Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Agnew: on 3/22/17 at 3:34am UTC, wrote Well...earth is both shrinking in mass and expanding in force, and so that...

John Hodge: on 3/21/17 at 16:11pm UTC, wrote Akinbo Your comment stared me thinking. The center of spiral galaxies...

John Hodge: on 3/21/17 at 15:28pm UTC, wrote Akinbo: Yes. The model is that the universe started at 0 K with the first...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/21/17 at 11:59am UTC, wrote Thanks John for stopping by. If I read correctly I gather from STOE that...

John Hodge: on 3/21/17 at 2:38am UTC, wrote That's : https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603140v1.pdf and ...

John Hodge: on 3/20/17 at 21:26pm UTC, wrote The Scalar Theory of Everything suggest another model: this is simple...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/18/17 at 13:51pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your comments Gary. I can't recall mentioning Black hole in my...

Gary Simpson: on 3/17/17 at 0:37am UTC, wrote Akinbo, Welcome to the party. I'll give you credit for being willing to...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

leonae gonzales: "This seems to be very interesting site. Professionally i am a writer at the..." in Quantum Replicants:...

James Putnam: "Quoting Gary D. Simpson: "If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Steven Andresen: "It might be that I have come to know where the hidden variable is, to..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

Lawrence Crowell: "The choice for anonymous commenting is a good idea. A person scoring less..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

dieu le: "The Creation of Momentum From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the..." in Alternative Models of...

dieu le: "What causes Things Move in Universe? Things move when encountering a..." in Alternative Models of...

leonae gonzales: "I would like to prepare a review of this topic with the help of research..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Thewitcher: "Đến với dịch vụ chữ ký số giachukyso.net bạn sẽ được..." in Riding the Rogue Quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Cosmic growth of matter - the evidence by Akinbo Ojo [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 4.4; Public = 2.0


Author Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

Why do living things have this pervasive urge to grow? Could this pursuit of growth be in obedience to some overarching principle of Nature? An increasing abundance of matter in the universe would provide a basis for the selection of such a goal oriented endeavor by biological systems within it. In this essay, the supportive evidence for the growth of the matter-energy content of the universe within the context of the Big Bang model is presented.

Author Bio

I am a practising physician with keen interest in foundational physics topics. I also enjoy 'dialectic' with physicists over the internet. My latest effort an e-book, 'Hypotheses Fingo' is published.

Download Essay PDF File




Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 20:14 GMT
Very nice...I always appreciate your intuition about the nature of physical reality. Here you propound an increasing mass rate for the universe that amounts to 2e-17 s-1 or 0.64 ppb/yr, which is an interesting value. Presumably there is a slowing of force that goes along with this growing mass and that means the speed of light slows down over time.

This is very similar to Wetterich's approach, which he now calls the universe from ice instead of fire and would be a shrinking universe of growing mass and shrinking force. Your notion is that increasing mass and slowing light would still be expanding, but you really need to do the math. Your universe just looks like it is expanding and in fact is shrinking according to Wetterich.

This approach is very similar to aethertime's except exactly switched. Aether mass decays and force grows, which means the speed of light increases over time and yet the universe still shrinks. The aethertime shrinkage is 0.26 ppb/yr decay, which is 0.81e-17 s-1 compared to your 0.64 ppb/yr growth.

An interesting sidebar is that there is a theory of continuous spontaneous collapse (CSL) that proposes a wavefunction collapse rate of 1e-17 s-1, which is right there with your mass growth and aethertime's matter decay. The CSL theory adds a nonlinear term to the quantum Hamiltonian that makes all quantum wavefunctions real and Singh has a very nice essay to that effect.

The main take home message is that with growing mass and decaying light, the universe would be shrinking from a frozen mass of very little into a firely destiny of mass with little force...

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 10:54 GMT
Thank you Steve, I very much appreciate your supportive words despite our views being on opposite sides of the cosmology divide.

I have been somewhat occupied of late and only just disentangling myself from day to day hassles. I will be reading your contribution soon and make comments on your essay page.

Is there a beginning to the universe in your shrinking cosmos?

Regards,

Akinbo



Robert Bennett replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
Hi, Akinbo –

Basing a theory on the Big Bang is risky business…

Why do living things have this pervasive urge to grow?

A better question - Why do life forms stop growing? The BB keeps growing!

