My cosmological hypothesis

An Alternative Explanation for the Apparent Cosmic Expansion: The Energy Leakage and Microscopic Scale-Contraction Hypothesis

1. Introduction
One of the deepest mysteries in modern cosmology is why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Observations show that galaxies are receding from one another not merely steadily, but ever faster. To explain this, cosmologists have introduced the concept of dark energy—a hypothetical energy density that makes up roughly 68% of the universe and acts as a repulsive gravitational force.
However, the existence of dark energy lacks any direct empirical confirmation. This challenges Occam’s razor: if a phenomenon can be explained without introducing new, unverified entities, the simpler model should be preferred.
This paper presents an alternative hypothesis: cosmic expansion is an illusion. The universe is not growing in size; rather, the scale of matter itself is shrinking. This continuous contraction arises from a gradual leakage of energy into the higher-dimensional hyperspace, corresponding to the relaxation of the brane whose deformation originally gave rise to our universe.

2. The Limitations of the Standard Cosmological Model
The ΛCDM model—combining Einstein’s general relativity with the cosmological constant (Λ) and cold dark matter—remains the prevailing cosmological framework. Yet it faces several persistent theoretical problems:
1. The cosmological constant problem: quantum field theory predicts a vacuum energy density about 120 orders of magnitude larger than what observations allow—arguably the greatest discrepancy between theory and observation in the history of science.
2. The fine-tuning problem: the fundamental constants of physics (speed of light, Planck’s constant, electron mass, etc.) appear to be precisely “tuned” to allow matter and life to exist. Merely assuming this as coincidence is unsatisfactory.
3. The nature of dark energy: Λ is mathematically convenient but physically undefined; no known mechanism explains its existence or magnitude.
These challenges suggest that the ΛCDM framework may be an incomplete projection of a deeper, higher-dimensional process, rather than the ultimate description of reality.

3. The Core Hypothesis
Suppose the universe is not expanding at all. Instead, elementary particles themselves are gradually shrinking.
This contraction affects all material entities equally—atoms, molecules, and even the measuring instruments we use to observe them. Because everything scales down together, we cannot directly perceive the change. Yet when we observe the redshift of distant galaxies, we interpret it as evidence of expansion, whereas it may actually arise because the scale of matter has decreased between emission and observation.
In this view, the apparent “stretching” of light is not caused by the expansion of space but by the changing size of the reference scale used by the observer.

4. Energy Leakage and the Brane-Physical Interpretation
According to this model, energy is not perfectly conserved within our universe: it slowly leaks into the surrounding hyperspace—the higher-dimensional medium in which our four-dimensional brane (the universe) is embedded.
Brane-world scenarios, such as those proposed by Randall–Sundrum and in ekpyrotic cosmology, already envision our universe as a membrane floating in a higher-dimensional bulk. If this brane was compressed during its creation (the Big Bang), it would gradually relax and smooth out over time, releasing part of its elastic energy into the bulk.
The observed cooling of the cosmos would thus not only reflect expansion but also the dissipation of the brane’s intrinsic tension. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) might therefore represent not just the fossil light of the early plasma but also the residual radiation from the brane’s energy relaxation.

5. Consequences and Observational Predictions
If the universe is truly shrinking at a microscopic scale, several phenomena would need reinterpretation:
1. Redshift reconsidered: wavelengths do not stretch; instead, the metric of matter contracts.
2. Variable “constants”: if physical size scales change, then so-called constants may exhibit an extremely slow temporal drift. Future ultra-precise atomic clock measurements or high-resolution spectral analyses could, in principle, detect such variations.
3. Dark energy becomes unnecessary: the apparent acceleration of cosmic expansion emerges naturally from this scale-shift, without invoking an unknown energy form.
4. Support for the neutron-matter hypothesis: if energy leakage is slow, neutron stability conditions may differ slightly, allowing for long-lived microscopic neutron clumps—“neutron star crumbs”—which could constitute dark matter.

6. Philosophical Reflections
This model aligns elegantly with Occam’s razor: it introduces no new forces or exotic substances, only a shift in perspective regarding energy flow and dimensional structure.
It also softens the fine-tuning problem: if physical constants evolve slowly, we need not ask why they were “just right” from the start, but rather how and why they drifted into the life-permitting range over cosmic time.
Philosophically, the model resonates with Stoic cosmology: the universe as a single, living continuum of energy and matter, cycling between tension and relaxation. Energy “leakage” is not decay but the natural return of the cosmos toward equilibrium within the larger order of nature.

7. Conclusion
The proposed hypothesis—that cosmic expansion is a perceptual illusion caused by microscopic scale-contraction—offers a coherent and physically plausible alternative to dark energy. It reframes the Big Bang not as a one-time explosion but as the onset of a brane deformation slowly relaxing through the loss of its stored energy into higher dimensions.
Future work could formalize this concept mathematically: describing how the Planck length, atomic scales, and possibly even the speed of light would evolve as functions of cosmic time, and how such drift might subtly affect the CMB spectrum or redshift maps.
Whether ultimately validated or falsified, this framework encourages us not to mistake our models for reality. Just as the brane itself smooths its folds through time, so too does science refine its understanding—each new wave revealing a deeper layer of the cosmos.