The speed of light (and acceleration with which it is changing) in the Theory of the Shrinking Universe (TSU) is not derived from spatial values over time – it is the principal matter of the Universe. This means that the speed of light creates the universe, time and space. And the space itself - in fact, is fiction, sort of a "matrix" of the reality that we are aware, and the reality is not the space, the space is just a mirage, a reflection of reality in our minds, the reality - is the speed of light. Changing speed of light in the TSU is not a postulate, but is derived from the conservation laws. In addition, TSU reveals the physical meaning of many of the fundamental principles  - the principle of relativity, the upper limit for the speeds of objects, the birth of the space, and many, many others...

Central concept is that the universe is not expanding, but is instead contracting. The contraction is centre- less (uniform), and the velocity of contraction is ‘c’. (Perhaps it would be more appropriate to state it as  that ‘c’ is equal to the rate of contraction of the universe at the observation location, and that, consequently, the speed of light there is ‘c‘. We approach this subject with a thought experiment, but before we do that it behooves us to examine the nature of our own thought processes. They are not simple extensions of the realities around us. Images focused on the retina of our eyes is transmitted to our brains as sequences of electrical pulses (synapse firings).  Our brain interprets these electrical pulses into an internal representation of the outside stimulus i.e., our brain creates a ’model’ of the outside stimulus. Our model of a coffee table might be as a flat surface supported by four legs at a height suitable for use. This model serves us for the purpose of using the table and navigating safely around it. A physicist might, for his purposes, model the table as an organization of atoms each separated from its neighbors by a distance which is vast compared to its own size.  Brain models are specific to the intended application. No one model is more correct than any other. Models are application dependent.  So a model of a contracting universe is no less applicable than is a model of an expanding universe, for the purpose intended. Thus, argument over which model is ‘correct’ is naïve. Each model is for its intended purpose - in this case, analysis.
The universe and all that is in it (all matter as well) is contracting uniformly (without a centre of contraction) at velocity ‘c’. All matter and all space is contracting in this manner. It is not apparent to us, as passengers in this universe, because our yardsticks and our selves are contracting  in lock step with the contraction of the universe, so that all distances as measured with our yardstick, remain apparently unchanged.

Everything inside space is shrinking, and space itself, or the volume of it, never changes its own outside appearance. It looks like it is expanding to us because we are getting smaller. But now the question is, how can you explain the fact distant galaxies appear to be traveling faster than our neighboring ones? Does that mean space is shrinking at different rates throughout space? No, everything is shrinking at a simultaneous rate according to what this theory suggests. Distant galaxies seem to be traveling faster only because there is already large amounts of space between them and us. You have to take in account for the growing distance between us and close galaxies, and add that to the distance already established between us and the distant galaxies. A shrinking model of what's inside the Universe makes more sense than an expanding Universe model.

According to the Hawking-Bekenstein equation, though the universe continues to shrink towards the Plank dimensions its entropy cannot increase and in fact must decrease as its area shrinks. This is because the entropy tends towards zero as the universe collapses towards the Plank dimensions.

We indeed are in a shrinking universe. It's just that our physics upside down. Lawrence Krauss says that the universe is shrinking and expanding are basically indistinguishable. He can only be distinguished when we compare our universe with a pair of our universe. In this isolation, we may live in a world whose time is running backwards, but we feel time is running forward.

The universe is not really expanding, but instead the galaxies are decreasing in size. Well, not just their size but their space-time. This would make it appear from our point of view that the universe is expanding, while we are actually shrinking. This is simple relativity. It this would be true we would not have to wonder about the mysterious force that expands the universe and maybe dark matter could be questioned.

Taking into consideration the very dual nature of information contained in the light. This is the theory of Sambursky. Sambursky sees the expansion of the Universe dynamically, arguing theoretically that "the dynamics of expansion are transferred into the dimensions of atomistic phenomena where expansion appears as its reverse – shrinkage" [S. Sambursky, 1937]. Leaving aside the intricate theory, involving the long-term variation of the Planck constant, we consider this theory as entirely feasible, based on the dual nature of light: it carries information about the Macrocosm, but this information can only be extracted through microscopic processes. Shrinking universe  metric could be described with the analogue gravity metric [Neven Bili ́c and Dijana Toli ́c, 2012].

Ordinarily, the spectral shift of distant galaxies, found proportional to their distance from us, has been interpreted as galactic recession:  all other explanations, such as old light, lain aside.  The crux of this choice, made in earlier argument, was that there was no known laboratory demonstration of old light whereas the Doppler effect of wave propagation was well known.  In and by itself there is no quarrel with this choice. 

If the full culmination of such a choice is realized, leading to the Big Bang hypothesis, one can agree that there is also no laboratory demonstration of what might be called a non-initiated laboratory explosion nor a defiance of entropic law, either of which are necessary in the support of open or closed, or oscillatory evolutionary systems, respectively. 

However during the time in which Hubble law was in the forefront, the Big-Bang hypothesis was not being considered, as was the possibility of old light, necessary in defense of the Steady-State hypothesis;  the former being eventually debunked, along with old light.

Today, given the same choice, neither option presents a more reasonable choice in respect to laboratory verifiability.  If the red shift cannot be explained as old light, by the same rules of the road, it should not be explained as galaxies in flight.  An alternate explanation, and quite intriguing in light of modern astronomical data, is the concept of mass decrement, where light is unaffected by the increasing space-gauge, but matter is.

