By your own admission energy can also be converted back into matter, this is the point that your idea hinges on isn't it?Michael Hezzlewood wrote:When matter is converted to energy it is, in effect, destroyed as it no longer exists in material form.davep wrote:It can? I know that it can be converted to energy, but I wasn't aware that it could be "destroyed". How do you do that?
So where does one find this store of energy? How would one experimentally test for this?Michael Hezzlewood wrote:Not necessarily infinite, but a vast amount none the less. Even the big bang requires an infinite amount of energy from some source if the expansion is to go on forever.davep wrote:So you're suggesting that there's evidence for an infinite supply of energy that can be converted into matter?
But you seem to be proposing a hypothesis in which there is no "big bang" event, there is no moment of "creation". That would seem to suggest a universe that has always existed and will always exist. That sounds an awful lot like a variation on a steady state approach to me. Consider this brief description:Michael Hezzlewood wrote:Not really, as there is an expansion due to production of matter/mass from energy, there by creating space.davep wrote:In other words you're proposing a steady state hypothesis? Does it make any predictions?
What you're kicking about sounds exactly the same as the above.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory wrote:The steady state theory was developed as a result of theoretical calculations that showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity and observations by Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding. The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its look over time. For this to work, new matter must be formed to keep the density equal over time.
That would seem to suggest a version of chaotic inflation theory.Michael Hezzlewood wrote:I suppose given this hypothesis, the Universe could pulsate in a turbulent manner, expanding more in more energetic regions. There is always the possibility that the Universe that we see is only a tiny fraction of what actually exists, and that we may be witnessing only a regional expansion. (Just toying with ideas here).
On top of all of the above I'm also interested in what problems are solved by the idea you've got in mind. What problems are there in cosmology, right now, such that this idea better fits the evidence? That is to say, can you describe how it fits all available evidence that we have at the moment as well as describe how it also fits observations that are a problem for current cosmology models?