic universe to condense like ice crystals forming in a super cooled fluid. This event is still progressing which is ever increasing the size of the atomic universe, creating matter at the fringes which then exerts gravitational pull on the matter closer in from the edge, driving the apparent expansion of the atomic universe. Dark matter would simply be the underlying universe (brane?)not yet condensed. Once the condensation has completed I wonder will time stop?

Everyone here is obsessed with time and their imagination running amok.
If the universe is some 12.5 billion light years old can anyone be able to explain or imagine what happened right at that point of "time"? or say just 1 light year before that event? or the same lenght of time before that?
Who are we to come up with notions that create a rule? We have the capacity to make sense of things based on "fidelis" information, yet can anyone claim as such?.
Time is just a mental notion, a tool that helps us to understand how things work or evolve.
For and in fact time is forever present, hence Eternal. Yes we are just accounting from our point of view and not from the Source of all things made.

the big band

1. Big Bang is just a speculative and constructed theory.
2. Local conditions in the nearest cosmic surroundings suggest an expanding movement (NOT a general expansion in the whole Universe)
3. In the Universe, contraction and expansion always takes place.
4. The contraction is the result of cosmic explosions building magnetic fields in molecular gas and dust.
5. The extraction is the result of gas and dust melted together in these magnetic swirling fields, building larger spheres of gas and matter that becomes stars and planets when the melting point is reached and everything is slung out from the center when the explosion takes place.
6. In the cosmic law of movement “gravity” as general understood, is quite out of the equation and not necessary in order to explain the cosmic movements. It is just the magnetic field that contract gas and matter – and it is just the explosions, for instants in a galaxy, that expands the larger spheres of gas/stars and matter/planets.
7. It is NOT the Universe as a whole that contracts and expands, but it is ALL the movement in the whole Universe.

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen

Ivar Nielsen you make more sense than a lot of people.
The incredibly stupid Big Bang idea for me is that the entire Universe was influenced by the Big Bang. It seems it never occured to all these brilliant scientists that the Big Bang might be just a very small part of the whole. Then you have the even more stupid argument that the Universe was created in a black hole, I guess the massive gravity in a black hole will really help with expansion wouldn't it ! Not to mention you would need a humongous star outside of the Universe that would have to die to create this black hole, unless of course magic was involved.
I find it a bit puzzling that string theory is thrown out the window by a lot of scientists. Collisions of branes could well be the big bang, with the Universe being nothing more than an undulating brane with certain areas moving faster than others like on a wave. This would relegate gravity to nothing more than a by product of matter.

well the big bang might of not happened. maybe. BUT this spot of space-time did come from a beginning. Time has only been seen for 13.7 billion years, or that we can see so far. Was is the beginning of time? or only how much time has only traveled to us since the creation of the universe. Maybe i said this wrong but isnt time all perception to whos viewing it.


just right.

Hey Dr. Paul Cook. How do you mean "heating the void it passes through"? If something truly is a void, then it has no mass, and so it can't accumulate energy like that. I was thinking that star radiation might heat the trace gases drifting through space, but surely even hydrogen must have a freezing point, right? How does it stay gaseous at 3 Kelvin?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)