1. I have a theory of why the universe is expanding (leaving big bang out).

Gen. relativity says that more the mass of an object, more is the curling up of spacetime.

Say, suppose that there is some critical value for which spacetime curls completely into a closed surface (say, a sphere). now, assume the total mass of our universe is greater than this limit and spacetime has curled more than once around itself into a smaller sphere.

Now, we see, that in our universe, matter is continuously being converted into energy but the reverse happens very rarely (non-spontaneously).

So, the mass to energy ratio is decreasing in our universe.

Come to the first argument that space has curled more than once around itself. Now, since the mass of the universe is decreasing, the coils of spacetime are loosening, and so the sphere (universe) is increasing in size.

Hence concludes my theory

COROLLARY(1): when the sphere of spacetime has finished uncurling into a single sphere whose surface area is the same as that of the fabric of spacetime, either conversion of mass into energy will stop, or the universe will merge into a sea of parallel universes or get destroyed.

COROLLARY(2): If all this happens, then spacetime is a finite fabric, so, time ends somewhere.

2.

4. Do you mind showing some mathematical basis for this? Any implications of this theory you have (e.g. what are we likely to find)? Because, I should let you know, this theory does appear to violate the law of conservation of mass.

5. Stuck this link in the Big Bang thread, but now realise i should have stuck it here

Sorry for the duplicity, just an interesting article that didn't go over my head for a change!

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._universe.html

6. Originally Posted by PritishKamat
So, the mass to energy ratio is decreasing in our universe.
You should first understand that this conversion of "mass to energy" is not quite right. Instead it is the conversion of mass energy into other forms of energy. So the quantity of energy is constants.

I think the quantity of mass is irrelevant in General Relativity. The mass and the portion of energy that is in the form of mass does not appear anywhere in Einstein's Field Equation. Intead what you have is the "Stress Energy Tensor" whose components include energy density, momentum density, energy flux, momentum flux, viscosity and pressure. You might think you have a case that a change in these things is implied by this conversion of mass to energy, but I think that is wrong because of the scale on which such a change must occur in order to affect the curvature of the universe.

Do you mind showing some mathematical basis for this? .
I'm sorry, but I am just a college student (not even undergraduate), so I dont really know gen relativity that well ( I'm still dealing with Newton) and I have no knowledge of mathematics than say, simple calculus.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
[
You should first understand that this conversion of "mass to energy" is not quite right. Instead it is the conversion of mass energy into other forms of energy. So the quantity of energy is constants.

I think the quantity of mass is irrelevant in General Relativity. The mass and the portion of energy that is in the form of mass does not appear anywhere in Einstein's Field Equation. Intead what you have is the "Stress Energy Tensor" whose components include energy density, momentum density, energy flux, momentum flux, viscosity and pressure. You might think you have a case that a change in these things is implied by this conversion of mass to energy, but I think that is wrong because of the scale on which such a change must occur in order to affect the curvature of the universe.
Thanks, Ill try to remember that.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement