An Odd Hypothesis

yevaud · May 6, 2006

A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." Full Story <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

qso1 · May 6, 2006

Kind of like steady state which I thought some version of that...which could be this, is the most logical probability of the Universe life cycle. What I'm still trying to determine is what constitutes a Universe given that the term was meant at one time to mean all encompassing...all that there can be. But in recent years with terms like omniverse, multiverse, and hyperverse being tossed around. There seems to be no clear cut definition of what exactly is a Universe. What I decided for my own purposes is that the Universe can be thought of as the void where all these big bangs take place. An endless void where collections of galaxies come into being at different times and are not visible to us because of extreme redshifting resulting from distances of hundreds of billions or even trillions of light years. For the record, I'm not a scientist by training and I could not possibly have any evidence for the model I just described, its just a theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

dragon04 · May 7, 2006

I wonder why it would have to be just a single "bang" as opposed to multiple ones in succession. I know that's not exactly what the topic addresses, but.... Which brings me to another question. "Hubble" a few dozen galaxies that are close to the same distance away, relative to Earth. Now, Hubble some at a set, closer distance. Repeat this a few times. By their corresponding redshifts, we can determine how rapidly the observed galaxies are receeding from us. If the rate of expansion of the Universe is uniform regarding all galaxies, then there should be one formula that describes that acceleration. Currently, it appears that the rate of exapnsion of the Universe is accelerating. But is it at a constant rate for all things at all distances relative to our position? Has this increasing acceleration been reconciled with the Hubble Constant? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

It appeals to my sense of the exotic to be sure. But do you think this model better explains all the current problems, accelerated expansion, the need for ‘dark matter’ etc? I thought that one of the reasons for hypothesising dark matter was the rotation of galaxies being too fast. How does this model explain that? It just makes my head hurt... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

dragon04 · May 7, 2006

But do you think this model better explains all the current problems, accelerated expansion, the need for ‘dark matter’ etc? I thought that one of the reasons for hypothesising dark matter was the rotation of galaxies being too fast. How does this model explain that? While I'm not formally trained in Physics or Cosmology, I find the Dark Matter/Dark Energy business very untidy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

tom_hobbes · May 7, 2006

Isn't it the very neccessity of dark matter that hints at a prior untidiness? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

dragon04 · May 7, 2006

Indeed it does. Nature abhors a vacuum. The Universe is fastidious. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

alkalin · May 7, 2006

Back to the beginning. The idea struck a few people that the universe might be expanding because that is one interpretation of the red shift. So why not assume that if we looked far enough into the past, we would see the very beginning of it all and at that time it could be a very small entity, and the amount of red shift we see would give us a rough idea as to how long ago it occurred. This concept of red shift due to Doppler has no positive proof as yet, although there is negative data coming from several sources of study, such as quasars, the amount of intergalactic matter, and lab studies on the effects of tenuous matter on light’s wavelength. But the universe did not cooperate in this idea either, since trying to look east, west, north, south, up, & down, we were looking into the past as far in each direction as our telescope could see light. Everywhere we look it simply does not appear to come from a small beginning somewhere in the past, which amounts to failure number one. But if we can invent a space/time curvature math that it could have come from a small beginning, then maybe we could save this idea. But we find that if curvature is correct and everything came from a small region, point like or close to this, then as we should peer into the past, we should see convergence of objects until they begin to resemble one another and even further out they are like one object. This is failure number two because nothing of the sort has been found. The two failures so far are not the same one because the math should have corrected a problem when it obviously did not, but is still in use. Even worse has now cropped up that way out there where that beginning was supposed to be, the universe we live in right here locally has been right here at least as long as that supposed other beginning was coming into existence. Failure number three. Now comes the BIG GUN riding on the HORSE that carries the BIG MATH

yevaud · May 7, 2006

I've been trying to post occasional interesting articles that I see here and there. The purpose being to stimulate discussion and debate. So far, it appears to be reasonably successful, as witnessed by all of your responses. Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

rogers_buck · May 9, 2006

If you consider for a moment that the time axis of their cyclic universe is imaginary time and not real time, this new model doesn't seem so new to me. It is merely an expression of sum over histories between initial and final quantum states. What's the difference?

