• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The cyclic universe hypothesis

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Many or perhaps most believe that the Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe from a singularity or a black hole is the only option.

From: What Was Universe Like before Big Bang? | Physics | Sci-News.com

What Was Universe Like before Big Bang?

Although cosmic inflation is well known for resolving some important mysteries about the structure and evolution of the Universe, other very different theories can also explain these mysteries.

In some of these theories, the state of the Universe preceding the Big Bang — the so-called primordial Universe — was contracting instead of expanding, and the Big Bang was thus a part of a Big Bounce.

To help decide between inflation and these other ideas, the issue of falsifiability — that is, whether a theory can be tested to potentially show it is false — has inevitably arisen.

“Falsifiability should be a hallmark of any scientific theory,” Professor Loeb said.

“The current situation for inflation is that it’s such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally. No matter what value people measure for some observable attribute, there are always some models of inflation that can explain it.”

Professor Loeb and co-authors applied an idea they call a ‘primordial standard clock’ to the non-inflationary theories, and laid out a method that may be used to falsify inflation experimentally.

In an effort to find some characteristic that can separate inflation from other theories, the researchers began by identifying the defining property of the various theories — the evolution of the size of the primordial Universe.

The signals generated by the primordial standard clock can serve such a purpose. That clock is any type of heavy elementary particle in the primordial Universe. Such particles should exist in any theory and their positions should oscillate at some regular frequency, much like the ticking of a clock’s pendulum.

The primordial Universe was not entirely uniform. There were tiny irregularities in density on minuscule scales that became the seeds of the large-scale structure observed in today’s Universe. This is the primary source of information physicists rely on to learn about what happened before the Big Bang.

The ticks of the standard clock generated signals that were imprinted into the structure of those irregularities.

Standard clocks in different theories of the primordial Universe predict different patterns of signals, because the evolutionary histories of the Universe are different.

The team calculated how these standard clock signals should look in non-inflationary theories, and suggested how they should be searched for in astrophysical observations.

“If a pattern of signals representing a contracting Universe were found, it would falsify the entire inflationary theory,” said co-author Dr. Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, a postdoctoral fellow in the High Energy Theory Group in the Department of Physics at Harvard University.

The success of this idea lies with experimentation.

“These signals will be very subtle to detect and so we may have to search in many different places,” said co-author Dr. Xingang Chen, a senior lecturer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

“The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is one such place, and the distribution of galaxies is another.”

“We have already started to search for these signals and there are some interesting candidates already, but we need more data.”

Other scientific proposals concerning a cyclic universe to follow.
 

Bryozoa

New Member
I don't think it any coincidence that the Expanding Universe was proposed by a Jesuit. I see it as stealth creationism. Interestingly Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase 'Big Bang' to describe the Expanding Universe model was a lifelong proponent of the Steady-State model of the universe. There are other possibilities as well. Plasma Cosmology overturns much physics takes for granted in the Standard Model and renders ever elusive phantom Dark Matter and Dark Energy redundant. I personally believe the Universe (and there is only one) has always existed and always will exist, governed by immutable natural laws.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I don't think it any coincidence that the Expanding Universe was proposed by a Jesuit. I see it as stealth creationism. Interestingly Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase 'Big Bang' to describe the Expanding Universe model was a lifelong proponent of the Steady-State model of the universe. There are other possibilities as well. Plasma Cosmology overturns much physics takes for granted in the Standard Model and renders ever elusive phantom Dark Matter and Dark Energy redundant. I personally believe the Universe (and there is only one) has always existed and always will under immutable natural laws.

The priest of the Roman Church was a scientist nothing extraordinary here. Too many people are reading theological assumptions into this on both sides.

To add it is not ironic. It is simply science.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Many or perhaps most believe that the Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe from a singularity or a black hole is the only option.

From: What Was Universe Like before Big Bang? | Physics | Sci-News.com

What Was Universe Like before Big Bang?

Although cosmic inflation is well known for resolving some important mysteries about the structure and evolution of the Universe, other very different theories can also explain these mysteries.

In some of these theories, the state of the Universe preceding the Big Bang — the so-called primordial Universe — was contracting instead of expanding, and the Big Bang was thus a part of a Big Bounce.

To help decide between inflation and these other ideas, the issue of falsifiability — that is, whether a theory can be tested to potentially show it is false — has inevitably arisen.

“Falsifiability should be a hallmark of any scientific theory,” Professor Loeb said.

“The current situation for inflation is that it’s such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally. No matter what value people measure for some observable attribute, there are always some models of inflation that can explain it.”

Professor Loeb and co-authors applied an idea they call a ‘primordial standard clock’ to the non-inflationary theories, and laid out a method that may be used to falsify inflation experimentally.

In an effort to find some characteristic that can separate inflation from other theories, the researchers began by identifying the defining property of the various theories — the evolution of the size of the primordial Universe.

The signals generated by the primordial standard clock can serve such a purpose. That clock is any type of heavy elementary particle in the primordial Universe. Such particles should exist in any theory and their positions should oscillate at some regular frequency, much like the ticking of a clock’s pendulum.

The primordial Universe was not entirely uniform. There were tiny irregularities in density on minuscule scales that became the seeds of the large-scale structure observed in today’s Universe. This is the primary source of information physicists rely on to learn about what happened before the Big Bang.

The ticks of the standard clock generated signals that were imprinted into the structure of those irregularities.

Standard clocks in different theories of the primordial Universe predict different patterns of signals, because the evolutionary histories of the Universe are different.

The team calculated how these standard clock signals should look in non-inflationary theories, and suggested how they should be searched for in astrophysical observations.

“If a pattern of signals representing a contracting Universe were found, it would falsify the entire inflationary theory,” said co-author Dr. Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, a postdoctoral fellow in the High Energy Theory Group in the Department of Physics at Harvard University.

The success of this idea lies with experimentation.

“These signals will be very subtle to detect and so we may have to search in many different places,” said co-author Dr. Xingang Chen, a senior lecturer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

“The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is one such place, and the distribution of galaxies is another.”

“We have already started to search for these signals and there are some interesting candidates already, but we need more data.”

Other scientific proposals concerning a cyclic universe to follow.
Very interesting, but based in unproven assumptions . There is no evidence of the alleged primordial universe. There is no evidence that particles of any kind existed before the BB.

The closed universe model has been discredited from the mass and gravity perspective being the causation factors of the rebound of the universe.

The question to be answered is how to get all the mass and energy of our current universe back into the ¨can¨ of the singularity, whatever it may be.

Gravity, the strongest force that we know of, obviously won´t do it, as the expansion of the universe is continually speeding up, not slowing down. There is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the expansion, unless there is some force out there that is totally unknown to do it, it won´t happen. The universe will be open, a one off deal, no possibility of it rebounding.

If this universe is not closed, than the closed universe idea, whatever the alleged primordial universe supposedly contained, is DOA.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Very interesting, but based in unproven assumptions . There is no evidence of the alleged primordial universe. There is no evidence that particles of any kind existed before the BB.

Well, ah . . . your making a vain ignorant 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your religious agenda. There are most definitely falsifiable hypothesis for the existence of the universe, and yes, it remains an open question. That is why I stated that the Big Bang DOES NOT justify an argument either way for the existence nor non-existence of God.

The closed universe model has been discredited from the mass and gravity perspective being the causation factors of the rebound of the universe.

Never proposed a closed universe. The cyclic models DO NOT propose a only closed universe, but the universe is part of a greater multiverse..

The question to be answered is how to get all the mass and energy of our current universe back into the ¨can¨ of the singularity, whatever it may be.

In a way true, but your assertions do not stand any ground as evidence for God based on the present knowledge of cosmology of our universe. Your ignorance of the science of the singularity and Quantum Mechanics is glaring and blinded by a religious agenda and a lack of knowledge of physics.

Gravity, the strongest force that we know of, obviously won´t do it, as the expansion of the universe is continually speeding up, not slowing down. There is not enough mass in the universe to reverse the expansion, unless there is some force out there that is totally unknown to do it, it won´t happen. The universe will be open, a one off deal, no possibility of it rebounding.

Your compounded self-imposed ignorance rears its head again and again. Gravity cannot support your assertions.

If this universe is not closed, than the closed universe idea, whatever the alleged primordial universe supposedly contained, is DOA.

Absolutely none of the hypothesis for the universe at present being considered describe the universe as closed. Pretty much all are based on the multiverse concept. The proposals for the cyclic universe is not an isolated universe, but does interact with the Quantum World of the Multiverse.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Paul Steinhardt's cyclic universe does not propose a closed universe. The cyclic universe is interrelated to the energy source of the surrounding multiverse.

PAUL STEINHARDT is the Albert Einstein Professor in Science and on the faculty of both the Departments of Physics and Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University.

From: THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE: PAUL STEINHARDT | Edge.org

"He is one of the leading theorists responsible for inflationary theory. He constructed the first workable model of inflation and the theory of how inflation could produce seeds for galaxy formation. He was also among the first to show evidence for dark energy and cosmic acceleration, introducing the term "quintessence" to refer to dynamical forms of dark energy. With Neil Turok he has pioneered mathematical and computational techniques which decisively disproved rival theories of structure formation such as cosmic strings. He made leading contributions to inflationary theory and to our understanding of the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe. Hence, the authors not only witnessed but also led firsthand the revolutionary developments in the standard cosmological model caused by the fusion of particle physics and cosmology in the last 20 years.

More specifically, this model proposes a universe in which the evolution of the universe is cyclic. That is to say, the universe goes through periods of evolution from hot to cold, from dense to under-dense, from hot radiation to the structure we see today, and eventually to an empty universe. Then, a sequence of events occurs that cause the cycle to begin again. The empty universe is reinjected with energy, creating a new period of expansion and cooling. This process repeats periodically forever. What we're witnessing now is simply the latest cycle.

The notion of a cyclic universe is not new. People have considered this idea as far back as recorded history. The ancient Hindus, for example, had a very elaborate and detailed cosmology based on a cyclic universe. They predicted the duration of each cycle to be 8.64 billion years—a prediction with three-digit accuracy. This is very impressive, especially since they had no quantum mechanics and no string theory! It disagrees with the number that I'm going suggest, which is trillions of years rather than billions.

The cyclic notion has also been a recurrent theme in Western thought. Edgar Allan Poe and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, each had cyclic models of the universe, and in the early days of relativistic cosmology, Albert Einstein, Alexandr Friedman, Georges Lemaître, and Richard Tolman were interested in the cyclic idea. I think it is clear why so many have found the cyclic idea to be appealing: If you have a universe with a beginning, you have the challenge of explaining why it began and the conditions under which it began. If you have a universe, which is cyclic, it is eternal, so you don't have to explain the beginning."
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Well, ah . . . your making a vain ignorant 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your religious agenda. There are most definitely falsifiable hypothesis for the existence of the universe, and yes, it remains an open question. That is why I stated that the Big Bang DOES NOT justify an argument either way for the existence nor non-existence of God.



Never proposed a closed universe. The cyclic models DO NOT propose a only closed universe, but the universe is part of a greater multiverse..



In a way true, but your assertions do not stand any ground as evidence for God based on the present knowledge of cosmology of our universe. Your ignorance of the science of the singularity and Quantum Mechanics is glaring and blinded by a religious agenda and a lack of knowledge of physics.



Your compounded self-imposed ignorance rears its head again and again. Gravity cannot support your assertions.



