The Universe might not be expanding.

[MPMin]

Hello Everyone, 

I would like to propose that the universe might not actually be expanding but only appear to be expanding. 

Let’s set aside the redshift information for moment and let’s assume that the universe is relatively static and roughly uniform in composition throughout. And let’s also assume that the universe much much bigger than we currently believe it to be. 
 

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts on the light giving the illusion that the outer inverse is expanding faster the further away it is.

If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel.
 

Just thought I’d ask. I’m curious to hear why the above scenarios couldn’t be a possibility. 

Thanks everyone. 

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by MPMin

[exchemist]

27 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Hello Everyone, 

I would like to propose that the universe might not actually be expanding but only appear to be expanding. 

Let’s set aside the redshift information for moment and let’s assume that the universe is relatively static and roughly uniform in composition throughout. And let’s also assume that the universe much much bigger than we currently believe it to be. 
 

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts on the light giving the illusion that the outer inverse is expanding faster the further away it is.

If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel.
 

Just thought I’d ask. I’m curious to hear why the above scenarios couldn’t be a possibility. 

Thanks everyone. 

 

How would your idea account for the CMBR?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel.
 

Just thought I’d ask. I’m curious to hear why the above scenarios couldn’t be a possibility. 

 

If this were ever found to be the case it would upset most of Physics and Chemistry and all the other sciences that rest on them.

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

If this were ever found to be the case it would upset most of Physics and Chemistry and all the other sciences that rest on them.

It sounds like a variant on the now discredited "tired light" hypothesis. But, purely as an academic point, I doubt it would have much impact on chemistry or molecular physics, as the distances involved are so small, compared to those at which red shifting would be significant in such a hypothesis. 

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It sounds like a variant on the now discredited "tired light" hypothesis. But, purely as an academic point, I doubt it would have much impact on chemistry or molecular physics, as the distances involved are so small, compared to those at which red shifting would be significant in such a hypothesis. 

Yes indeed it harps back to 'tired light' , but the issue I was raising is not to do with comparison of local and global distances.

Quite simply we rely on the notion that space is both isotropic and homogeneous..

If one section of space was different from another so that characteristics of the light changed as it passed through then we could not rely on spectroscopy and chemical process on Earth being the same as at astronomical distances away, nor on the Astrophysics to estimate distance, nor on relativity to describe transmission etc etc.

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes indeed it harps back to 'tired light' , but the issue I was raising is not to do with comparison of local and global distances.

Quite simply we rely on the notion that space is both isotropic and homogeneous..

If one section of space was different from another so that characteristics of the light changed as it passed through then we could not rely on spectroscopy and chemical process on Earth being the same as at astronomical distances away, nor on the Astrophysics to estimate distance, nor on relativity to describe transmission etc etc.

Oh I see, so you are thinking that we could not apply terrestrially developed physics and chemistry to the rest of the universe. Yes I suppose that would be the case. 

[MPMin]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

How would your idea account for the CMBR?

I didn’t account for CMBR. Can the CMBR only be explained by the Big Bang event? 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

If this were ever found to be the case it would upset most of Physics and Chemistry and all the other sciences that rest on them.

I suspect there’s no way of testing such a hypothesis? 

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, MPMin said:

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding?

I wouldn't think that would be the case.  In the universe you are describing there would be equal amounts of mass around the photons.  IOW the strength of gravitation attraction in front of the photons direction of travel would be the same as behind it, so there would be no red shift.

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I suspect there’s no way of testing such a hypothesis? 

It is one thing that scientists look for when they can get their hands on extra solar system material or date from a probe that has left the system (eg New Horizon).

That is about as far as we can reach at the moment.

There is, of course, a lot of guesswork about neutron stars, black holes and such.

We have yet to find any evidence to support such a hypothesis though.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

I didn’t account for CMBR. Can the CMBR only be explained by the Big Bang event? 

I suspect there’s no way of testing such a hypothesis? 

The big bang hypothesis accounts for the CMBR, whereas yours does not, evidently. So that is already one reason to reject yours in favour of the big bang. The CMBR is observed and as such is a test of these hypotheses. The big bang passes that test. Your hypothesis does not.

Edited November 3, 2023 by exchemist

[MigL]

Newton's Shell  Theorem discredits your first proposal and no evidence of 'tired' light has ever been found to date.

[Janus]

6 hours ago, MPMin said:

 

 

If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts on the light giving the illusion that the outer inverse is expanding faster the further away it is.

If the collective gravity of the outer universe couldn’t be causing the redshift, then perhaps light just redshifts due to the distance it must travel and as such redshifts more in proportion to the distance it must travel.
 

 

 

Gravitational red-shift is due to light going from one gravitational potential to a higher one.  Imagine it like a hill. Climbing the hill takes energy.   Light gives up the energy it needs to "climb the hill" by through a decrease in it frequency.  For our galaxy to see a red-shift from all directions would mean we would be at the "peak of the hill". and everything else lower down the slope.  But that means everything else would see our galaxy as higher up the slope, and see light coming from our galaxy as being blue-shifted.  For your idea to be correct, our galaxy would have to have a unique and special position in the universe.

The second part, as pointed out by others is an old hypothesis, and has been discounted.