nova_explored · May 9, 2006

none. in response to your question rogers_buck. its not really a new theory, but a reordering of an old one. it even gives credence to the multiverse model. nowhere in our bigbang model does it say that is was the first. there is such a theory. an ever constant ebb and flow of bangs and crunches, spiraling new universes on top of old, eternally. problem- infinity is a funny thing as it falls into a 'law of averages'. Under such an infinite model, our universe should be so complex and tangled that it just thins out unable to sustain itself with any physical model. infinite interaction on multiple dimensions would cause problems. it would seem under such an infinite model, we would experience greater unbalance. someone should rack their brains and computers to model infinite structure and its variables, if that is possible. I just don't think we fall under such an infinite model. but who knows. how can you really. begs the question- was there a true beginning? or is it just a bunch of perculations of some sort, and entropy and QM (sum over histories) that took over and did the rest? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

anhourtofall · Dec 3, 2006

I kind of came to that conclusion in middle school. I mean it pretty much explains why there was never a beginning and will never be an end. Hey didn't they say this same thing in that movie K-PAX?

vandivx · Dec 4, 2006

"I thought that one of the reasons for hypothesising dark matter was the rotation of galaxies being too fast. How does this model explain that?" --- don't know if you read the orig article, if not here is the end where the deal with DM is stated: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Dark matter "At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explained Professor Turok. "The best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another. "These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide. "This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future."<hr /></blockquote> my own opinion on that is that it is complete bollock and the idea of oscilating universe was conceived by men long dead and turned into dust, maybe that's why the new scientists don't seem to have clue they didn't come up with something revolutionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe my oh my what the physics is coming to vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

anhourtofall · Dec 4, 2006

Anytime someone starts talking about a parrallel universe, which is what this sounds like, my eyes glaze over. Theories should become simpler over time. Always go with the simplest explanation of something and you won't go wrong.

weeman · Dec 4, 2006

Responding to your post Nova_explored, infinity is certainly an impossible thing for our minds to comprehend. Although I haven't read the article, infinity would not apply to each universe that has existed, it simply applies to the number of universes that have already existed, as well as the infinite more that will continue to exist. Each universe itself is not infinite, it begins with a bang and ends with a crunch. This would also have to mean that each universe is a closed universe. Meaning that there is enough matter in each universe to halt its own expansion, eventually causing it to collapse in on itself. It almost seems that human life can be used as an analogy in this argument. Lets say for a moment that mankind has existed infinitely, we have always been here. It doesn't mean that each human life is infinite, it simply means that our existence as a species has been infinite. If each life is indeed finite, then the very laws of science and nature that create us, would indeed have some sort of order and organization. However, I argue with myself here, because I do not understand something being infinite. As humans, we assume that everything has a beginning and an end. So, it does make sense that there couldn't possibly be an order or organization with something that is infinite. However, if each universe is merely the birth after another universe that died off in a cataclysmic crunch, then each universe may very well have order. Of course this is assuming that each universe is influenced in no way by the universe that existed before it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

vandivx · Dec 4, 2006

same here as to what my eyes and mind do but its not because of complexity, complexity is fine as long as you can make at least some sense out of it simplicity is certainly commendable but it is not a criterion for selecting right theories I am also puzzled by this talk about new universe being influenced by the preceding one(s) etc, oscillating universe means that at some point universe begins to contract which at some point trigers nuclear processes due to increasing pressure and everything turns to some hot soup and the pressure/heat at some point will lead to a point when this dense soup will explode like and start expanding, cooling off and stars will start forming again and they will form from the energy/matter that went through that crunch furnace and there will not be the old universe someplace LOL I mean what a gobledy ****, I mean if you recycle newspapers into pulp and make new newspapers out of it, how will the old newspapers influence the new ones, I don't get it, as I see it the old nespaper is no more and the new one is as good as the old one which doesn't exist anymore, what's so difficult about it vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · Dec 5, 2006

Nothing new.

weeman · Dec 5, 2006

The newspaper analogy makes sense. It seems like the new newspaper would have no relation to the old one before it. However, if the same material is used to create the newspaper, or universe, then a universe could technically not exist without the one before it. They actually talk about this in the movie The Matrix. It basically implies that Deja Vu occurs because the universe has already existed, and for a split second, its as if we are remembering a point in our life when we lived it in the previous universe. This is certainly science fiction, and is very hypothetical, but it is quite interesting <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I could believe the fact that the universe will eventually collapse into a crunch later causing another big bang. I just can't understand how it has happened infinite amount of times. I mean think about it, it never had a beginning, it has always been and will always be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

