Thread: Dark Energy or Variably Aged Universe?

Just throwing this one out there to see what people think, being a postman, debates such as this are not particularly common at work. No football angle you see.

An old issue of New Scientist described a theory (er... sorry, no link. Truthfully I'm not even sure where to look) which suggested that there's no need for the dark energy explanation of expansion. Instead, it was suggested, different regions of the universe may have aged at different rates owing to the differing concentrations of matter, leading to some parts being tens of millions of years older than others... so the variability of the expansion results from our seeing regions which have had significantly more time during which to expand than others.

So, assuming I didn't just dream this, does this idea sound familiar to anyone, and if so, any thoughts?

For my own part, I like the idea, possibly because I'm not entirely convinced about the existence of anything that might be called dark energy. That said, I'll freely admit that I'm no Jeffrey Archer and I'm not really in much of a position to offer anything other than a vaguely formed opinion on the whole dark energy thing.

One problem is the lack of an explanation for regions where no matter resides whatsoever, yet appears to in fact contain matter. This theory seems to act as a gravitational multiplier....but if there is no mass to begin with in a region, nothing can be multiplied. Besides that, I can only see it effecting perceived density, not total gravitational flux; as in, the total gravity from our sun would be the same if we were to condense it into a neutron star; while the surface gravity would be considerably higher, there are various limitations that prevent it from having a net gain in force to its surrounding matter.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Wararrow said

An old issue of New Scientist described a theory (er... sorry, no link. Truthfully I'm not even sure where to look) which suggested that there's no need for the dark energy explanation of expansion. Instead, it was suggested, different regions of the universe may have aged at different rates owing to the differing concentrations of matter, leading to some parts being tens of millions of years older than others... so the variability of the expansion results from our seeing regions which have had significantly more time during which to expand than others.

Different stages of stars and galaxies rather than ages may occur because of the conditions around.

Nothing to do with the expansion or time of the universe.

Time cannot go forward or back.

Correction of quote attribution made by Ophiolite

Time cannot go forward or back

well it cant go backward (as far as we know) but it can speed up or slow down depending on your point of reference.

Originally Posted by samflutch

cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole -- what happened in its past and what will happen in the future. cosmology is a fast-moving subject at the moment and often in the news. it has many concepts which are hard to grasp; as such, many of the questions that are sent in to us are about cosmology.

one of the best know theories in cosmology is the big bang. this is the idea that our universe started out much hotter and denser than it is now and has been expanding.
----------------------------------------------
samflutch

buzz marketing

Well, that's that mystery cleared up once and for all.

The universe is a phenomenal structure and we cannot assert with certainty that it
expands. Even if it does, how can we be sure that it always did? maybe at some point it was contracting? pulsating cycle.

To the observer on earth the processes within universe are perceived as very long and measured in millions of years. But from different point of view the birth and death of stars happens in mere instances.

It is non"scientific" of course, but it still makes sense to me.
And i dont believe in Big Bang. This theory explains nothing. Why scientists are so convinced about it? because of cosmic microwave background? please...

Ok, this is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I would like for somebody, if they can, to try and prove it false. If the universe were contracting rather than expanding, how would we be able to tell the difference? If random quantum fluctuations in a primal state of crystalline pure energy formed areas of greater density, and the rate of contraction were directly proportional to the density of the area, wouldn't it appear to one observer inside one little bubble of density that all the other bubbles seemed to be receding from him? The observer, believing his own size to be fixed, as his rate of contraction is nearly equal to his surroundings, would naturally associate a notion of all things expanding to this phenomenon. But my question is, how could we tell the difference? Does this not explain apparent acceleration of expansion? As time progressed in our contracting universe, we would observe accelerated rates of collapse which would appear to an observer within a collapsing region that the apparent expansion was accelerating. What's more, 99.999% or some absurdly high percentange (above 99) of all the mass in the universe is redshifted, i.e. apparently receding from us so fast that the shift in the wavelength is near full extent (or at least very very very high). This phenomena is predicted from the most very basic notion of such a universe. It is also better explained by a contracting model of the universe. A contracting model of the universe also better satisfies Occam's razor than its expanding counterpart.
That's about as much logical support as I've got for that little theory, now onto my actual point:

This model of the universe completely sidesteps the need for dark matter/energy, as the observational phenomena of a universe expanding at an accelerating rate arises intrinsically. Regions of great density would undergo great contraction, leaving behind dark empty space that seems to contain mass as it was bent in the process of the region's collapse. Seems plausible to me, what do you guys think?

ticklemonster wrote:

and I would like for somebody, if they can, to try and prove it false.

sorry but thats faulty logic, don't think that something is true just because it can't be proven false.

but ill have a half-baked attempt at disproving it anyway.

if the universe expands (uniformly), there is more space between matter, and if it is contracting (uniformly) there would be less space, causing light frequency to speed up (assuming the speed [time] of light never changes).

and to say the universe doesnt expand/contract uniformly (doesn't really matter which one without a reference point), requires some proof, or at least an explaination. [Cold fusion co-incidently pointed this out before you even posted "One problem is the lack of an explanation for regions"]

otherwise you just have 2 theories which prove eachother; classic quasi-logic, and the bane of all science in our time.

i think for your theory to work, we would need to be at the center of a uniform, but exponentially contracting universe (ie. gravity causes greater contraction closer to the center). which isn't so far fetched when you consider how 'life' relates to the second law of thermodynamics.

that said, i'm definatly no expert on the subject, and eagerly await the responses of more educated (read:brainwashed ) people.

its definatly an interesting idea anyway, thanks for sharing it.

i also dig pavels input, stating that the universe could be a series of contractions and implosions. a 14 billion year old universe seems rediculously young to me. unless time moved far slower when there was less space, but if true, it would never get from 0 to 1, let alone 14 billion.

though much of modern science seems to be full of these kind of blatant and illogical contradictions in its explainations of the universe.

maybe if there are other universes out there on the other side of the nothingness (other dimensions essentially, but comparable to our percieved 4), i might find the big bang theory easier to swallow. but this tremendous amount of energy doesnt just appear out nothingness, without a cause, to think so is to abandon all logic, even mainstream religions have more sense than that...

maybe the big bang theory is just an attempt to create a religion (read: social control mechanism) that logical people can accept through 'proofs' (quasi-logic).

a better way of approaching this topic is identifying re-occuring patterns and extrapolate on them, not just carefully shaping bullshit till it fits the hole in another peice of carefully crafted bullshit.

Thanks for your input redrighthand. True, a lot of my logic is faulty, and there are a lot of anamolous phenomena i would have to work out. At the most basic level though, the universe need neither be expanding nor contracting, as size is relative, the universe should (supposedly be absolute). It just seems a little more logical to have dark energy and gravity work in the same direction, as the existence of either one has still yet to be confirmed (though I personally am a proponent of gravity). An interesting test that actually would help along the way to falsifying/verifying my theory would be to see whether bent space stays bent, as this would account for the lensing of light that has supposedly confirmed the existence of dark matter.