No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> January 30th 2007.<br /><br />A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a t&%$#@! modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists.<br /><br />The cyclic model proposed by Dr. Paul Frampton, Louis J. Rubin Jr. distinguished professor of physics in UNC's College of Arts & Sciences, and co-author Lauris Baum, a UNC graduate student in physics, has four key parts: expansion, turnaround, contraction and bounce. <br /><br />During expansion, dark energy -- the unknown force causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate -- pushes and pushes until all matter fragments into patches so far apart that nothing can bridge the gaps. Everything from black holes to atoms disintegrates. This point, just a fraction of a second before the end of time, is the turnaround. <br /><br />At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe. <br /><br />"This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang." <br /><br />An article describing the model is available on the arXiv.org e-print archive and will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters. </font><br /><br />The full article can be found HERE <br />The paper can be found HERE <br /><br />Just thought you might be interested in this one. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />EDIT: I just spotted that one of the words in my post was censored! Check out the article, it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

It appears (on the surface) to be an awful lot like the Quasi Steady State Theory:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi_steady_state_theory <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Looks like the filter needs a tune up. Even the closest word I can imagine being censored seems pretty innocuous to me!<br /><br />It is an interesting concept. I'll read through it when my brain isn't overwhelmed with pressure from excessive.....uhhhh fluids. (I hope that gets by the filter) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

It makes sense, but it seems so simple. I'm sure there's more to it. Equations and such that I won't be able to understand.<br /><br /><br />The end is kind of depressing though. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> will we ever reach other galaxies.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[weeman]

Hmmm, it is hard to believe that this has been happening for an infinite amount of times. I guess we could go into the whole argument of the term "infinite", again! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Isaac Newton believed that time was like an infinte line, stretching to infinity in the past, and stretching to infinity in the future. However, with this idea comes some dilemmas and questions. If time were infinite, how could the Universe ever have come to be? It would have taken an infinite amount of time for the Universe to one day start, meaning that it would never begin in the first place. <br /><br />So, with the cyclic universe, we could almost say that Newton was right. If time were infinite, then the Universe has to be infinite, otherwise the Universe wouldn't be here at all. <br /><br />However, more recent minds in this field of study (Einstein and Dr. Hawking), think otherwise. Hawking believes that time certainly does travel forward, but there are places where it jumps off the path, and travels backwards to meet up with its own path in the past. <br /><br />Picture a railroad, the railroad travels in one direction, yet there are areas where the tracks veer off, turn around, and a train is able to go back to tracks that it had already passed. <br /><br />If time is infinite, the universe has always been, but if the universe hasn't always been, then neither has time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

Oh, and congrats on making it to planetary status Speedfreak! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ianke]

If I am reading this right (and that is highly debatable), then each of the patches of the universe that results from the split would ultimately end up with less of everything except dark energy. Wouldn't this propose a problem for each of the segments still expanding faster with each successive split into new universes?<br /><br />I think they are saying that it preserves the infinite timeline by keeping each of the successive universes in tact as it starts from a part of the universe prior to it. In other words, no big bang. In fact no bang at all. <br /><br />Do I have the following points straight? (with respect to the arguement for dark energy)<br /><br />1. As the universe expands, the matter density decreases inverse to the volume.<br /><br />2. Dark energy directly increases in concentration as space time increases. Thus keeping a constant (if not increasing) concentration per unit volume.<br /><br />Well, if those things are true, then under this theory each successive universe would have only a portion of the original material, and would come to it's point of division in only a fraction of the length of time and volume of the prior one. <br /><br />It seems to me that that would end up back at the original problem that the theory tries to eliminate. It ultimately can not stop the "Big Rip" from occuring because there would be no matter left at some future point. No Big Bang then no more new matter.<br /><br />Perhaps I read this paper totally wrong. I know I had to read it more than once to get anything out of it. If I missunderstood this, can someone set me straight on what the paper proposes? <br /><br />Thanks ahead of time! <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jackarcalon]

So every particle (electron, positron, photon, neutrino, etc) will be gogols of lightyears from its nearest neighbor, until no further communication is possible. To avoid violating the uncertainty principle it then turns into a new universe.