Essential to the support of this concept, are speed and time;  all three: space, time and speed, serving as fundamental keystones to modern physics.  For example, given two distinctly different positions in space, one might readily prove this distance by firing a projectile past both locations, causing a sensor to be tripped;  both events being recorded on a time graph, such as an oscilloscope.  By altering the distance between locations, the duration of time elapsed between trips would change proportionately, indicating the presence of another ubiquitous medium, we know as time, which seems to be somehow metrically linked to space.

In this example, space and time are thought to be constant in their relationship, which means that both might be metrically invariant, or that both might be metrically variant, providing both change in the same way.

Metrically variant is the same as saying that the space-gauge is not constant, and relates to the physical size of things, such as atoms.  If the space-gauge decreases in time, objects become smaller, and atomic distances shorter:  such as the orbital radius of electrons associated with cesium atoms, as example.  Since this relationship is commonly used in laboratory timekeeping, with shorter orbits and electrons moving at a fixed speed around the central atom, laboratory time would speed up.

There is the question of speed, as to whether or not speed is invariant.  If we allow speed to be invariant, there is the third combination in the relationship between time and space, that time is invariant and space is variant.  Let me explain.

First, if space and time are invariant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted, year after year.

On the other hand, if space and time are variant, proportionately so, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted.

Finally, if space is variant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would take different times moving between these two locations, each and every time the experiment was conducted.  If the locations were closer, then it would seem that the time it takes to travel between would be quicker, and if further apart, longer.

If this distance, rather than a straight line between locations, was instead the distance an electron would travel in completing a single orbit around its respective atom, then laboratory time would be variant, exactly offsetting any perceived time changes in the projectiles transit between locations.  In other words, though the projectile travels, say a shorter distance between locations at an always constant speed, since time also speeds up, the observer would never experience any difference;  all three possibilities yielding the same results. 

Summing up, then: the TSU here described would appear to be far removed from the model we are all used to. Instead of the cosmological red shift being caused by the expansion of space, it results from a slowing of time; and instead of the universe expanding between the galaxies, it shrinks everywhere, while time, mass and electric charge change with it. Not only that, but this takes place while the measurement of all such entities and constants of nature remains the same to the inhabitants of the universe throughout all epochs. Also, gravity is caused by the accelerating shrink of the universe as a "hypersphere", and not by hypothetical gravitons. In addition, there are now no problematic singularities, either at the beginning or end of time. Neither does "dark energy" need to be invoked in order to explain any aspect of this universe, unlike in the Big Bang model. Even the commonly held idea that parallel universes might exist "inside" and "outside" of our own, has been enlarged on further, with the additional suggestion that they might all be identical to ours in every way, except for their particular point in history. But perhaps the most dominant underlying hypothesis, drawing everything together in this wide-reaching paper, is the idea that space is a real physical substance, and that all the distinct entities of mass, charge, light, forces and fields, although appearing to exist in a universe where there is no carrier medium, are instead all manifestations of that single substance and the way it behaves. Thus, particles with mass were said to be "humps", while those with charge were "twists" within that same fabric. Finally, after suggesting a possible see-through elastic cubic sub-structure for space, as well as the two different waves by which particles are able to zigzag their way through its interconnecting pathways in a probabilistic manner, we saw how it might explain the wave-particle duality of electrons, as well as their behaviour in quantum theory’s famous "double-slit" experiment.


S. Sambursky. Static Universe and Nebular Red Shift, Phys. Rev. 52, 335–338 (1937) .

S. Sambursky and M. Schiffer. Static Universe and Nebular Red Shift. II, Phys. Rev. 53, 256–263 (1938) .

Ionescu-Pallas, N.; Sofonea, L.; Toro, T. A contracting model of the universe filled with neutrinos having a non vanishing rest mass, Revue Roumaine des Sciences Techniques, Serie de Mecanique Appliquee (ISSN 0035-4074), vol. 30, Sept.-Oct. 1985, p. 503-509.

Tapan Bhattacharya. The Shrinking Universe, National Book Trust, India, Jan 1, 1996.

T. Harko, H. Q. Lu, M. K. Mak and K. S. Cheng. Quantum Birth Universes in Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies (2000), 49, Europhysics Letter, pp. 814-820.

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira, Rodrigo de Abreu. A relativistic time variation of matter/space fits both local and cosmic data, arXiv:astro-ph/0208365v1, 2002.

Finelli F. A contracting universe driven by two scalar fields, Physics Letters B, Volume 545, Number 1, 3 October 2002 , pp. 1-7(7).

Thorsten Battefeld, Robert Brandenberger. Vecttor Perturbations in a Contracting Universe., 2004.

William Q. Sumner. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for a Contracting Universe,, 2004.

Mena, F C ; Mulryne, D J ; Tavakol, R. Non-linear vector perturbations in a contracting universe, Classical and Quantum Gravity Volume 24 Number 10,  2007.

Rupert Raynar. A Contracting Universe: An Alternative cosmology to One of Expansion (manuscript), 1993-2011. Print by Design, 2009.

Robert H. Brandenberger, Tomo Takahashi and Masahide Yamaguchi. Adiabatic fluctuations from cosmic strings in a contracting universe ,  Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics Volume 2009 July 2009.

J. Khoury and P.J. Steinhardt. Adiabatic Ekpyrosis: Scale-Invariant Curvature Perturbations from a Single Scalar Field in a Contracting Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 091301 (2010), arXiv:0910.2230.

Neven Bili ́c and Dijana Toli ́c. Analogue surface gravity near the QCD chiral phase transition,, 2012.

Hartmut Traunmüller. A new look at the cosmological redshift (manuscript), 2012.

Branislav Vlahovic. Observed Cosmological Redshifts Support Contracting Accelerating Universe,, 2012.

© theoryofshrinkinguniverse

Сделать бесплатный сайт с uCoz