Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe

Prevailing model of the origin and expansion o...
Dark Energy, or an Earth-centered Shockwave? (Image via Wikipedia)

OK, how did I miss this article?

On the Popular Science website (popsci.com), dated 9/25/2009, is an article titled “Mathematicians’ Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy” — subheading: “An alternative theory eliminates dark energy by placing Earth at the center of expansion.” Actually, it is a “Reader’s Digest” version of a larger article from Seed magazine titled “Erasing Dark Energy” — pre-story tease: “Why do we need dark energy to explain the observable universe? Two mathematicians propose an alternative solution that, while beautiful, may raise even more questions than it answers.”

Here’s the gist of it. Since about 1998, physics has believed that there is some sort of “dark energy” causing the universe to accelerate its expansion. This “dark energy” is supposed to make up about three-quarters of the universe, with its equally mysterious cousin, “dark matter,” making up another 20%, leaving plain-old matter (like you and me and cheeseburgers) making up about 4%. However, physicists have yet to really agree on the nature of this mysterious “dark matter.” Its inclusion solves some of their baffling observations about the universe, but it remains an uncomfortable mystery.

Enter two mathematicians, Blake Temple and Joel Smoller. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, suggest a solution to the accelerating universe that doesn’t require conjuring up anything like “dark matter” — in fact, it doesn’t require conjuring up anything new at all. Their solution works with the current laws of physics we already have.

Their solution? That the acceleration seen is due to an expanding shockwave that occurred after the Big Bang–a shockwave that would have originated very near the Earth.

Did you catch that? A shockwave, plowing through the universe and spreading out the galaxies that originated near the Earth.

To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.

But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.

Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity” — a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it. Against it is the fact that dark energy also may account for some other observations, such as certain characteristics of the cosmic microwave background we observe in the universe.

But the biggest strike against it in the eyes of physicists? According to the article, it is the fact that it puts the earth at the center of the universe. As one particular cosmologist, Michael Wood-Vasey, is quoted in the Seed article concerning such a possibility: “It’s very philosophically disconcerting… It’s not very satisfying.”

Personally, regardless of how it turns out, I think one element of all of this is just rich. In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?

Thankfully, the mere fact that their theory was published in the Proceedings speaks well of the scientific community, methinks. Astrophysicist Philip Hughes, who worked with the two mathematicians, says that we should be open to possibilities, especially given how much we still don’t know — and can’t even agree about — concerning “dark energy.” From the Seed article:

“But Hughes, who calls [the Earth-centered shockwave theory] ‘a tour de force of mathematical analysis,’ argues that though it presents a radical philosophical shift, the wave theory could nevertheless be useful to cosmologists.

“‘The concept of “dark energy” is a way of parameterizing our ignorance,’ he said in an email. ‘Given our shaky understanding of the physics behind it, I would hope that people are open-minded enough to see what might be learned from this work. We have for practical purposes no understanding of “dark energy”; there isn’t even a glimmer of consensus.'”

Is the Earth truly the center of the universe? Spiritually, we know it is the center of God’s plan, but is it actually physically the center, as well? Have we been so long in the God-must-be-banished woods of modern science that such a possibility is that hard to see?

These articles are a little more than a year old. Does anyone know of any new developments? Temple & Smoller were planning on developing their theory further and preparing it for testing. Any details out there about new news would be appreciated — feel free to post below.

Theories are theories, and I am not married to either idea, to be sure. God says through Solomon that “[i]t is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2), and at this stage God is certainly holding many cards close to His chest.

Yet, five centuries after Copernicus, it would be fascinating if modern cosmology concluded that Earth is, indeed, the center of the universe. What additional conclusions might follow?


Related or similar posts:

18 thoughts on “Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe

  1. New developments, you ask? You do realize, don’t you, that “young-creationists” have been proposing such a situation for quite a few years? 🙂 Their cosmology and mathematics are no doubt off at critical points because their theology is off at critical points, but Dr. Russell Humphreys (a physicist at Los Alamos Laboratory, no less) proposed the same basic idea (the universe was created and then expanded from the earth as its center) long ago in his book Starlight and Time and has apparently been refining it under critique ever since. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if what you mention here shows up on the Answers in Genesis Web site very soon.