The study of the expanding size of the universe is already a well-traveled road following Hubble’s 1929 discovery of redshifts from galactic clusters and the finding of other evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation

The Hubble interpretation of redshift as Doppler shifted galactic recession is refuted by Planck’s photon energy formula, E = hf. No energy loss occurs in space, so the change of light wavelength (w) observed must be due to change in SoL = fw. That is, due to aether emitted by static sources, not by source recession.

The discovery of CMB multipoles aligned with the ecliptic and equinoxes (the dreaded Axis of Evil …or is it the Axis of Truth?) implies the Earth is centrally located in the universe…. at the center of the alleged BB.


…. this astronomical increase in the size of the universe from an initial beginning of miniscule or zero size is widely accepted in mainstream cosmology

To accept as true what the scientific method has falsified by testing is anti-science. To accept it as true because the establishment promotes it is the fallacy of authoritarianism…and intimidation.

This essay is based on the assumption, probably wrong, that the Big Bang model is the nearest to truth.

What strange logic… To build a theory on premises thought to be false.

All the best,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 09:18 GMT
Hi Robert.

Thanks for commenting.

"Basing a theory on the Big Bang is risky business"

The higher the risk, the greater might be the reward. I made allowance for the possibility that Big Bang nay not be correct, but IF it is... the reward of my analysis will surely be abundant. Among others being that the universe was created from nothing AND infinity of time and space is abolished in physics.

"A better question - Why do life forms stop growing? The BB keeps growing!"

Life forms have varying life expectancy. A fruit fly may wonder why humans keep growing while it lives only a few days... a question of perspective. BB will stop growing. Some like Steve Agnew below even believe the dying phase is already in progress.

Concerning what is fallacy and what is not... is a belief in infinity of time and space not a fallacy?

Best regards,

Akinbo




Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
The beginning of the shrinking universe is the end of the expanding antiverse and so the cosmos is a pulse that begins as an antiverse of antimatter, peaks at mass Mo at zero force, freezes into some small amount of matter at the CMB creation, and shrinks into where we are today with a much greater force.

Instead of the size of the visible universe being limited by the speed of light, the size of the universe defines the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 09:22 GMT
Hi Steve,

I appreciate that your view is a mirror of mine, pulsatile expanding vs. shrinking. As the evidence accumulates, we will know one way or the other.

What of the terrestrial evidence I referenced? Is the Earth shrinking or expanding?

Best regards,

Akinbo



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Dr. Akinbo Ojo,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT
Thanks Joe,

I will get around to reading your essay.

Regards and thanks for your simplicity!

Akinbo




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Akinbo,

Lovely essay, well written, interesting, with good referencing and highly readable. I suspect it didn't touch on the topic enough to finish highly, and most may disagree with many things, but agreement is not a scoring criteria!

In any case I can confirm from astronomy/astrophysics (though I'm really more an 'observational cosmologist') that the (type for type) 'mass growth'...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
Dear Ojo,

You started with the sentence “The study of the expanding size of the universe is already a well-traveled road following Hubble’s 1929 discovery of redshifts from galactic clusters and the finding of other evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation”

…………….In your opening sentence ' evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation ' is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned in the essay, there are people that do not agree with any aspect of the Big Bang theory and the essay is not really directed at them. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to note if your Dynamical Universe Model supports the existence of infinity, i.e. eternal existence and an infinite size. Hopefully, I will find an answer when I get to reading your essay soon and comment.

Best regards,

Akinbo



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT
Dear Ojo,

Thank you for the reply. In Dynamic Universe model, Universe size will be FINITE, But the space where Universe is there, can be infinite, no limitation

Hope you will read my essay also

Best

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate


Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear Aki9mbo Ojo

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 03:07 GMT
Hi Ojo,

I remember you from the last essay contest... you shared my hatred of infinity:)

Anyway, you said "All life forms evolved gradually according to Darwin's theory, rather than immediately." But what are your thoughts about the telescoping/accelerating nature of evolutionary processes? Ray Kurzweil points out that evolutionary processes go quicker with each new capability they develop. He says, "So the first step in biological evolution, the evolution of DNA — actually it was RNA came first — took billions of years, but then evolution used that information-processing backbone to bring on the next stage. So the Cambrian Explosion, when all the body plans of the animals were evolved, took only 10 million years. It was 200 times faster. And then evolution used those body plans to evolve higher cognitive functions, and biological evolution kept accelerating. It's an inherent nature of an evolutionary process." Do you agree with this view?

