There Was No Big Bang at the Start of the Universe

Hubble_ultra_deep_field Alasdair Wilkins writes on io9.com:

A new theory explains the accelerating universe without invoking mysterious, unseen dark energy to account for the expansion. But it also gets rid of singularities, an unchanging speed of light … and the most famous astrophysical phenomenon of all, the Big Bang.

The observation of certain supernovas in the late 1990s led astronomers to the very unexpected discovery that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is speeding up. There was nothing in the existing laws of physics to account for this, and so the only solution was dark energy — a mysterious force so named because we’ve never detected it, and yet it has to make up 75% of all the energy and mass in the universe for it to account for this cosmic acceleration. Also, the existence of dark energy weakens the supposedly inviolate law of conservation of energy, if not negates it completely. Cosmologically speaking, that’s a problem.

And yet, clumsy and unlikely as that all sounds, it’s the best explanation we’ve got for our observations of the universe … until now. Wun-Yi Shu, a physicist at Taiwan’s National Tsing Hua University, has come up with a bold new cosmological framework that solves the dark energy problem. At its most basic, the theory states that the universe has three basic dimensions — mass, time, and length — and these three properties can be converted between each other. He then proposes two new constants, κ and τ, as the conversion factors between time and length and mass and length respectively…

[continues at io9.com]

, , , , ,

  • Haystack

    This is a cool theory. The main problem with it is that it doesn't explain the cosmic background radiation.

    • Connie Dobbs

      …and that it violates both relativity and causality. Dude also seems to be mistaking “Dark Energy” for “Vacuum Energy”.

  • Haystack

    This is a cool theory. The main problem with it is that it doesn't explain the cosmic background radiation.

  • A Bad Joke

    Has anyone ever stopped to consider that this “dark energy” that is undetectable doesn't exist, and probably indicates a flawed theory? Same thing with this “dark matter” we assume is there, but can't find any evidence of.

    • Word Eater

      Minds much greater than mine have pondered and continue to ponder such things.

    • Connie Dobbs

      Nope, you're the first one. They should just give up now that you've added your wisdom! Oh, except for the fact that there *is* a lot of evidence for dark matter. There's no direct observation, true, but until 2000 there were no direct observations of the tau neutrino either. I'm glad you're an internet troll, and not a scientist, because you'd be a quitter.

  • Lilbear68

    any thought that its all speeding up as a result of the initial big bang
    kinda like a rifle bullet will continue speeding up until it exits the barrel
    its still speeding up cause it hasnt reached the point where it starts to slow down yet

  • APR

    Why does the universe need a beginning?

    • Connie Dobbs

      why do you?

      • APR

        Why must the entire universe have the same characteristic as an individual organism within it? I think, because we each have a beginning and end, we seem to need to apply this aspect to everything we see. The universe seems “infinite” in space. Why not in time as well?

    • tooCents

       What gets me is the concept of nothingness seems to be completely incoherent. Like not as in ‘space’ or a  vacuum which still is composed of stuff, but absolute nothingness. The idea of an infinite Universe or even a Multiverse is intuitively more appealing than a single closed Universe with a beginning and likely end. Of course infinity is a conceptual mind fuck too.

  • APR

    Why must the entire universe have the same characteristic as an individual organism within it? I think, because we each have a beginning and end, we seem to need to apply this aspect to everything we see. The universe seems “infinite” in space. Why not in time as well?

  • tooCents

    I often suspect humans, even our smartest and most serious students of reality, don’t have a clue. I wouldn’t be surprised if most everything in theoretical physics is disproved or replaced.

  • Anonymous

    I often suspect humans, even our smartest and most serious students of reality, don’t have a clue. I wouldn’t be surprised if most everything in theoretical physics is disproved or replaced.

  • Anonymous

     What gets me is the concept of nothingness seems to be completely incoherent. Like not as in ‘space’ or a  vacuum which still is composed of stuff, but absolute nothingness. The idea of an infinite Universe or even a Multiverse is intuitively more appealing than a single closed Universe with a beginning and likely end. Of course infinity is a conceptual mind fuck too.