Talk:Shockwave cosmology

References

I have added two references since my first submission, which had been declined. I would like to point out that one of the original references, I believe, makes the topic notable. It is an alternative idea that fits within general relativity and produces a universe that is “looks essentially identical to the aftermath of the big bang” according to big bang supporting cosmologists Barnes and Lewis. Geraint Lewis, according to his Wikipedia page is " a Professor of Astrophysics (Teaching and Research) at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, part of the University of Sydney's School of Physics.... In 2021, he was awarded the David Allen Prize of the Astronomical Society of Australia for exceptional achievement in astronomy communication. The book sets out the evidence that is supports the big bang theory and explains where rival theories are ruled out by evidence. In that context it is significant that no evidence is reported as ruling out Shockwave Cosmology, although they do not support it, for reasons stated in the draft article. Hewer7 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Barnes and Lewis, who are staunch defenders of the big bang theory say the following in their book "The Cosmic Revolutionaries Handbook"; where they cover lots of rival ideas to the big bang theory and point out where they fall down:

“One popular misconception of the big bang model is that it describes an explosion. Supposedly, the big bang sent matter flying through empty space away from the site of the explosion. When someone asks, "where did the big bang happen?", they probably have this misunderstanding in mind.

“Nevertheless, given that galaxies are moving away from us … some scientists have tried to produce an alternative model of our universe as some kind of explosion. One particularly interesting example is the work of physicists Joel Smoller and Blake Temple in 2003.

“They construct the following marvellous scenario. For some reason, the universe is born as an expanding explosion inside a black hole. At the leading edge of the expansion is a shock wave, which propagates into the empty space around the original black hole. In its wake, the universe - strange, but true - looks essentially identical to the aftermath of the big bang. The main difference between the two models is that, somewhere out there, there is a shock wave that marks the boundary between matter and empty space.

“Could we live in that universe? While the model is ingeniously constructed within Einstein's theory of relativity, the problem is that we see no sign whatsoever of this shock wave. The model must suppose that the initial size of the shock wave was large enough that it is currently too far away for us to see. Smoller and Temple note that there are a few parameters that we need to completely specify the properties of the shock wave.

“Unfortunately, these numbers are completely unobservable since we can't see the shock. They call their equations a "rough qualitative model" for this reason.

“This makes the model, from an observational standpoint, an unnecessary complication of the big bang theory. While this is an interesting scenario, in one sense it is not surprising. We only ever see a finite piece of the universe because light can only travel so far since the beginning. We can't know what lies beyond the edges of the observable universe. So, of course, we can put an expanding shock wave out there. But we could also put a million monkeys on bicycles out there, and our telescopes would never know. The 13.8-billion-year history of the observable universe unfolds just the same.”

As you can see, although they don't agree with the model, they accept that it 'creates' a universe just like the one we see. Which they describe as "particularly interesting."

As they published their book in 2020, around 17 years or more had elapsed since Smoller and Temple published. Plenty of time for holes to be picked in their ideas. Yet the only two points that Barnes and Lewis point to are the following:

1. That there is no know mechanism for a black hole to explode. That's true, but there is also no known and evidenced way for the big bang to start, we only have theory that starts from some time after that beginning.

2. That there is no evidence for the shockwave, which Smoller and Temple assume must be beyond the observable universe. Hewer7 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I will not be reviewing this draft because I don't have access to the handbook and because even if I did, I do not think it is enough support for a standalone article. From what you've written, I would agree that this is something worth including in Wikipedia, though I can't tell you which article it is suitable for. I considered non-standard cosmology but that does not quite feel right. Shockwave cosmology appears to be more an interesting mathematical result described as a model, than an actual theory, since it makes only one prediction that can not even be tested and does not actually add anything to the ongoing study of cosmology. That there is not much to discuss is likely the reason it has not been discussed by others, save for that one example. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it. Why do you think non-standard cosmology would not be the appropriate page? It does seem to have only a limited number of non standard cosmologies,strangely. Hewer7 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hewer7, unfortunately, our cosmology articles don't seem to be well-organised or anywhere near comprehensive, perhaps because of the expertise required to contribute to the topic area. I am sure this fits somewhere near non-standard cosmology; I was just not sure about that article in particular because it's basically standard cosmology with the shockwave at the end of the universe. As you noted, if that article had a comprehensive documentation of all non-standard cosmologies, we could see exactly where the shockwave model falls in that set, and accordingly decide how to cover it. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned that the prediction can't be tested. That certainly seems to have been the case when the 2017 paper was written. I haven't been able to find out what the current or future state of such a test might be. Do you happen to know where or how I might find out? Hewer7 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. I am interested in these things, but I don't know a lot. What I know comes more from youtube than from textbooks. I asked copilot and it essentially gave the same sources that you have used here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science are places I can think of on Wikipedia to try and find editors who might know better. The former may also be able to help decide how to cover this topic on Wikipedia. The trouble is finding someone who can advise on an expert level and also happens to edit Wikipedia every week. Mike Peel, can you help? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't something I've heard of before. Looking around, the 2003 paper only has 29 citations, which is not many at all in this field. I also can't spot any newspaper articles about it, or other publications. I suggest asking for input at Talk:Non-standard cosmology as well, but I don't think this is notable enough for its own article at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added a further reference which shows two independent physicists views. More detail is above. Hewer7 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe below! I'm not familiar with how these comments get ordered. Hewer7 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mike Peel, I found that we have Black hole cosmology, which appears to be more or less the general case of theories like this one, if that helps. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: That's a good find. Still not a great article ('at least one cosmologist' is particularly amusing), but expanding that might be a good way forward here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Hewer7 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Hewer7 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a further reference, this one quotes the views of two independent physicists who, although they don't see the model as yet successfully rivaling the big bang theory, one of them describes the model as 'interesting'. https://www.space.com/7145-big-wave-theory-offers-alternative-dark-energy.html

Blake Temple replies to that here https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/CommentsPapers/ResponseToBlogosphere.pdf

which mentions two other sites that covered the model (but those two are now dead links). Hewer7 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hewer7, the space.com one looks good to me, especially as it provides substantive comments from other experts about what's good, what's bad and what's unaddressed by the model. If you can incorporate it into the draft providing a neutral summary of that discussion, I could look it over and after some modifications, likely move it to mainspace. This seems like something that has largely been ignored but the authors themselves have tried hard to keep in conversation (which is par for the course for any interesting result that does not gain traction). But there's enough here that we can leave the rest to normal editing processes; ie. if it's better merged to one of those articles, that can happen in the future when someone who feels strongly that that should be the case, proposes it. I think it's also a good candidate for inclusion in both non-standard cosmology (since it's been proposed as an alternative explanation to dark energy) and black hole cosmology (for obvious reasons). So, you can further integrate short summaries about this model to those articles, and see where it goes from there. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a new section at the end of the draft to include that. Hewer7 (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)