Theories of the Universe

Zephyrus

Tyrants and Slaves
Jan 18, 2006
25,502
40
48
35
Maine or Iowa
This thread is to discuss your beliefs and thoughts on the myriad theories and hypotheses of how the universe began, its fundamental properties, if/how it will end, and whether our universe is unique or one of many (a multiverse).

I've watched several documentaries and have read quite a few articles on such fundamental questions about the cosmos. I'll use this quote that inspired the thread:

I'm interested in a theory that says that the universe lives in an expansion-contraction cycle, where it expands from a singularity (Big Bang), reaches a certain point where it cools (Heat Death) and then contracts back into a singularity (Big Crunch) which expands again into a new universe. So saying there's no time before our universe is assuming that (1) there was no universe before this one and (2) no other universes exists.

This quote is from a religion thread, but I'd rather not bring divinity into this discussion. This thread is about science.
 
Here you go Zeph:


Oscillatory universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oscillatory universe is a cosmological model, originally derived by Alexander Friedman in 1922, investigated briefly by Einstein in 1930 and critiqued by Richard Tolman in 1934, in which the universe undergoes a series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.


Scientific Issues

In the simple cases studied by Friedman[1], containing just homogeneous matter and possibly a negative cosmological constant, each "bounce" is a gravitational singularity with infinite density and zero size. It is then a matter of taste whether to extend the solution through the singularities, giving an infinitely oscillating model, or to assume that only one cycle exists. The oscillating model was once popular among cosmologists who thought that the singularities could be avoided and so each big bang would be connected to an earlier big crunch: the mathematical singularities seen in calculations were supposed to be the result of over-idealizations (e.g. assuming too much symmetry or neglecting some force), and would be resolved by a more careful treatment, or by an alternative theory of gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory. In this case, as pointed out by Tolman[2], entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation; according to Tolman this would cause each oscillation to last longer and reach a larger size than the one before, in some sense tending towards a condition of heat death. However, in the 1960s, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis showed that singularities were a universal feature of cosmologies with a big bang and that no feature of general relativity could prevent them. Since no "memory" of previous cycles would be preserved, the entropy issue was eliminated, but by the same token there was little reason to postulate cycles before or after the present one. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused most cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model.

John Archibald Wheeler, who believed that a closed universe was necessary on general principles, speculated that the fundamental physical constants could be re-processed to new values at each bounce, providing a mechanism for anthropic selection.[3][4]

The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of the arguments leveled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model.


References

1. ^ Friedman, A. (1922). "Über die Krümmung des Raumes". Z. Phys. 10: 377-386. (English translation in: Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999), 1991-2000.)
2. ^ Tolman, R. C. (1934). Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LCCN 340-32023. Reissued (1987) New York: Dover ISBN 0-486-65383-8.
3. ^ Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A. (1973). "§44.6", Gravitation. New York: Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-0344-0. (This section based on a lecture by Wheeler).
4. ^ Wheeler, J. A. (1977) in Foundational problems in the special sciences, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 3–33

5. R. H. Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson, "Cosmic Black-Body Radiation," Astrophysical Journal 142 (1965), 414. This important paper discusses the oscillatory universe as one of the main cosmological possibilities.
6. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large-scale structure of space-time (Cambridge, 1973).
 
I've always been fascinated by cosmology and astronomy and the like, but I don't consider myself educated or up to date enough to have an opinion on the fate of the universe and whatnot. Would anyone like to recommend me some good books containing what might be the most up to date cosmological theories?
 
Well, I'm not sure if most physicists are still talking of string/m theory and whatnot; it all ties together with the big bang to begin with, but explains the theoretical mechanics behind it. If that is the case, the standard would prob be Brian Greene - I'm also a little behind the current times though, so any new authors/information would be welcomed with open arms.

What I do know is that most people are looking towards the quantum aspect of physics for information in the last article I read, there was a man who has stated that he has solved Einstein's grand unification theory, but it involves sub-atomic particles that have yet to be found (that hadron collider is looking pretty sexy to him I bet).

I found a wikipedia link:
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
 
Anyone aware of the '2012 End of the World' theory? Seems interesting.

I've heard variants between 2010 & 2012; either way it's all aztec/mayan calender bolsh'. If I were to take a civilizations concepts about cyclical time, it would be India's :)kickass: Hinduism :kickass:)
 
I saw a program on the Science Channel last night about how it may be possible to create a wormhole by stacking lasers on top of each other, intersecting from 90-degree angles, stacked with steadily increasing power until it creates a distortion in space time (like when you stir a spoon in a cup of coffee). The scientist thinks that this can theoretically create a wormhole that may be able to create pathways across "wrinkles" in the fabric of space-time, and thus allowing time travel. Pretty interesting.
 
But I think it's a waste of time (no pun intended) and I thank Chaos Theory for my reservations against going back in time. Going forward, however, is a different story.