New Scientist has an article by Stephen Battersby on their top ten weirdest cosmology theories. My first thought, beore reading the article was that they were going to have a lot of fun with this, but they seem to be rather conservative about their definition of “weird”. This means that they’ve focused on “weirdest” in the context (mostly) of existing scientific observational input, and published science academic circles, which you might think puts a damper on things… but read more below.
So here are the titles, under which the author writes a short paragraph describing the idea:
1. Clashing branes
2. Evolving universes
3. Superfluid space-time
4. Goldilocks universe
5. Gravity reaches out
6. Cosmic ghost
7. It’s a small universe
8. Fast light
9. Sterile neutrinos
10. In the Matrix
This means that the kind of whacky cosmology that you and I could think of in a flash for fun on a Friday (or other) afternoon are not allowed. Nor are the ones I constantly get in the mail from well-meaning citizens. All of which can be way, way weirder.
Oh well. I’m opening up this particular thread (note: no, not all discussion threads on this blog!!) to any fun/whacky/weird cosmology ideas you might like to share of your own. Serious or non-serious. I’m not going to rank them. Just feel free to share.
Here is a fun constraint (which has a serious point): Try as much as you can to make your theory fit at least loosely with whatever observational data you are aware of (expert or non-expert level, as appropriate). You’ll find then that it becomes hard to beat some of the ideas (and tested and establised phyiscs) that is actually out there in the scientific literature!
The serious point: Science already has observed and described so many strange, beautiful, and wonderful phenomena in Nature…. why make it up? Even if you try, you probably can’t do any better (I give you General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics…. imagine what those would have seemed like if proposed say 100 years earlier…even fewer years earlier!). Anyway, don’t let the serious point stop you! Have fun making stuff up, and share some with us if you like….
Oh. Do have a read of the New Scientist article, in all seriousness. It is a nice summary of some of the thinking that’s out there. We can talk about them in this thread too if you like. Try, if you can, to be clear about what is your fun stuff vs any serious scientific points you might like to make. (Wait, what am I thinking with that last sentence? This is an open blog… all serious scientific discussions have random fun/weird stuff in them, intentional or not.)