vandivx · Dec 5, 2006

you can't have any kind of deja vu or anything because you get everything going through nuclear furnace remelting down to atomic particles, maybe even quarks, so you can't have anything carry over into next expansion except the basic particles and energy (that thing about entropy building up in successive expansions/deflations is nonsense, there is total reset in the crunch and you are at starting point, tabula rasa) <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I could believe the fact that the universe will eventually collapse into a crunch later causing another big bang. I just can't understand how it has happened infinite amount of times. I mean think about it, it never had a beginning, it has always been and will always be.<hr /></blockquote> yeah, its amazing and sometimes I ponder it too, however my rational side has dealt with this issue as follows (with help of some very bright philospher) notice that repetition forever is somewhat related to asking where did that energy/particles come from in the first place the answer is that one can't inquire into such maters because rational man comes to see that certain facts are so called axiomatic facts, that is such fact which one has to accept as starting point of investigation, if you try to ponder where it all came from or the endless repetition of cycles of universe you get tied up in contradictions and or you get stumped or mystical existence of matter/energy is one such axiom, you just have to accept it as given starting point to further inquiry since it can't be questioned, it just is and is forever and that's it, if you igonore this fact you will only get imbroiled in something called infinite regression of explanation, sort of like if in bygone ages somebody said the Earth is carried on the back of elephant (just making it up, not sure how it really went) and it didn't take long before some smart aleck asked - and what is that elephant standing on... well <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

weeman · Dec 6, 2006

It was an interesting way of how they tried to explain Deja Vu, of course it does not have any scientific evidence to it. Our physical universe would certainly go through the so called nuclear furnace remelting. However, in this instance, atomic particles, quarks, and all of these in between would have nothing to do with the occurance of Deja Vu. We would then have to look beyond our physical existence, and assume that there is life that exists beyond our observable reality (the afterlife). The theory of a soul existing in each living thing would have to be true. It would also mean that this soul has to exist in some form for an infitine amount of time. Deja Vu might then be: the soul of a being coming in contact with its previous self in the past universe for just a split second. Of couse this way of looking at it implies a more spiritual thought process, rather than a scientific one! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

bonzelite · Dec 6, 2006

this isn't new. the big bang big crunch thing has been around for thirty years or more.

weeman · Dec 6, 2006

I'm sure the idea of a big bang, big crunch universe goes back even further than 30 years. However, this is only a hypothesis to how the universe may exist if each were a closed universe. To the best of our knowledge today, we live in an open universe which means it will continue to expand forever. Of course somewhere in the near future we could find solid evidence that proves this wrong. As for now, the universe will never stop growing, it will exist on for billions to trillions of years from now. It will continue to become colder and colder, and when all stars die off, it will be even colder! The last remnants of our universe might be massive blackholes left over from ancient galaxies. Of course, according to Stephen hawking, even blackholes don't exist forever, they eventually evaporate themselves into space. Even atoms and subatomic particles themselves will eventually decay into nothing. Of course don't be depressed, we are talking a HUGE amount of time for these events to take place. Somewhere on the order of 10 to the 67 years, all the way up to 10 to the 100 years! "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice." - Robert Frost It appears today, with our modern knowledge of the universe, that it will end in ice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

bonzelite · Dec 6, 2006

to reign in such a premise as what our universe will undergo in the distant future is like shooting in the dark. nobody alive knows such things.

newtron · Dec 6, 2006

Exactly, and with current debate on what the deal with dark matter/energy is and what role it plays, I think the universe is still hiding a few important details.

vandivx · Dec 7, 2006

"To the best of our knowledge today, we live in an open universe which means it will continue to expand forever. Of course somewhere in the near future we could find solid evidence that proves this wrong." ---- talk about playing it on both sides LOL don't know about any conclusion that universe is open, not long ago it wasn't still decided either way but it wouldn't surprise me with the kind of scientists we have nowadays, gets you in news and that's what counts nobody can make any prediction as long as dark energy and matter issues are solved since they have direct bearing on universe being open or closed, nobody knows what is behind those two phenomenons and if they may last doing what they are doing forever (keep acting) or not, so nobody can make any prediction about the state of the universe vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

An Odd Hypothesis

yevaud

Guest

qso1

Guest

dragon04

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

dragon04

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

dragon04

Guest

alkalin

Guest

yevaud

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

anhourtofall

Guest

vandivx

Guest

anhourtofall

Guest

weeman

Guest

vandivx

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

weeman

Guest

vandivx

Guest

weeman

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

weeman

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

newtron

Guest

vandivx

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page