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

Alternative idea on expanding universe

  1. Mar 6, 2008 #1
    This may be a little crazy of an idea, and I am posting it just for fun, so don't take it too seriously.

    What if the universe was not expanding, but instead we along with all other objects are shrinking?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 6, 2008 #2
    Is my brain shrinking too? That could explain why I'm getting stupider as I get older.
  4. Mar 6, 2008 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, it would requireall known physical constants to be constantly changing as well. There doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable thing to assume.
  5. Mar 7, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A shrinking universe is inconsistent with observational evidence. Our galaxy is impossibly large by this standard.
  6. Mar 9, 2008 #5
    Not a shrinking universe, shrinking mass in an unchanging universal background.

    Check it out, maybe we contract or expand depending on V and G. G intensifies, time slows. Time slows, sub-atomic spin slows. Sub atomic spin slows, particles contract to keep uniformity. Object leaves gravitational field, sub-atomic spin speeds up, atoms expand.

    Why would the sub atomic spin slow when G increases? Well what does it mean for G to increase? It means that atoms are closer. Atoms closer spin slower, farther apart spin faster? Why could this be? Maybe all atoms are connected by the alignment of a gravitational field? Closer they are the more resistance to spin due to the shorter link between field lines. Slow down their spin, and their angular momentum decreases increasing gravitational attraction due to less inertia.

    As sub atomic spin slows, atoms contract, and G increases. Maybe the moon is actually constantly getting closer to us, it is just that at the earth and the moon contract at a rate equal to the rate that we come closer to each other. That way all measuring tools would be useless in observing these changes.

    I'm pretty sure I just high or something?
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2008
  7. Mar 10, 2008 #6
    Perhaps its a property of the fabric of space time that it expands at an accelerating rate?
  8. Mar 12, 2008 #7
    But the reason that we have for the universe expanding is red shift, no?
    well i dont know that it is possible for everything to shrink becasue wouldnt that include the particles and fundementals to shrink asswell and if they are a constant then....

    I was thinking would we still observe redshift if we were moving away from an object instead of it moving from us?, i mean like we were shrinking.

    katii xx
  9. Mar 12, 2008 #8
    Due to the Relativity of Simultaneity nearly any expanding/shrinking would have observable effects of some sort globally if not locally. Absolute size is meaningless.
  10. Mar 12, 2008 #9
    Say our local space and local matter have a ratio of 10:1. Let's say then this ratio increases by a factor of 2. You could interpret that as a doubling of space distances, or you could determine that as a shrinkage of rulers with respect to space, OR you could interpret that as any combination between expanding/shrinking space and expanding/shrinking objects. Only the ratios matter with regards to our observation since there is no absolute base for measurement. This means I would put a 50/50 bet on either expanding space or shrinking matter, but I consider shrinking matter to be philosophically easier since it would easier to conceive of the conservation of energy in a universe where space did not expand while matter depletes.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2008
  11. Mar 12, 2008 #10
    There are some caveats in those choices. Space expansion/matter shrinkage would produce a redshift while space shrinkage/matter expansion would produce a blueshift. Very noticeable difference. Yet even this requires some fairly specific assumptions about the nature of physical constants. Fundamentally these physical constants are our ruler. So saying the ruler shrank is saying that fundamental physical constants are not constant but space is, even though space is defined by them. You also have the issue of Relativity. As your gravitational field depth changes your ratio of space and time changes with respect to other observers but remains constant for you. Ditto with relative velocities but unlike gravitational field depth the space-time ratio is inversely symmetrical. Is that plugged in as a separate set of accounting? In what way would you redefine the Robertson-Walker metric to reflect your shrinking matter. By shrinking matter you must also account for effects on other physical constants? Of course my choice of terms here was more than a little loose.

    In some sense the gist of the symmetries you proposed here has some validity. Instead of talking about what is "philosophically easier" just define the symmetry and allow the individual to choose the ontology, if any. I'm afraid this is a thornier problem than it at first appears, but interesting.
  12. Mar 18, 2008 #11
    That would mean that galaxies that are a very long way away would all be fully formed not undergoing expansion ?

    I am sure that if you reverse the meaning of all the words then you could reverse the outcome but if not you will find mismatches in observation related to the size/age of objects.

    To quote Lewis Caroll

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

    I am no expert but this is my working assumption

    Ed Joyce
  13. Mar 19, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Make predictions that contradict current theory is the mantra you should be reciting.
  14. Mar 19, 2008 #13
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook