I noticed a lot of people questioning the Big Bang theory in the religious debate topics, so I decided to start a discussion about an alternate theory.

 

 

 

The Cyclic Model

 

The cyclic model suggests that the universe has always existed -- that there is no start or end point. It exists in a constant cycle of "death" (think big crunch) and "rebirth" (think big bang).

 

 

 

The cyclic model has been around for a while now, even Einstein hypothesized an endless universe, but it wasn't until the early 21st century (with the discovery of dark energy) that it became a true possibility.

 

 

 

Here are some brief summaries on the theory...

 

Steinhardt-Turok model - One of the first notable papers on the theory, released in 2001.

 

Frampton-Baum model - A variation of the model, released in 2007, dealing with phantom energy.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting quote from the first article:

 

... the cyclic model recoups all of the successful predictions of the big bang/inflationary theory and has sufficient additional predictive power to address many questions which the big bang/inflationary model does not address at all:

 

• [*:q3ghwvfj]What occurred at the initial singularity?
   
  [*:q3ghwvfj]What is the ultimate fate of the Universe?
   
  [*:q3ghwvfj]What is the role of dark energy and the recently observed cosmic acceleration?
   
  [*:q3ghwvfj]Does time, and the arrow of time, exist before the big bang? or after the big crunch?

 

 

 

To illustrate, imagine the graph of a sin function. A sin function has no beginning or end. It exists infinitely, much like the cyclic universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your thoughts? Discuss.

Infinite regress would still apply. And Theoretical matter is just that. Yes, we have proven Dark Matter, but can "phantom energy" really be proven?

 

 

 

Of your four questions there, the fourth applies the greatest. Time and Infinity are not casual bedfellows.

 

 

 

Beyond that, theoretical physics are beyond my astronomical training to comprehend.

I thought I came up with this theory a while ago, but when I mentioned it in the last big bang thread someone told me it was a common thought years ago. It was disproved for some reason.

The cyclic universe theory doesn't address where the energy/matter (they are one and the same) came from. Your sine function graph is on the assumption that time is not affected by the only existing body being a singularity. And even then, there is always an origin at some point on the time axis.

 

 

 

So, if time effectively loses definition by the only existing body being a singularity, the universe is not cyclic, it simply has a beginning and an end.

 

If time existed on a different definition than what matter and energy ordains (a 4th dimension, if you will), the 'time axis' needs to have an origin, as does any measurable concept. And 'negative' time is impossible, because it needs to be defined by a certain event: the original creation of the universe.

 

 

 

Hang on, did I just disprove the Cyclic Universe theory?

The cyclic universe theory doesn't address where the energy/matter (they are one and the same) came from. Your sine function graph is on the assumption that time is not affected by the only existing body being a singularity. And even then, there is always an origin at some point on the time axis.

 

 

 

So, if time effectively loses definition by the only existing body being a singularity, the universe is not cyclic, it simply has a beginning and an end.

 

If time existed on a different definition than what matter and energy ordains (a 4th dimension, if you will), the 'time axis' needs to have an origin, as does any measurable concept. And 'negative' time is impossible, because it needs to be defined by a certain event: the original creation of the universe.

 

 

 

Hang on, did I just disprove the Cyclic Universe theory?

 

 

 

It's major evidence is less than a year old. A kindergarden class could disprove it.

The cyclic universe theory doesn't address where the energy/matter (they are one and the same) came from. Your sine function graph is on the assumption that time is not affected by the only existing body being a singularity. And even then, there is always an origin at some point on the time axis.

 

 

 

So, if time effectively loses definition by the only existing body being a singularity, the universe is not cyclic, it simply has a beginning and an end.

 

If time existed on a different definition than what matter and energy ordains (a 4th dimension, if you will), the 'time axis' needs to have an origin, as does any measurable concept. And 'negative' time is impossible, because it needs to be defined by a certain event: the original creation of the universe.

 

 

 

Hang on, did I just disprove the Cyclic Universe theory?

 

 

 

I was going to type out a response, but this guy wins :thumbsup:

The cyclic universe theory doesn't address where the energy/matter (they are one and the same) came from. Your sine function graph is on the assumption that time is not affected by the only existing body being a singularity. And even then, there is always an origin at some point on the time axis.

 

 

 

So, if time effectively loses definition by the only existing body being a singularity, the universe is not cyclic, it simply has a beginning and an end.

 

If time existed on a different definition than what matter and energy ordains (a 4th dimension, if you will), the 'time axis' needs to have an origin, as does any measurable concept. And 'negative' time is impossible, because it needs to be defined by a certain event: the original creation of the universe.

 

 

 

Hang on, did I just disprove the Cyclic Universe theory?

 

The cyclic model suggests that such things as time and matter did not "come from" anywhere. Instead, these things have always co-existed infinitely with the universe itself.

 

 

 

You claim that all measurable concepts require a point of origin. Can you elaborate on this? The way I understand the cyclic model, time is much like the sine function -- it has no true point of origin, no true beginning or end.

 

 

 

Sorry if I'm missing something huge here, I'm not much of a science guy. :)

I think he's trying to say that regardless of a cyclic model, time is finite. It has to have a beginning and an end. Matter too.

I can't find any notable sources on time being finite. Care to elaborate?

Wow. The though of our universe never ending or beginning is just weird....it hurts my brain.

 

 

 

I hate thinking about this kind of stuff, because it makes me realized just how infinite everything is.

I think he's trying to say that regardless of a cyclic model, time is finite. It has to have a beginning and an end. Matter too.

 

 

 

Why does it have to be finite? As far as I know, it has to be infinite. You can't destroy matter. All you can do is change it to energy.

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter.

 

 

 

Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite.

 

 

 

I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one.

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter.

 

 

 

Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite.

 

 

 

I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one.

 

 

 

From rough recall, the 2007 article (from the New Zealand guy?) resolves the thermodynamic problem. Got no idea how, why or if it's solid, but just letting you know.

 

 

 

Edit: I'm talking about this, not sure whether the op talked about it.

Thats like wo man. Looks like a solid idea but no one will accept it because it dosen't explain the "begining". I'm wondering how it is possible how some of you came up with some replies...

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter.

 

 

 

Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite.

 

 

 

I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one.

 

 

 

From rough recall, the 2007 article (from the New Zealand guy?) resolves the thermodynamic problem. Got no idea how, why or if it's solid, but just letting you know.

 

 

 

Edit: I'm talking about this, not sure whether the op talked about it.

 

 

 

The evidence for that article relies heavily upon the dark matter, who's properties are less than theoretive (more like speculative). If this discovery happened 15-30 years ago, I'd be more willing to listen. But this evidence is literally months old. Even Einstein or Hawking haven't used theories that young.

Without more energy added to the system energy degrades to a lower state over time. So if all existing energy has been here for an infinite amount of time yet it hasn't degraded to it's lowest state yet then it seems there is a major unresolved issue here.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter.

 

 

 

Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite.

 

 

 

I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one.

 

 

 

From rough recall, the 2007 article (from the New Zealand guy?) resolves the thermodynamic problem. Got no idea how, why or if it's solid, but just letting you know.

 

 

 

Edit: I'm talking about this, not sure whether the op talked about it.

 

 

 

The evidence for that article relies heavily upon the dark matter, who's properties are less than theoretive (more like speculative). If this discovery happened 15-30 years ago, I'd be more willing to listen. But this evidence is literally months old. Even Einstein or Hawking haven't used theories that young.

 

 

 

I agree. I'm not saying that this idea is in any way strong because of (a) my own ignorance, and (B) the point you mentioned of it being 'groundbreaking' stuff.

Oh. My. God. Warrior agreeing with me.

 

 

 

*screenshots*

This is all very interesting and all..but is it really important 5billion+ years later? :lol:

This is all very interesting and all..but is it really important 5billion+ years later? :lol:

 

Why not? Who knows what's going to happen then...

 

 

 

These ideas are hard to comprehend, but damnit I love trying.

 

 

 

EDIT: WOOT 2,000 posts! I'd like to thank...me. 8-)

Then what started the cycle?

Then what started the cycle?

 

 

 

Nothing started it, it goes back infinitely.

 

 

 

The way I thought of it can't work though, because of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy only increases, so eventually after a Big Crunch it wouldn't bang. If time goes back infinitely, then the point when it stopped crunching would have happened an infinite amount of years ago.

 

 

 

These new cyclical models I haven't even really looked at yet, I guess they got around that problem though.

lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

 

 

 

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

lol :lol:

 

 

 

People will say the universe has always been around, something totally far fetched, but they won't even care to listen about something more realistic that there's a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Your faith in what you believe in, is incredibly larger and stronger than mine, being a Christian. :XD:

 

 

 

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

 

 

 

You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator.

 

 

 

Big double standard if you ask me.