Posted on 02/03/2007 7:49:37 AM PST by aculeus
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.
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."
An article describing the model is available on the arXiv.org e-print archive and will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.
Cosmologists first offered an oscillating universe model, with no beginning or end, as a Big Bang alternative in the 1930s. The idea was abandoned because the oscillations could not be reconciled with the rules of physics, including the second law of thermodynamics, Frampton said.
The second law says entropy (a measure of disorder) can't be destroyed. But if entropy increases from one oscillation to the next, the universe becomes larger with each cycle. "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."
This concept jolted Frampton when it popped into his head last October.
"I suddenly saw there was a new way of solving this seemingly impossible problem," he said. "I was sitting with my feet on my desk, half-asleep and puzzled, and I almost fell out of my chair when I realized there was a much, much simpler possibility."
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.
New satellites currently under construction, such as the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, could gather enough information to determine dark energy's equation of state, Frampton said.
A copy of the paper may be downloaded at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610213
Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
"This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
OK. But, the beginning of his "cycle" is "expansion". Expansion of what and how did IT begin?
I think someone is projecting various facts about themselves on to others....
"Still denying God"
Maybe this oscillating mechanism is God's creation. Are we supposed to stop thinking and discovering because someone says "God"?
What happened to the Holy Ghost and what about Jesus bringing light to man?
Cyclic "accordion" models are hardly new.
My thoughts exactly! I personally accept that GOD created the heavens and the universe. But there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out how it works.
"Cyclic "accordion" models are hardly new."
Very true. There is really nothing new here. They just replaced a single event with multiple events.
agreed.
Me: You would think, by now, that the "big bang" people would be mortally embarrassed at their continued display of ignorance. No. Their proud of it and wear it as a badge.
You: I think someone is projecting various facts about themselves on to others....
No, name calling just proves my point. Can't address the subject of the thread so you resort to mindless name calling. That's what amuses me about "big bang" people, oh no, animals, that's it ... since according to "big bang" people we evolved from animals. LOL!
I find you people hilarious!
They were all there.
In Genesis, it is in the plural.
Over, on the flat side of earth, in INDIA, IIRC,they have a belief system of 'recuring'creation......
That's what I wanted to say. This is another theory about the way things are, not a denial of God.
LOL, all he did was reflect your accusation back at you.
India is, I think, around 70-80% Hindu, a religion which teaches reincarnation and multiple sequential universes. So, you are correct.
There was no Bang, there will be no Crunch. Black holes, energy, and matter go through an infinite loop of transitions. New, becoming old, being recycled, becoming new again.
What they are seeing as "inflation" is just relative "movement". The edges of space are where billions of light years worth of interference patterns prevent a cogent picture of what's there. The "candle in the fog" phenomena. And yes, I've heard of theories attempting to explain their way around that one.
Sounds a lot like who Democrats think higher taxes are a good idea.
As for God... dunno. Call him up and ask him.
It is not my place to judge, but I wonder about how firm someone's faith is if every question is seen as a threat. We see a lot of pseudo science on the left, complete with calls to ban scientific inquiry when it isn't politically correct (such as questioning global warming). Some on the right want to constrain science to fit within a narrow religious-oriented cosmology. Both are wrong although the leftists can ban science they don't agree with and the MSM thinks limiting free inquiry that way is just wonderful.
Anyone afraid to use the word "theory"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.