Absolutely none of the hypothesis for the universe at present being considered describe the universe as closed. Pretty much all are based on the multiverse concept. The proposals for the cyclic universe is not an isolated universe, but does interact with the Quantum World of the Multiverse.
Wow ! I never said one word regarding religion or God. I have studied the science of the BB hypothesis for a long time. I have read many articles about it in a magazine called Astronomy, another interest, as well as the magazine Science, and Natural History, another magazine etc., etc. etc. etc. etc. etc etc..

I have read about other ideaś about the creation of the universe, string theory, brane theory, multiverse etc. No where do I recall God being mentioned.

Your personal rancor with related words shows your boorishness. In every post you make, you present yourself as the ultimate authority of the subject, and from that exalted position you correct everyone else.

You remind me of a comedian of the 50ś and 60ś, Professor Erwin Corey, the worlds foremost authority, on everything.

Nevertheless, methinks you protesteth too much


No where was God part of the hypothesis. What I believe about it is totally irrelevant unless I bring it up,

Methinks the man protesteth too much.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I don't think it any coincidence that the Expanding Universe was proposed by a Jesuit. I see it as stealth creationism. Interestingly Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase 'Big Bang' to describe the Expanding Universe model was a lifelong proponent of the Steady-State model of the universe. There are other possibilities as well. Plasma Cosmology overturns much physics takes for granted in the Standard Model and renders ever elusive phantom Dark Matter and Dark Energy redundant. I personally believe the Universe (and there is only one) has always existed and always will exist, governed by immutable natural laws.
Was Hubble a Jesuit ? Really, I don´t think so. Jesuits cannot be reliable scientists ? How about left handed people, do you have a prejudice against them as well ?

Plasma cosmology as envisioned overturns the standard model, but without the requisite evidence, it doesn mean much.

The universe will always exist. Well, I guess that depends upon your conception of existence. A dead universe, itś energy totally expended, with every dead galaxy drifting apart from the others in the expanding universe, no light, no sound, unbelieveable cold as the rocks just float away from one another, at an ever expanding speed.

What you believe is noted, the aboriginal Australians believe something about the universe as well, your belief, my belief, their belief, they are all good.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Was Hubble a Jesuit ? Really, I don´t think so. Jesuits cannot be reliable scientists ? How about left handed people, do you have a prejudice against them as well ?

Plasma cosmology as envisioned overturns the standard model, but without the requisite evidence, it doesn mean much.

The universe will always exist. Well, I guess that depends upon your conception of existence. A dead universe, itś energy totally expended, with every dead galaxy drifting apart from the others in the expanding universe, no light, no sound, unbelieveable cold as the rocks just float away from one another, at an ever expanding speed.

What you believe is noted, the aboriginal Australians believe something about the universe as well, your belief, my belief, their belief, they are all good.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Many or perhaps most believe that the Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe from a singularity or a black hole is the only option.
Retaining your phrasing, I would change it to say,

"Many or perhaps most believe that the Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe from a singularity or a black hole is the currently the best option.
Haven't heard of many who would be so dogmatic as to say "only."

.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Retaining your phrasing, I would change it to say,
"Many or perhaps most believe that the Big Bang hypothesis of the origin of the universe from a singularity or a black hole is the currently the best option.
Haven't heard of many who would be so dogmatic as to say "only."

.
There are as many options as there are people to make them up.

The BB has significant evidence to support it. All that is required is that an option reach the same level of verified evidence.
 

Bryozoa

New Member
Was Hubble a Jesuit ? Really, I don´t think so. Jesuits cannot be reliable scientists ? How about left handed people, do you have a prejudice against them as well ?

Sorry I meant the priest (his full name escapes me, Georges something) who first suggested the 'big bang' although he didn't use that phrase and referred to it poetically as 'a day without yesterday'. Certainly he was a great scientist but I'm sure his theistic convictions motivated his theory.

Plasma cosmology as envisioned overturns the standard model, but without the requisite evidence, it doesn mean much.

I don't profess to be a physics expert but I occasionally read a plasma cosmology forum with interest. Their claims don't seem anymore far fetched than the standard model with its elusive dark matter which plasma cosmology completely does away with by elevating electrical forces (I believe called Birkeland currents) above gravity.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are as many options as there are people to make them up.

The scientists do not make up hypothesis for the origins of the universe. There are only a few recognized hypothesis based on the evidence.

The BB has significant evidence to support it. All that is required is that an option reach the same level of verified evidence.

Actually it is only the expansion of the universe that has the most evidence to support the different hypothesis of the origins. Beyond the expansion of the universe all the options are based on the same evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Was Hubble a Jesuit ? Really, I don´t think so. Jesuits cannot be reliable scientists ? How about left handed people, do you have a prejudice against them as well ?

The physics scientist that first proposed was Georges Lemaître. He just also happened to be Jesuit Priest. There was no relationship between the development of his hypothesis and his religious belief.

Plasma cosmology as envisioned overturns the standard model, but without the requisite evidence, it doesn't mean much.

Plasma cosmology is unlikely in a pure concept, but likely will contribute to an over all cosmology.

The universe will always exist. Well, I guess that depends upon your conception of existence.

If you are referring to the greater cosmos that includes our universe I agree, but we do not have falsifiable hypothesis that confirms this. It is presently not falsifiable whether our physical existence (greater cosmos) is eternal, infinite or always existed.


A dead universe, itś energy totally expended, with every dead galaxy drifting apart from the others in the expanding universe, no light, no sound, unbelieveable cold as the rocks just float away from one another, at an ever expanding speed.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore universe do not completely die as such. It is most likely that universes dissipate and end in a cold death as Quantum zero-point energy to reform universes as singularities through quantum gravity, or possibly collapse to singularities or black holes to form universes and recycles as another universe.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Wow ! I never said one word regarding religion or God. I have studied the science of the BB hypothesis for a long time. I have read many articles about it in a magazine called Astronomy, another interest, as well as the magazine Science, and Natural History, another magazine etc., etc. etc. etc. etc. etc etc..

I have read about other ideaś about the creation of the universe, string theory, brane theory, multiverse etc. No where do I recall God being mentioned.

Of course, no where in the science literature will God be mentioned, because science does not deal with the existence nor non-existence of God. Science does not reject nor endorse the existence of God(s), and that is the inherent nature of Methodological Naturalism, which is independent of religious beliefs and assumptions.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Of course, no where in the science literature will God be mentioned, because science does not deal with the existence nor non-existence of God. Science does not reject nor endorse the existence of God(s), and that is the inherent nature of Methodological Naturalism, which is independent of religious beliefs and assumptions.
Duh
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The physics scientist that first proposed was Georges Lemaître. He just also happened to be Jesuit Priest. There was no relationship between the development of his hypothesis and his religious belief.



Plasma cosmology is unlikely in a pure concept, but likely will contribute to an over all cosmology.



If you are referring to the greater cosmos that includes our universe I agree, but we do not have falsifiable hypothesis that confirms this. It is presently not falsifiable whether our physical existence (greater cosmos) is eternal, infinite or always existed.




Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore universe do not completely die as such. It is most likely that universes dissipate and end in a cold death as Quantum zero-point energy to reform universes as singularities through quantum gravity, or possibly collapse to singularities or black holes to form universes and recycles as another universe.
Energy is matter, matter is energy. Available energy certainly can be used up, and with no mechanism to convert extant matter to energy, there is none.

Your recycling universe lacks evidence, till some exists it sounds nice.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Energy is matter, matter is energy. Available energy certainly can be used up, and with no mechanism to convert extant matter to energy, there is none.

Your arguing against the fundamental Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but transformed from one form to another. There is a lack of fundamental science that is universally accepted, which cripples your argument, because of a self-imposed ignorance of actual science. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top