Communicator (communicator) wrote,
Communicator
communicator

Hubble, hubble, toil and trouble

Ken MacLeod questions how confident we can be in big bang cosmology. His argument is that big-bang scepticism is still a minority viewpoint, but not a crackpot one.

He characterises the current majority view as this:

"the entire universe emerged literally from nothing for completely unknown reasons, was inflated in an instant to a much larger size by a completely unknown force, is still accelerating outward under the influence of another completely unknown force, and nine-tenths of it consists of a completely unknown form of matter"

As a carpenter might say 'it still needs a bit of work'.

I've got a little idea I play with which is that the Universe isn't getting bigger - it's dwindling away. Red Shift isn't caused by the expansion of space stretching the wavelength of light (why would it do that?). Red shift is because everything has got smaller since the light was emitted from the star, so it arrives with a bigger wavelength than we expect. The light looks too big, becuase we are shrinking. Everything in the universe is shrinking. Space isn't getting bigger, just all the particles in it are getting smaller. Gravity is getting weaker too.

Ken tops and tails his article with a comparison, derived from a Guardian misprint, between the 'big bang' theory and the 'big bag' theory - that science provides us with a bottomless cornucopia of goodies. Perhaps the big bang is a mistake. Perhaps the big bag is running out of goodies.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 12 comments