Please check out my essay, and if you're interested please check out my independent film "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Vimeo, or Amazon Prime. It's all about the finite! :)

Thanks!

Jon

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
Hi Jon,

The accelerating nature of evolutionary processes sounds an interesting view that may find some of the missing pieces in the jig-saw puzzle.

I will certainly find time to check your essay soon and comment.

Regards,

Akinbo




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
Akinbo,

Welcome to the party. I'll give you credit for being willing to challenge established beliefs. For whatever it is worth, all modern measurements of the cosmos indicate that space is flat. And this is a puzzle that is not resolved. You propose the simplest solution and Occam's razor is on your side.

Having said that, you want to treat the observable universe as an expanding Black Hole. Your presumption is that the Bing Bang occurred at a single point and that the Hubble Bubble has expanded from that point. From our perspective, this seems to be what we see ... i.e., we look in all directions and see distant galaxies moving away from us .....

The problem with this is that it goes against the belief that we are not at the center of the universe ... the assumption by cosmologists is that if you were at the edge of our Hubble Bubble and looked out into space, you would also see distant galaxies moving away. In addition, such an observer would see a different set of galaxies moving away that were not in the over-lap of the two Hubble Bubbles ... so as the Hubble Bubble expands, there is more mass in our OBSERVABLE universe although not in our Hubble Bubble plus all the other Hubble Bubbles.

There is another question concerning gravity ... according to GR we do not sense mass that is outside of our light cone. But orbit calculations are performed using the ACTUAL position of objects rather than the APPARENT positions based upon light-speed. I would have to ask similar questions regarding any mass that is outside of our Hubble Bubble.

BTW, do not confuse the Schwarzschild Radius with the size of the entity inside the BH.

In any event, you have argued the point as well as possible I think.

BTW, I have already scored your essay. You were one bombed within a few hours of your essay being posted, so I righted the wrong. These people are so petty.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:51 GMT
Thanks for your comments Gary.

I can't recall mentioning Black hole in my essay. The concept of 'Schwarzschild radius' preceded General relativity and black holes. But I get your meaning. My addition to the discussion can be the 'Schwarzschild mass'. In the equation, 2GM/rc2 = 1, the ability to vary does not reside only with the radius, and the model temperatures of the Big bang and the other evidence I presented support this. In case you are familiar with the Big bang model, do you have contrary evidence concerning the universe's matter content?

I have been overworked of late but things getting less stressful so will find time to read, comment and rate your essay in the coming week.

Best regards,

Akinbo




John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 21:26 GMT
The Scalar Theory of Everything suggest another model:

this is simple video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjhieYgYoM0

this is paper with math

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603

You might also see:

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648/060314
0v1.pdf

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 02:38 GMT
That's :

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603140v1.pdf

an
d

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 11:59 GMT
Thanks John for stopping by.

If I read correctly I gather from STOE that the temperature of the universe has always been around 2.7K and the matter content is constant, the matter balance being maintained by Sinks and Sources. In other words, the universe was never of Planck temperature 1032K. Do I read correctly?

Generally, STOE appears interesting but leaves me puzzling about the nucleosynthesis calendar of the Big Bang since this relies on a reducing temperature in the early era.

Then does STOE advocate that matter can be created and destroyed, i.e. created from nothing and extinguished to nothing?

All the best,

Akinbo

*I will stop by your essay soon and make comments. A little problem with the speed of my internet at the moment.



John C Hodge replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
Akinbo:

Yes. The model is that the universe started at 0 K with the first Source. It oscillates around 2.7 K. Nucleosynthsis is from the center of spiral galaxies outward in distance and the energy density (\rho) is maximal at the center. Matter and energy is created continuously as you suggest is indicated by the data. The nothing to nothing seems better than the Big Bang from nothing to what? birth without death of the Big Bang or from nothing to nothing like life. This could also suggest the stuff of our universe comes from another universe (say a 2 D one) and goes to another universe (say a 4 D one).

You have made some interesting calculations supporting the idea there must be creation of matter into our universe.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'D' and 'F':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.