 

[arkady]

Hmm, interesting. Never really grasped the multiple universe theories. How do they exist in relation to each other? Are they observable from within eachother?<br /><br />One thing I've been wondering about lately. Hope it's not too off topic. Now, I don't know a lot about physics, but from my philosophy studies I've always been told that an infinitely large and old universe is in contradiction with observations. The reason being, that if the universe is infinite, it would also contain an infinite number of stars. And if these stars have been around for eternity, then all of the light they've omitted should have reached us allready, meaning that the night sky should in fact be infinitely bright.<br /><br />Not quite sure about the source, but seem to remember the idea originating from ancient Greece somewhere, so I suppose there will be some kind of obvious explanation. I'd just like to hear it, that's all. (or read it) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Only thing I can think of would be if the expansion rate of the universe should exceed lightspeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[robnissen]

<font color="yellow">Only thing I can think of would be if the expansion rate of the universe should exceed lighspeed.</font><br /><br />That is your answer. Space between particles is expanding faster than light. Note that the particles are not traveling faster than light so there is no violation of c.<br /><br />Having said that, I still don't understand how nothing (space) expands.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...I don't know a lot about physics, but from my philosophy studies I've always been told that an infinitely large and old universe is in contradiction with observations. The reason being, that if the universe is infinite, it would also contain an infinite number of stars. And if these stars have been around for eternity, then all of the light they've omitted should have reached us allready, meaning that the night sky should in fact be infinitely bright."</font><br /><br />I believe it's called Olber's Paradox and is one of the arguments for the Big Bang.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[why06]

how close are you to asteroidum weeman? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />-GODSPEED- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[arkady]

Ah, cheers Swampcat. So it was Kepler then, I should've guessed i suppose. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[weeman]

I have no idea how far I am from asteroidum. Is there something that shows the scale of how many posts it is to jump to each category? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Space between particles is expanding faster than light. Note that the particles are not traveling faster than light so there is no violation of c. <br /><br />Having said that, I still don't understand how nothing (space) expands. </font><br /><br />Hi Rob,<br />The reason you, me, and most people don't understand, is because we think of space as a thing. It's a non-thing or nothing. In "Back to The Astronomy Cafe" Astronomer Sten Odenwald asks: When the universe is expanding, where does the new space come from? Answer: It doesn't come from anywhere, it was always there! Now, that's one point of reference. Space is a something, when it is in a gravitational field (space-time) Einstein's GR. <br /><br />If it sounds like I'm contradicting myself, sorry, that's just the way it is. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

Go to FAQ to see ranks<br />And to home to see # of posts <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[R1]

well on space expanding, I think that's the key to it: gravity (the cause or at<br />least one cause)<br /><br />and inside an event horizon it(space-time) should be expanding at rates<br />equal or above c, or light would excape.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow"><i>"If I am reading this right (and that is highly debatable), then each of the patches of the universe that results from the split would ultimately end up with less of everything except dark energy. Wouldn't this propose a problem for each of the segments still expanding faster with each successive split into new universes? "</i></font><br /><br />That's the way I read it and interpretation I have as well. It seems as dark energy is the wellspring of matter and that constantly dividing each universe into many new ones would result in a dearth of "stuff" at some point. Guess I'll have to wait for the "Endless Universe for Dummies" to come out .... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[ianke]

"Endless Universe for Dummies" Now that is more my speed! LOL <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brellis]

hi speedy<br /><br />what do you think of this model?<br /><br />It seems like a bit of a copout, not as ballsy as the Big Bang theory.<br /><br />LOL at t&%$#@! getting censored <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i give kudos to the distinguished professors of physics whom have come forth with this, at the very least to flout standard BB theory. i don't care much for this new one, either, but it is at least a fresh break from the monotony and boredom of the highly reaching big bang idea. this new one is sort of a variation on a theme. it doesn't take into account the so-called "gaps" between the "patches" or pieces of space. what is in these gaps of non-ness? of non-space? if space is already nothing, then how can there be gaps or spaces in nothing? and if space is something, a fabric a la Einstein, then where are all of the spacetime particles? i'm waiting to see them, so show them to me. <br /><br />even if this new idea is not "the" one, it at least affirms that a couple more "mainstream" and "distinguished" insiders don't really like BB theory. and where there are one or two cockroaches there are hundreds more in silent agreement, hiding behind the woodwork. the idea is very visually stimulating at least, eg, cellular mitosis cosmosus.<br /><br />

 

[ianke]

Seems to be more of a meiosis cosmosis because of a reduction of material in the product. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

there you go, i meant that, then. you get my drift (been a while since college biology).

 

[ianke]

I guess it is as good a name as any. It has me smiling.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> i don't care much for this new one, either, but it is at least a fresh break from the monotony and boredom of the highly reaching big bang idea. </font><br /><br />It's interesting how humans are always searching for the final answers to our existence and origin. We are always searching for the answers to science's biggest mysteries. But you kind of have to ask yourself: Why?<br /><br />Life would be dull and boring if everything has already been discovered. Science would have no more purpose except to teach the newcomers into the world who haven't learned it all yet. A famous physicist kind of put this in his own words:<br /><br />"If human life were long enough to find the ultimate theory, everything would have been solved by previous generations. Nothing would be left to be discovered. " -Stephen Hawking <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"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.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>