Cyclic universe could explain cosmic balancing act
Big bounces may make the Universe able to support stars and life.
A bouncing universe that expands and then shrinks every trillion years or so could explain one of the most puzzling problems in cosmology: how we can exist at all.
Read the full story here.
Comments
Did trans channeling by psychics not ages ago said the oscillating universe model is the more correct one????
Posted by: Glen | May 5, 2006 05:42 AM
Steinhardt and Turok certainly have an interesting idea, and who knows? They may be right. Their theory hinges on the notion of a universe that is unimaginably old and, though it will continue to evolve for countless eons, is precisely the right age to account for the level of vacuum energy we observe today. Others have posited that vacuum energy varies in different regions of space, taking on all possible values, implying that the universe is unimaginably large. Both explanations are really just variations on a theme, to wit, the anthropic principle: either we inhabit a very special place in the cosmos, or a very special time.
I'm not surprised to see such creative minds fall into this trap. The strangely congenial value of vacuum energy is but one facet of a much
larger puzzle. Many seeminly arbitrary physical parameters have apparently been fine-tuned to absurdly precise values---the slightest deviation would yield an unrecognizable universe altogether hostile to our existence. As inelegant and unsatisfying as the anthropic principle may be, it's hard to imagine a logical alternative.
Posted by: Stephen Selig | May 5, 2006 07:19 AM
This is a very interesting model which somehow reminds me of the Buddhist and Hindu cosmology. From the "personal experience" of remembering an incredible number of former lifes ancient (indian) sages alsways agreed that the world knows "4 incredible long periods" - unfolding, persisting, collapsing and being in a collapsed state...
Posted by: Lennart Lopin | May 5, 2006 12:33 PM
I love the idea but if so, is it saying that, because the density of constant energy is now so small, would lead us to think that the universe is at the end of such repetedly cycles? And then...
Posted by: jean-emery gagnon | May 5, 2006 02:04 PM
crazy. i've always believed this but to have backing from credited scientists is pretty cool.
Posted by: nick | May 5, 2006 02:48 PM
www.revelatorium.com states that the universe is over nine hundred trillion years old and still in its infancy. This and many other topices are discussed. In particular the appendix, Chapter A, discusses the microcosm though, the rest of the Revelatorium, particularly Chapter 1, should be read first.
Posted by: Cliff Livingstone | May 5, 2006 04:39 PM
The Steinhardt and Turok ‘cyclic model of the Universe’ may be feasible with a helical or helicoid(s) structure.
These minimal surface, space dividing curves appear to be the type of trajectories seen in ballistics (rifling) and celestial mechanics (earth orbit when sun is in motion as opposed to the nearly circular ellipse when the sun is not in motion). The Herbig-Haro object 49/50 appears as ‘a tornado in space’ probably because of an electromagnetic, helical trajectory though an ionized portion of space-time.
The helix is also the 3D representation of both the Schroedinger wave equation in QM (likely related to Clifford Algebra) and the Steinmetz phasor equations of AC electricity in EE (likely derived from Grassmann Algebra).
David Hestenes [physics emeritus ASU] wrote ‘The Kinematic Origin of Complex Wave Functions’ which might simply translate into helical or helicoid mechanics if applied to the GR realm.
The helix is linked to the electromagnetism of geodynamics by Gary Glatzmaier and others, of solar flares by Gordon Holman and to the ‘Cosmic Double Helix’ associated with the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way by Mark Morris.
Certainly helicoids such as those of the nucleic acids and the helix of music theory are capable of transmitting information.
A helicoid (particularly one with handles forming a ‘slinky-toy‘-like space-time) vibrating as an accordion with a trillion year period or colliding helicoids may be consistent the previous ‘Ekpyrotic Scenario‘ of Steinhardt, Turok and others.
Posted by: Doug | May 5, 2006 08:47 PM
I don't think this idea is "wacky" at all! I am an "armchair philosopher" but I am very keen on ideas of metaphysics, which touches on just these same questions, but from purely abstract concepts, rather than scientific research. I have come up with ideas which I think are remarkably similar and I wish I could share these ideas with physicists who would, I feel, discover the remarkable similarities between my abstract concepts and their theoretical speculations. My view is that a clear vision of metaphysics can help to develop the scientific view. Anyway, the link to my main book is www.tree.org/patterns2.htm, but another important article is www.tree.org/b11a.htm
Check it out -- you can find my email address on my site if you want to reply.
John
Posted by: John Stahl | May 6, 2006 12:54 AM
How funny is it going to be when the scientists collectively throw their hands up into the air and cry"All right ,we give up-somebody intelligently designed this!!!"
Posted by: Robert Kenen | May 7, 2006 03:11 AM
Steinhardt and Turok put the Ekpirotic Universe theory, this one needs two branes to collide so the branes exist befor ower universe, and if they collide once why not two three, N times...
The idea was present in the original formulation of the Ekpirotic Universe,just some fine tunning was needed to make the things comme together.
If it's the truth or not time will say, as allways
Posted by: Esteve Fabregas | May 7, 2006 11:15 PM
This is actually starting to sound like the ancient scriptures of India. An excellent website regarding ancient knowledge of path of sun is http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/
and http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
Posted by: Amit Parwal | May 9, 2006 01:55 PM
O.K. so we are bouncing around... does every period / universe EVOLVE, i.e. get better at what its doing ??
Seeing as stars blow up and coalesce again i.e. EVOLVE, Living organism, EVOLVE into better copies, so whats happening out there guys ???
RSVP Ken
Posted by: Ken Cleland | May 9, 2006 01:59 PM
The first principle of physics is that energy and matter cannot be created or distroyed.
The concept of birth life and death is a biology principle which has no bearing on cosmology.
When then scientists come up with a theory that the universe always was and will always be, I listen
Posted by: Joseph Canepa | May 9, 2006 02:13 PM
I've had my own theory for quite some time now...and what these guys (Steinhardt and Turok) now propose makes me believe it even more. Yes, I would say our universe has indeed 'always been' and will 'always be', and if you really think about it, that makes too much sense not to be true. After all, notions of 'beginning' and 'ending' are clearly local phenomena. More later guys. . .
Posted by: Henry Browne | May 11, 2006 03:21 AM