Note this website appears to be based around the personal theories of a scientist rather than a presentation of the consensus of the field.

Perhaps similar to somebody more famous like Harari in that respect.

The author appears to be legitimate in his scientific background but the repeated implications of the revolutionary nature of his work are somewhat crankish; this is a personal blog so possibly he just needs a good editor (he says he is published elsewhere).

Just something to bear in mind as you read - not that there isn't anything to gain from it; but the boundary between well-grounded theory and speculative philosophic beliefs may not be clear - which to be fair arguably comes somewhat with the territory here.

Edward Arthur Milne's proposal was that the universe started out expanding. That is Milne cosmology, and oddly enough it's equivalent to Standard cosmology when you take out the gravitational effects of mass-energy. What's odd about that is that in Milne cosmology you have a big bang at one point with the edge moving at arbitrarily close to c and with uniform distribution of stuff and velocities, while in Standard cosmology we speak of the big bang happening everywhere all at once. This oddity is resolved when you realize that Milne is hyperbolic, so you if you "unfurl" a Milne universe it then looks the same as Standard excluding gravity.

I understand that, for a stationary black hole without spin (which does not exist), an object that falls into it will freeze, then the image will redshift until it disappears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

I also understand that there is a cosmological (event) horizon, where galaxies freeze, then rapidly redshift in the same way. This happens because these distant objects are accelerated away from us faster than light.

It appears to me that we are seeing black hole event horizons from the outside, and the cosmological event horizon is seen from the inside.

The similarities do give one pause.

The mechanisms are different; one is gravity, and the other is dark energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon

Because our universe is actually the inside of a blackhole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology#Evidence

My favorite idea is that the universe expands because mass-energy in our 4d parent universe is falling into our universe, which is a black hole. We exist as information upon the 4d hole’s 3d event horizon, and experience its inflation as our time dimension (as well as space inflation).

Inflation is accelerating because as the black hole grows it eats more.

Don’t know how crackpot this is. From what I’ve read it actually can be coaxed into fitting observation but there’s just no possible way to test it.

Whew, really fantastic article!

> “In physics, description is explanation” (author quoting his PhD advisor)

Yes, i have always hated this about physics. It is the only scientific field that apparently feels no responsibility to explain “why”, deciding that “what” is sufficient.

I wish the author all success so that i can someday read a satisfying answer to some of the “whys” of physics.

I kind of like the idea that as the edge of the universe is observed, it expands to fit that observation. "Observed" being in the same sense as the uncertainty principle. But there's also the idea of the universe or space as a kind of mesh that's stretching, not really growing.

When I think about things at this scale, it really makes me feel minuscule.

Attempts to tackle why in science are actually, underneath, just a how-it-really-happens, or what-happens answers.

No scientist can explain the why, and most can't even explain the how (Heisenberg uncertainty, for one accessible example).

I feel cosmology ought to grapple more with, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” That question and this question are certainly linked. If expansion is a mirror of collapse, how do we get from some initial nothingness to a point where there is something capable of collapsing? Starting with an infinite amount of stuff everywhere feels like cheating.

I am absolutely certain that I read this same blog post on a 1990s geocities-style page, or nearly identical in content and prose. I know this because I even showed it to my high school Astronomy teacher, who found it equally fascinating for entirely different reasons: I gave him a peek inside the wacky rabbit hole of the World Wide Web and he wanted more of it.

Anyway, can some please validate my memory? I do not want to experience this Mandela effect alone.

Fascinating article. I don't have enough knowledge to judge if the author's theory could make sense or not. But cosmology has always interested me, and I never liked the ad hoc and non-verifiable nature of some parts of the Big Bang theory. In particular of the inflation phase. So to me, any theory that gets rid of that is most welcome.

It's a nice fresh take. I like how naturally it comes that there's no singularity inside a black hole as there's no matter that can go through the event horizon in a finite time.

It’s not expanding. It’s rotating in the 4th dimension.

> In fact, this tendency for light and matter to slow cosmic expansion mathematically blows up to an infinite amount at the Big Bang

Well - the Big Bang theory could be wrong. Yes, one can assume it is logical, if everything expands then at one point it must have been closer together, a single point (though, has anyone determined this center yet?). But one could have different explanations. What if everything consists of strings of different energy streams? One could avoid having a Big Bang as theory there. Also, gravity has not yet been unified with other parts of the laws of physics, so realistically we don't fully understand gravity yet either. You have theories that right now do not explain everything.

is pointless to say the universe expands. We don't even know where it ends or begins

I doubt very much the universe is expanding. The CMB doesn't present as a uniform field and is probably just noise from galaxies. There is too much vested religious interest in a finite and non-eternal universe for preconceptions not to cloud scientific observation. I call bullshit.

>Physics conjecture

>Looks inside.

>Zero math.

Zero effort slop.

to have enough space to accommodate your mom … I’m so sorry for this joke

> The standard cosmological model affords no such explanation

Einstein GR → Friedmann eqns → universe can be expanding or contracting

Rest of this amounts to "what about initial conditions? things become divergent at t→0"

Yes, this is called the Big Bang singularity, GR breaks down there. You are not the first person to notice this. It is considered one of the biggest open problems in the field.

The stuff about accelerating expansion is confused (AI?) slop which eventually gets around to admitting that there's no problem at t>0 and no change to the existing problem at t=0, so I don't know why you didn't just cut it.

This is some real "unsolicited snail mail to physics departments"-tier content, even for HN I think it's embarrassing to have this on the front page.

I guess because every code monkey in Silicon Valley has wet dreams about overthrowing the hidebound physics establishment for some reason