    I’m reminded of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous threefold list of the history of scientific discovery, which then had a fourth item added by the authors of the dystopic science-fiction novel The Killing Star>:

    “New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can’t be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it’s not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!”

    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/arthur_c._clarke/

    4) (the addition) is: “I thought of it first!” 😀

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Star

  2. Howdy, Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I am familiar with at least some of the arguments. I mentioned the quantized red shift argument to someone some time back.

    However, most of those arguments have always seemed a little lacking in punch or credibility – or, at best,most seemed not necessarily a better argument that the more Copernican-oriented approaches. In this case, the solution is mathematically elegant, credible, rigorous, and — of vital importance — likely testable. I certainly understand the erroneous thinking that guards the gateways to scientific journal publication, and I don’t use such journals’ exclusion of ideas as a completely reliable filter. Yet I do admit that these fellows’ inclusion in the Proceedings is a real plus in the credibility factor for me.

  3. So why are we both up at this insane hour of the morning? 🙂

    The inclusion in the Proceedings is a big plus for me too. In fact I’m surprised that the article even got past the gatekeepers. Articles that challenge the reigning paradigm in cosmology have been routinely shot down, even when posed by evolutionists. I recently saw a pretty disheartening list of such rejections (in my usual ENFP weakness, “I read it in a book (Web page, etc.) somewhere” but can’t remember just where).

    Testability means much to me as well. Whatever else might be said about (say) Dr. Humphrey’s arguments a priori, in terms of testability not all of them are scientifically “falsifiable” (although some seem to be). Not that falsifiability is a panacea – but in actual science it’s necessary. It’s calling unfalsifiable “metaphysical research programmes” like evolution (in the words of a curator at the British Museum, himself an evolutionist) “science” that really annoys me.

  4. In looking for a current news item about said thesis on the Answers in Genesis Web site, I found nothing to date, although it will likely show up in their upcoming e-mail newsletter. However, I did find two pages on Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design and I think you’d find these brief critiques of interest. I link to them both here (caveat lector: you’ll be exposed to my boring thoughts on the subject as well 🙂 ).

    http://rakkav.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/stephen-hawkings-grand-absurdity/

  5. Actually, we’ve been up since the bee-yoo-tiful time of 4:00 so that we can make Akron services by 10:00. 🙂 As for AiG, you may need to check earlier — remember, the news came out a little more than a year ago.

  6. Not yet, they haven’t. Maybe I can tip them off.

    Have a good Sabbath, you and yours. 🙂 (I was up at 3:30, so there – but not for nearly as good a reason, namely simple insomnia.)

  7. Linda

    Well it is now after Sabbath, October 24, 2010. I can see that at least two minds were productive early in the day. Amazing.

  8. Steve

    Your last paragraph. “What additional conclusions might follow?”

    Well, that’s pretty obvious, but they won’t get it, and won’t even come close to getting it.

  9. Pingback: I'm tired of giving religionists a pass - Page 12 - Christian Forums

  10. Pingback: Creation - Page 4 - Christian Forums

  11. Pingback: Evidence vs. Believe (A Tale of Two Bunnies) - Page 22 - Christian Forums

  12. Pingback: Challenge to Creationists who dismiss evolution! - Page 8 - Christian Forums

  13. Pingback: Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution - Page 6 - Christian Forums

  14. Pingback: "In the beginning" = Big Bang? - Christian Forums

  15. Pingback: Is Evolution A Lie? - Page 20 - Christian Forums

  16. Maz

    Well two years later and this very credible idea appears to have remained silent. Even the moon impact theory is problematic with the moon appearing to have only one parent.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329124722.htm

    What of parsimony? It appears that in this case the most simple and uncomplicated scenario is the one ignored by the majority of the scientific community. This proposed model does not require a mystery. I like it and also feel it is only fear of ridicule that stiffles this theories progress.

    Just thought I’d bring this back to 2012. Has anyone heard of anything more?

  17. Over the past couple of years there has been new data collected from a number of different missions. The anomalies, ironically on the website flatuniversesociety.com, support a big bang shock wave with the earth, in fact, off-center.

    The website postulates a solution of a big bang shock wave in the context of a positively curved universe. This context provides not so obvious stability to the model.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s