Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Alternate universe theory.

  1. Aug 20, 2003 #1
    I'm going to try to present an alternate universe theory in this post. If I miss an important detail, please point it out. :)

    Ok, First part is that the universe is infinite in extent, there is no boundary. What we see as remnants of the big bang is merely the past horizon.

    Black holes, especially the ones in the center of galaxies, are not defined by the mass of all matter they have absorbed, but by the matter that is within the event horizon in transit to the 'singularity'. This singularity is not an actual defineable object, and not only is 4d space destroyed in it, but all dimensions are destroyed as the singularity is neared. This results in an effect where all the matter and energy that get sufficiently close to the singularity is reformed into an excited vacuum throughout the universe. (Is this somewhat like a klein bottle?)

    This is another part of the theory. All this matter that has actually been reformed is still 'out there' somewhere. This might account for the missing 90% of mass.

    Now, the red-shift. As light travels through sufficiently empty space that the excited vacuum is nearly the only 'matter', it perturbs it, and very slowly loses energy as a result of this. The perturbations lead to the formation of the smallest subparticles, which for the most part combine to form hydrogen atoms. (I am assuming an assymetry between particles and anti-particles here). The measured temperature of the CBR may be a function of the minimum energy for new particle formation. This hydrogen drifts towards the most attractive galaxy, often clumping together in transit, forming nebulas. I think a formation of a new galaxy is also possible by this.

    What we end up with is a steady-state, yet eternally changing universe, where a trillion years to any observer that could make observations over that time period would completely change the structures seen. Yet they would still see a horizon at ~15 billion light years, beyond which no definition can be seen aside from the cosmic backround radiation.

    I fear I didn't explain this too well, I welcome questions. Tear it apart if you wish also. :)
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 20, 2003 #2
    so, you don't believe that the universe is expanding?
    also, how do you explain the horizon problem?
  4. Aug 20, 2003 #3
    All light is drained in transit from the most distant light sources to about the measured temperature and wavelength of the CBR. Also, the variations in the CBR can easily be explained by the existence of intervening matter such as nearer galaxies and nebulae/dust clouds.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2003
  5. Aug 21, 2003 #4
    Hi glok
    I think that you are referring here to the Bekenstein-Hawking formula that says that the entropy of a BH is proportional to the area of the event horizon, no?
    Then what is it??
    Are you suggesting that a wormhole connects the singularity with other part of the universe?
    What subparticles, concretelly?
    Hey, do you mean "steady-state", no?
  6. Aug 21, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums, Glok.
    New/alternative theories are presented in the Theory Development forum.
    ...moving this topic...
  7. Aug 23, 2003 #6
    Not really, that theory assumes full retention of ALL matter that falls into a black hole. The matter I refer to is in transit. But I suppose if you look at it a certain way, yes. :)
    It is the defined center of the black hole, there is not actually anything there.
    Yes exactly. But that is another part of the theory I didn't mention. The 'exit' end of a wormhole is everywhere, and it destroys the structure of all that passes through it.
    Any subparticle that is a fundamental one, ie that has no particles that combine to make it. This is just an assumption on my part though... I suppose any combined particle, even whole atoms, could be formed.
    Yeah, my mistake.

    Nobody has given any opinions or faults to this theory... just remember, all current theories on the nature of the universe are exactly that. Theories. I don't see how mine is any less valid, unless someone can point out a fatal flaw.
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2003
  8. Aug 29, 2003 #7
    Yipe. No replies is worse than negative ones. Maybe the problem is there just isn't anything verifiable, and by extension, arguable about my theory? I'm sure some perceptive people here have problems with this theory, could you humor me and point out the glaringly obvious faults?
  9. Aug 29, 2003 #8
    our universe is infinite but it has a finite visible portion that we cannot see beyond
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook