Mystery of the Universe’s Expansion Rate Widens with New Hubble Data

Seems like a not bad idea. Especially if the antiparticles accelerated away before they could interact. But the two types of particles should be mutually attracted. They’d also have to appear in an organized way to avoid collisions with other particles.

Maybe there wasn’t a Big Bang, but instead a “large shearing”. Ie two “sheets” (like higher dimensional objects) started in contact with one another and moved apart/were pulled apart from one another. Before the shearing, lots of energy existed with little or no opportunity for massive objects to form. During the shearing the particles adhered to one sheet (for whatever reason) and the antiparticles the other.

(End of my out there positing)

A question I'm too amateur to resolve on my own is what if the Big Bang simply created two universes? One made primarily of "matter" and the other made of "anti-matter?"

What if the big bang was simply a Casimir event? The particles should have collided and annihilated, but didn't? The result being two new universes pulled into existence by the sudden inversion of entropy?

I've often wondered the same thing. What if the entire universe is finite, but something like 1^(enormously large number) times larger than the observable universe? We could be this tiny speck of a backwater that's completely unrepresentative of the overall universe. The Big Bang itself could have been a minuscule local disturbance that took place in some small part of the overall universe which is trillions of times older.

I think that depends on whether big bang was global event that created matter in the entire universe (then no, because it's too far) or local event that affected observable universe (then we could see the spacetime curvature caused by outside objects and even gravitational waves that are older than the age of observable universe).

Not exactly. In tired light theory, red shift of light is result of scattering, which is very unlikely, because scattering changes course of photon, so these photons will not be associated with original object after some very short distance.

My own idea is that photon itself has no mass, because it just wave of energy, but vacuum of volume of photon has some non-zero mass.

As analogy, water wave has no mass, but water has, so water, which forms wave, can be affected by external forces, e.g. gravitation of Moon and Sun, thus form of water wave can be disturbed by these forces. LIGO demonstrated that light can be affected by gravitational waves, so these gravitational waves, in form of constant noise, can disturb shape of photon, so photon will lost small fraction of energy to gravitational field.

Moreover, as EM force, photon should be affected by fluctuations of quantum foam, which are happened nearby. In this case, photon will lose small fraction of energy to these virtual particles.

> It's temporary.

Yes, it's called science.

> With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory.

At which point we hopefully come up with a new theory which fits the observations, and leave the current mainstream theory behind. This happened for example when General Relativity was introduced.

Until we find a new theory which fits all the observations, we have a transition period where things are a bit confusing. See for example particle physics before the QCD model tied it back together. Now we're starting to see cracks in the the current standard model of particle physics, so something new is likely needed soon. This is science.

> I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/

The power spectrum I linked to is the angular power spectrum of the CMB. It's not the spectral density. The horizontal scale is (in essence) angular separation, not frequency.

How does helium explain the peaks in the angular power spectrum? Link to some calculations please.