No Big Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model

[John21]

A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists. link to article (http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html)/ link to paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists. link to article (http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html)/ link to paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213)

[/ QUOTE ]If true this finding destroys all Creator Gods creadibility.

[CallMeIshmael]

Does anyone know boro's real name /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists. link to article (http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html)/ link to paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213)

[/ QUOTE ]If true this finding destroys all Creator Gods creadibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too sure. The scientists are from UNC, so if a Harvard physicist still believes in the BB, according to DS's theory, the Ivy League alumnus would more likely be right.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A new cosmological model demonstrates the universe can endlessly expand and contract, providing a rival to Big Bang theories and solving a thorny modern physics problem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists. link to article (http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html)/ link to paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213)

[/ QUOTE ]If true this finding destroys all Creator Gods creadibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too sure. The scientists are from UNC, so if a Harvard physicist still believes in the BB, according to DS's theory, the Ivy League alumnus would more likely be right.

[/ QUOTE ]You are missing alot of DS's theory, and I disagree with DS"s theory becuase the if 2 smart educated, unbaised persons arrive at a different conclusion, The answer will almost never be that 1 of them is right. The answer will lie someplace inbetween.

[Metric]

I am glad that the 2nd law is being directly confronted here (in the cosmological setting), but the picture proposed strikes me as a bit odd. Take a universe obeying their particular equation of state, evolve it in their proposed way, and at the end of the day you end up with a thermodynamically identical universe, PLUS a large number of similar universes. Hmmm -- there is something a bit perpetual-motion-machineish about that, but okay... Then apparently to prevent the number of universes from decreasing to zero in the past, they propose that "Since our model universe has cycled an infinite number of times, the number of parallel universes is infinite." I.E. a never-ending-never-beginning cyclic universe isn't exactly a prediction of their model, but rather a consequence of presupposing that the thing has already cycled an "infinite" number of times.

I like the fact that people are actively thinking about this sort of thing, and that journals are willing to publish models of this kind, but it's a very hard problem indeed -- there are some very fundamental issues here which I sort of doubt are going to be solved by tweaking an equation of state.