Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Physics and Mathematics Guild

Back to Guilds

 

Tags: physics, mathematics, science, universe 

Reply Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Relativity
The Universe might just be eternal after all (sort of)

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Cynthia_Rosenweiss

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:47 am


I found this story on the web:

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 physicsproblem, according to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physicists.

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.

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.

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.

"This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang....The universe would grow like a runaway snowball," Frampton said. Each oscillation will also become successively longer. "Extrapolating backwards in time, this implies that the oscillations before our present one were shorter and shorter. This leads inevitably to a Big Bang," he said.

Frampton and Baum circumvent the Big Bang by postulating that, at the turnaround, any remaining entropy is in patches too remote for interaction. Having each "causal patch" become a separate universe allows each universe to contract essentially empty of matter and entropy. "The presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties with contraction," Frampton said. "The idea of coming back empty is the most important ingredient of this new cyclic model."

....

Also key to Frampton and Baum's model is an assumption about dark energy's equation of state -- the mathematical description of its pressure and density. Frampton and Baum assume dark energy's equation of state is always less than -1. This distinguishes their work from a similar cyclic model proposed in 2002 by physicists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, who assumed the equation of state is never less than -1.

A negative equation of state gives Frampton and Baum a way to stop the universe from blowing itself apart irreversibly, an end physicists call the "Big Rip." The pair found that in their model, the density of dark energy becomes equal to the density of the universe and expansion stops just before the Big Rip.

Link


Thoughts?
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:14 pm


I don't get it. Why does matter disintegrate? I thought that expansion is only of space, and that things in stable equilibrium seek that equilibrium in defiance of said expansion because the accelerations due to forces tend to be larger than the acceleration due to expansion.

And what the hell do they mean by "causal patch?" There is always room for interaction, provided an adequate time-scale.
Also, the whole "presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties" bit really makes me doubt the feasibility of the idea; any theory which doesn't work with matter and/or energy ought to be highly suspicious.

Wait...so how do they deal with the zero-point energy?

This whole thing sounds strikingly similar to the bosonic string theory incident; the fundamental inability to deal with observed objects, in that case fermions, in this case matter, means that something is seriously wrong with the theory.

Layra-chan
Crew


Cynthia_Rosenweiss

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:14 pm


Well, what puzzles me is that he said that there was no Big Bang, and then he says that "it leads inevitably to a Big Bang."

question
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:35 pm


Sounds kind of absurd. The thought of a universe playing yo-yo with itself is silly. xp

The first thought that came to mind was Ockham's razor.

My second thought was about the foundation of this theory: It's bad. In attempting to explain something as "eternal" it still seems to have some initial point, using finite means to get there. (And wasn't the point of this theory to explain away any initial point of origin?)

You have to wait until a fraction before infinite before reversing? How is that much different from waiting an infinite amount of time? Not much.
Quote:
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.
I don't believe anything can exist in our physical dimensions that's "infinite". We live in finite dimensions. (That's why we can't think in terms of infinity.)

Aetherius Lamia


Cynthia_Rosenweiss

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:14 pm


Aetherius Lamia
Sounds kind of absurd. The thought of a universe playing yo-yo with itself is silly. xp

The first thought that came to mind was Ockham's razor.

My second thought was about the foundation of this theory: It's bad. In attempting to explain something as "eternal" it still seems to have some initial point, using finite means to get there. (And wasn't the point of this theory to explain away any initial point of origin?)

You have to wait until a fraction before infinite before reversing? How is that much different from waiting an infinite amount of time? Not much.
Quote:
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.
I don't believe anything can exist in our physical dimensions that's "infinite". We live in finite dimensions. (That's why we can't think in terms of infinity.)


Well, we can't think of finitude either, because whenever we think there's a limit to something, we can think of something greater than it. I believe this is one of the Kantian "Antinomies of Reason."
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:11 pm


Cynthia_Rosenweiss
Well, what puzzles me is that he said that there was no Big Bang, and then he says that "it leads inevitably to a Big Bang."

question


I think what he means is that there was no one 'Big Bang' that started the Universe, but that in this cycle of expansion and contraction there are events (when it stops contracting and starts expanding) which are similar to the so called 'Big Bang'

Personally, I think both theories are possible. Most of the evidence which supports one, supports the other. It also answers the question "what caused the Big Bang?" though it does leave the question "Where did it all start?"

Dewdew


Baron von Turkeypants

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:54 pm


Soy un hombre muy honrado,
que me gusta lo mejor
That personally is my favorite theory for cosmogony so far. It deals well with the problem of entropy and "what happened before the big bang" questions.
Las mujeres no me faltan,
ni el dinero ni el amor
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:40 am


ditto ^^^^^^
but I used to think that maybe it was a cirlce, really ridiculously, that the universe was an atomic particle, and maybe our particles were universes.... however, now i don't really think that was such a good idea XD ... mostly because some particles of matter cannot exceed it's limits
I still believe that our universe is either infinate, or we have an infinite amount of mulitple universes...
What could be outside the universe?

RCinderGirl1

5,750 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Signature Look 250

balt11t

5,050 Points
  • Wall Street 200
  • Contributor 150
  • Entrepreneur 150
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:24 pm


Layra-chan
I don't get it. Why does matter disintegrate? I thought that expansion is only of space, and that things in stable equilibrium seek that equilibrium in defiance of said expansion because the accelerations due to forces tend to be larger than the acceleration due to expansion.

And what the hell do they mean by "causal patch?" There is always room for interaction, provided an adequate time-scale.
Also, the whole "presence of any matter creates insuperable difficulties" bit really makes me doubt the feasibility of the idea; any theory which doesn't work with matter and/or energy ought to be highly suspicious.

Wait...so how do they deal with the zero-point energy?

This whole thing sounds strikingly similar to the bosonic string theory incident; the fundamental inability to deal with observed objects, in that case fermions, in this case matter, means that something is seriously wrong with the theory.

Well I doubt this is correct but; when anti-matter(possibly dark energy) and matter collide they "cancel out" each other creating a super nova worthy explosion thus desintigrating each other. (I am not sure though I'm only in the eight grade)
Reply
Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Relativity

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum