Is there a possible alternative to the expansion of space?

I would say that it depends on the relativity of entropy. Down to the basic idea, entropy says that your regions of phase space will grow by exponential factors as a system makes its way through time, which is why entropy is a logarithmic value. The current expansion of space I don't believe shows an exponential growth, and therefore, shrinking matter at the same rate would not provide an exponential value of shrinkage. But here we are speaking of real space and not phase space.

My only other thought on the matter would be the effects. Expansion of space seems to have its most potent effect outside of 1 billion light-years, outside of the reach of galactic nodes and filaments. Within these structures dark matter and gravity still hold sway. In the case of shrinking matter, the effect of spatial expansion would be on a more localized scale.

Those are my thoughts, but I like your question. Well thought out.

Rethinking this, and you make very valid points, I will let go of the phase space idea (which is simply a way to deescribe the macrostates of a system, typically by position and momentum) as it provides no real disproof of your theory. Again, I find your idea interesting, and I'm not looking to shoot it down, I just like the experience of thinking out-of-the-box. I have a knew thought. I think shrinking matter has too many variables. You have to account for too many fundamental particles, or superstrings, or branes (whichever theory you suscribe to) and their time-dependent changes. The mass of each particle must change in order for the change to go unnoticed, not just the spatial dimensions. And the shrinking would itself have to be variable to account for the proper observed redshifts. Additonally, we must reach a point at some time in the future where all subatomic particles would reach their Schwarzchild radius and ultimately collapse. I'm more apt to believe an expanding space theory, where space is the only variable. Occam's razor, between a system of multiple variables and a single variable system, the single variable system would tend to be the correct one. Of course, I am by no means an expert. But that is where my logic takes me.

We detect the expansion of the universe by measuring the doppler shift.

The Doppler Shift occurs when an object moving toward or away from you shifts the wavelength or Light and Sound, since sound does not travel in space we measure the shift in light, An object that is moving away from you shifts light to the Red end of the spectrum AKA red Shift and appears to have a a red like sheen to it.

Almost every observable object in space has a detectable red shift, from this we can tell that Space is expanding.

If matter were shrinking we could quite easily measure and notice it by observing atoms on Earth. And no such observation has ever reported atoms as shrinking.

Yes it would fail the Occam's Razor test because your theory is far more complicated than accepting the Universe is expanding because we see things moving away from us.

There are always possible alternative theories put forward in virtually all aspects of science, and for different reasons.

However the test of any theory is whether it can stand up to observation and/or experiment. The "big bang" theory about the origin of the Universe has stood the test of time because many of its predictions have been consistent with ever more stringent observations. It is also in agreement with the General Theory of Relativity which remains one of the most successful theories of all time.

Science would be boring if no alternative ideas were ever put forward for well established theories. We can never say we actually "know" anything, and challenging alternative ideas is what pushes science forward.

There IS an alternative, but you'd be better off discarding those 3 theories to begin with...

It is possible that space isnt expanding and the redshifts of distant galaxies have another cause: energy loss to gases in the intergalactic medium.

I recommend you watch this documentary which highlights evidence of non-doppler redshifts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&playnex...

This one explains how a static (non-expanding/contracting) universe is possible:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301...

If galaxies are end stages in the evolution of the universe and they were in a state of accelerated collapse they would indicate a universe in a state of accelerated expansion,which is impossible.

The alternative has been called the steady state universe theory for quite some time.

The expansion of space was determined by the blue shift we see in their spectrum. This shift cannot be produced by shrinking particles.

There are probably alternatives, but it is not all who will accept having an alternative.

Some people want to be quite safe - that is: please only one explanation on each problem.

They just will get confused handling more than one alternative.

you will have to write this one out , here we go: h squared= 8 pie g over 3 infinity(1-p over pc) . problem solved.... hope that makes sense.