[MPMin]

8 hours ago, Janus said:

Gravitational red-shift is due to light going from one gravitational potential to a higher one.  Imagine it like a hill. Climbing the hill takes energy.   Light gives up the energy it needs to "climb the hill" by through a decrease in it frequency.  For our galaxy to see a red-shift from all directions would mean we would be at the "peak of the hill". and everything else lower down the slope.  But that means everything else would see our galaxy as higher up the slope, and see light coming from our galaxy as being blue-shifted.  For your idea to be correct, our galaxy would have to have a unique and special position in the universe.

The second part, as pointed out by others is an old hypothesis, and has been discounted.

Apologies for the crude drawing. 
 

Assuming the black squiggly lines represent the mass of the universe, the mass of the universe is evenly dispersed, the blue dot is the earth, the red arrow is light from a distant star, we’re looking top down with respect to the direction of the light. 
 

I’d argue that when the light arrives at earth, it’s slightly closer to the mass of the universe, from the direction it came from, than it is from the rest of the mass of universe that would be attracting it. 

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

The big bang hypothesis accounts for the CMBR, whereas yours does not, evidently. So that is already one reason to reject yours in favour of the big bang. The CMBR is observed and as such is a test of these hypotheses. The big bang passes that test. Your hypothesis does not.

The Big Bang might account for the CMBR, but does that exclude any other possible explanation for the CMBR? 

[MigL]

Newton's Shell Theorem states that a spherically symmetric object affects other objects gravitationally as if all of its mass was concentrated at its center and since in an infinite isotropic homogenous universe we can always consider a spherical volume, no matter how large, the object can be considered a shell, and, aside from local gravitational interactions, the global gravitational force on a body inside of that shell is zero. Even if that 'body' is light.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, MPMin said:

Apologies for the crude drawing. 
 

Assuming the black squiggly lines represent the mass of the universe, the mass of the universe is evenly dispersed, the blue dot is the earth, the red arrow is light from a distant star, we’re looking top down with respect to the direction of the light. 
 

I’d argue that when the light arrives at earth, it’s slightly closer to the mass of the universe, from the direction it came from, than it is from the rest of the mass of universe that would be attracting it. 

The Big Bang might account for the CMBR, but does that exclude any other possible explanation for the CMBR? 

Of course not. It just means yours, which is the one we are discussing, doesn’t work.

[MPMin]

40 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Of course not. It just means yours, which is the one we are discussing, doesn’t work.

Are you saying that my hypothesis doesn’t work because my hypothesis didn’t account for the CMBR, even though the CMBR could have alternative explanations? 

[exchemist]

47 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Are you saying that my hypothesis doesn’t work because my hypothesis didn’t account for the CMBR, even though the CMBR could have alternative explanations? 

No. I'm applying Ockham's Razor. Your model would require an ad hoc extra explanation for the CBMR, which you have not supplied. Do you have one? 

Whereas the big bang hypothesis nicely accounts for both the observed red shift and the observed CMBR.  

Edited November 4, 2023 by exchemist

[MPMin]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

No. I'm applying Ockham's Razor. Your model would require an ad hoc extra explanation for the CBMR, which you have not supplied. Do you have one? 

Whereas the big bang hypothesis nicely accounts for both the observed red shift and the observed CMBR.  

As the CMBR can have other explanations other than the BBT, why then, does my hypothesis need an ad hoc extra explanation of the CMBR?

Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor. 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

As the CMBR can have other explanations other than the BBT, why then, does my hypothesis need an ad hoc extra explanation of the CMBR?

Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor. 

You seem to be an idiot. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MPMin said:

Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor. 

Your explanation must include the CMBR. Once you add a shoe-horned CMBR piece into your hypothesis it becomes much more complex than the BBT.

[iNow]

Said another way: Simple isn’t all that’s necessary. It must also be correct and account for observations. 

[MPMin]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your explanation must include the CMBR. Once you add a shoe-horned CMBR piece into your hypothesis it becomes much more complex than the BBT.

I don’t understand why my hypothesis must include an explanation for the CMBR, considering that it has already been established in this thread, that the cmbr may have alternative explanations, that do not rely on the bbt. 

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, MPMin said:

I don’t understand why my hypothesis must include an explanation for the CMBR, considering that it has already been established in this thread, that the cmbr may have alternative explanations, that do not rely on the bbt. 

You are making a proposal to explain the observation of electromagnetic radiation. The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation. 

I can propose a hypothesis that gravity does not exist by showing that leaves sometimes move away from the earth, but if I don't include an explanation in my hypothesis regarding the fact that leaves also land on the ground, then my hypothesis has no value. I must account for all observations, not just some of them. I can't say gravity doesn't exist if I limit my dataset to only the leaves that are moving up.

[MPMin]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

You are making a proposal to explain the observation of electromagnetic radiation. The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation. 

I can propose a hypothesis that gravity does not exist by showing that leaves sometimes move away from the earth, but if I don't include an explanation in my hypothesis regarding the fact that leaves also land on the ground, then my hypothesis has no value. I must account for all observations, not just some of them. I can't say gravity doesn't exist if I limit my dataset to only the leaves that are moving up.

My proposed hypothesis describes the effect on electromagnetic radiation, therefore, my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR. 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

You seem to be an idiot. 

!

Moderator Note

Let’s keep the criticism focused on the science