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 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

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 23, 2018

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.

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?



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,


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,


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,


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!


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

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,


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



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.


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! :)



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.



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

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,


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

this is simple video

this is paper with math

You might also see:


report post as inappropriate

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



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,


*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

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

John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT

I read Rydin's sit and sent him a email.

Thanks for the reference.


report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Akinbo Ojo,

…………… Your words……….

……………………. Nice essay rich in astrophysical facts. You may want to check this website ( for additional facts to improve your theory. …………..Reply……………….

I will do, and tell you ASAP….

…………… Your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 19:13 GMT
Hi Akinbo

you are looking for your time, for obvious false theories. It is better that your vast point in the right direction. There are a lot of arbitrariness in the Big Bang theory, and so in your essay.

For example: Why, Schwarzschild relationship (M=rc^ 2 /2G). Why not simply (M = Mc = rc ^ 2 / G). Why: "Multiplying both sides of ρ by volume, (4πr ^3/3)." You take for certain that the universe is a ball. But the universe is not the ball, but is a product of immanent relationships (relational approach). If you would just try to understand my table FQXi 2015 essay, would see how they relate Planck mass and length, without the need of introducing the term "Planck epoch". BTW, can you answer my question on YouTube, to which I received no response:

Branko Zivlak One year before

Great lesson! Now I know where the mistake is. How does he know that "scaling factor" is differentiable? It is not.

So, my explanation in the essay:"matter dominant Universe" and "radiation dominant Universe" coexist in every point in time.

Your commitment and efforts in science is evident, not only in this essay. So I gave a rating higher than the value of the essay.

Why is T (CMB) = 2.74 can be found here: viXra:1602.0095



report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Akinbo Ojo,

Very good to see you again! Please do me the honor of reading and commenting on my essay.

A critical comment above discusses your essay on the assumption you say is probably wrong, but nearest to truth. My opinion is that the assumption is almost certainly true, but that current models are probably wrong. I have a friend who has redone and extended the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT
Thanks for your comments Edwin.

Regarding, "... the universe is growing in mass. Does this is take into account (as I would expect) the increased negative energy of gravitational potential?"

The answer is Yes. If Omega, Ω = 2GM/rc2, and astronomical observations suggest this approximates one, since G and c are more or less constants, when the radius, r increases there is no where else for the mass, M to go but up. Increase in radius is equivalent to an increase in negative energy of gravitational potential.

If we extrapolate from now to the past and Ω remains one, the 'point' at the origin will be "nothing", and not an object of infinite density.

Best regards,


Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT

I see the links I posted above (Mar 6) are dead. Just in case; they're here;

Cosmic redshift without accelerating expansion; Video

Cyclic Model; HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.

The paper has a mass of excellent evidence, currently anomalous but which the model coherently brings together for the first time (extending Dicke/Peebles & Penrose etc but without the limitations). Do comment, on these and my comments above.

But I'm also here for a purpose. I hadn't rated your essay yet so it's about to get a boost. Best of luck in the run in.


report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 16:25 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for a well researched essay.

I was not at all convinced about the Big Bang and singularities, but you really make me think of them as real probabilities. Congratulations.

The mass that is "created" looks strange when it is "popping up" in a closed system, when we are taking a look from outside our closed system and place it in an energy field it becomes quite reasonable I think.

The history of planets are interesting, they are also influenced when you see the planet as a closed system in the same energy field.

My essay is quite different from yours, I try to observe our reality (including your perception) in a philosophical way, I am not a physicist like you are. But we all are searchers for the truth and I thank you for your help and for that I pushed you up in the list.

I hope you will still have the time to read leave a comment and maybe a rating on

my essay "The Purpose of Life".

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

Great essay… at least the parts I read and understoodJ I realized the deadline for rating was coming to a close and I needed to read your essay and others, so please forgive me for skimming some of it.

Your focus seemed to be whether matter can be created or destroyed, but what are your thoughts on information being created or destroyed? Any thoughts on theories regarding information being smeared across the event horizon of a black hole rather than lost to it? Any thoughts on the Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle?

Don't forget to check out "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Amazon Prime, or Vimeo :)



report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.


Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.