New physical cosmological model

qjkxbmwvz , 10 months ago

This was a popular theory at one point: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

In addition to CMB being tough to explain, the distant universe is different — for example, quasars are far away/old. You would expect them to be more evenly distributed in a steady-state theory.

A_A OP , 10 months ago

This comes from this discussion thread

Thekingoflorda , 10 months ago

Just a questions: how is this a showerthought?

A_A OP , 10 months ago

I often think about this in the shower

P.S. : Also, i just read the rules and I believe I follow them

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Agreed, this is the most on topic post we’ve had for a while.

Aurenkin , 10 months ago

Sounds legit, I believe there are a few folks thinking about this stuff even outside of the shower though so I’ll defer to them.

A_A OP , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

Thanks 😊. This comes from a discussion at !askscience

… from this discussion thread

Aurenkin , 10 months ago

Oh nice, thanks for the link. Not usually the kind of thing I expect in a shower thoughts community

qjkxbmwvz , 10 months ago

This sounds like the “steady-state model,” which was popular in the 40s-60s, but fell out of favor.

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Excuse my ignorance but what is CMB?

A_A OP , 10 months ago

Cosmological Microwave Background

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Thanks. What mechanism would cause the gravity waves?

I ask because there is a controversial theory that the universe actually consists of a number of interacting fields. They’ve always been there. What we observe as matter, time etc are the result of those fields.

A_A OP , 10 months ago

There is already a link in my post for one big source of gravitational waves

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Yes, but black holes are an accretion of matter, that as far as we know is locked away until it evaporates. For there to be a net increase in overall matter due to gravitational waves there’d need to be either another source of waves (as in the field theory) or the waves would have to produce matter at a rate in violation of E=mc^2+C (which could be wrong)

A_A OP , 10 months ago

The original Big Bang also violates conservation of energy.
For the moment this is just a shower thought. More work would have to be done along these lines.

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Generally conservation of energy applies in a closed system, so wouldn’t apply at the creation of the system.

(Plus we can’t (yet) be sure what caused the Big Bang if it happened)

I’ve always liked the idea that matter, space and time are the way we observe the interactions of fields. So gravity waves make an interesting idea as to how part of it might work

Did you know there is some evidence that our brains are apparently aware of certain events before they actually happen. This isn’t supernatural but possible evidence of something going on outside of the space time we are familiar with. Or that time is not a straightforward arrow in one direction.

MattMastodon , 10 months ago

@FelipeFelop @A_A

I'm not an expert but pulsars do this I think. Stars spinning around each other sending ripples through space time.

A_A OP , 10 months ago

Those mostly create magnetic and electomagnetic radiation. Some are also magnetars

MattMastodon , 10 months ago

@A_A

Black holes spinning?

A_A OP , 10 months ago

Those black holes allow the Penrose process which is somewhat similar to what I am talking about here.

FelipeFelop , 10 months ago

Pulsars are made of matter, which runs into the how did it all start problem (if there was no big bang to create the matter)