uwot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:29 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:22 am
May I ask if the illustration I provided at least makes you think of what his/her position of disagreement may lie with (external to potential religious theories (s)he may be speaking about, of course)?
I gather you mean something like this: https://dailygalaxy.com/2016/02/an-alte ... d-feature/
Who knows? It seems entirely possible and I'm all for challenging orthodoxy. My own issues with the big bang are 'inflation' - seems a bit ad hoc, and the implication that while 'space' is expanding, the 'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.' to cite Erwin Schrodinger, are not. My own hypothesis has something of the steady state about it, in that I think it is conceivable that fundamental particles are, if you like, whirlpools and eddies in this expanding 'space', as outlined in chapters 4 and 6.
I was thinking more about perspective equality. So if you use the raisins-in-dough example to express the universal expansion, you can 'hold constant' the whole dough with the raisins constant (like zooming out as it expands) and this perspective makes the raisins seem to shrink. That is holding the dough constant, the raisins shrink logically equals holding the raisins constant, the dough gets larger. When one sees the altered perspective, it helps make us understand the reason why others perceive the problem differently.
The Steady State interpretation by many is/was due to treating matter everywhere as being created from nothing when only space itself was deemed a 'nothing' in light of the original understandings of the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment. It was thought to raise more questions than just treating matter as 'fixed' in quantity but with space (being nothing) to be permitted to 'expand' (because nothing + nothing = 2 nothing = nothing). That's why using the perspective of fixing the whole universe seems useful to demonstrate why even the Big Bang interpretation is equally odd: it is indifferent to treating matter as ALL the universe originally (no space) but then 'shrinks' into the space it occupies.
I'm sure Brian Greene, I think, somewhere presented this too but I'd can't recall where at the moment. It was similar to how he explained entropy in a forward direction as also equivalent in either direction in time but that the odds of statistically seeing things from many points to converge to an ordered state is just rare of all possible worlds by perspective
. [I'll try to look for these and get back to you.]
I treat the density as equal everywhere. Your treatment seems to do the same. Given your perspective uses Einstein's General Relativity and knowing he had to break from his assumption in Special Relativity of assuming space as immaterial, you share a lot of agreement to my own. Note too that contrary to some who say that Einstein adapted to the Big Bang, he too thought that a Steady State model still should work. He even wrote a paper on it that was somewhat buried or lost in history. [See https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0132
I think from the context of his own thinking, your own expression is how Einstein would have also thought of this 'in part' as well. That you used it within the framework of assuming the Big Bang with the conflicting QM (Copenhagen interpretation, that is) is why I thought your effort is so good. It respects the theories as understood while still bringing the two conflicting perspectives together in a uniform way.
My own alternative treats matter as 'open-ended' strings (spirals, more specifically). I begin by reversing General Relativity's perspective that space is curved by matter TO BECOME "curved lines ARE matter" instead. That is, the 'effect' of matter is itself what matter is. Then the question of where the matter comes from is itself space as you imagined. If space expands, the density of matter in it only relates to how things move in it. Normally things move in straight lines. But if, from EACH point in space, something is prevented from moving in straight lines, it must find an alternative dimension that can allow this. For me, this is an addition of a 'spin' dimension. Normal things still require moving in straight lines UNLESS prevented from it. Because each point cannot NOT move, then the 'energy' of each point being equal (because of equal density of energy), this loss of option to move straight must be conserved. That conservation can hold when spin is allowed to occur as its own dimension. The coordinates new axis treats each point as axes that are 'spiral'....and thus become 'matter'.
My guess is that space originates as ONLY linear UNTIL some 'contradiction' of very rare head-on collisions that cannot be expressly resolved in the normal linear way. That these spirals move out from a central point of conflict, may also explain things like how and why the spiral galaxies on a large scale have unexpected velocity at the outer extremes of their arms. The center of the galaxies may be equally giving off energy out through the center arms of the spirals as gravity is also pulling in at areas in between, cancelling the effect of gravity of stars further out.
All matter and energy that we can conceive more directly has to be due to the curved paths of space. Gravity could then be interpreted as a 'shadow-effect' of the overall pressure of the surrounding activity of space that is mostly 'linear'. Besides light, there can be 'rays' that are perfect lines (waves that are of infinite frequency or zero wavelengths).
Either way, your own description fits as a more cohesive expression of science that new people would at least appreciate that doesn't dismiss the present paradigm, something that my own theory would/does require a lot of undoing to reconstruct things from scratch.