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…has four key parts: expansion, turnaround, contraction and bounce.
“This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any start or end of time,” Dr. Paul Frampton said. “There is no Big Bang.”
A copy of the paper may be downloaded here.
The .pdf is small — 120kb — the 9 pages should only take me a couple months years to comprehend. :)
I don’t like it. Current physics allows for much simpler solutions, and greater degrees of infinity.
This can be simplified with, the universe expands infiniately. The negative energy propelling the universe appart also has the side effect of making matter as it goes, which eventuially congeals into new dwarf galaxies which then combine into super clusters and giant eliptical galaxies. Yes, that is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But so is the direct observation of an expanding accelerating universe.
Too bad about the hubble death, it will be a long time before we can replicate its results. It already took at least one picture that proves this. The hubble ultra deep field was supposed to show the light horizon, it didn’t. As far back in time as we can currently see, we find mature galaxies and super clusters.
Bing bang, and big bang like theories are all currently dead… Well as soon as the ultra deep field experiement is replicated by the Webb telescope.
Dr. Paul Frampton…isn’t that Peter’s brother??
Pass that joint this way…..
No matter the physics of infinity, we will never see it,
Never reach it, cant get there from here,
we wont be able to look for it, or see it, or find that its not there.
It will be to expencive, and very lucritive just to think about.
Who’s dumber: The person who rejects any idea that negates the importance of a beginning, or the person that rejects the need to find proof of a beginning?
After careful reading I found a mistake in this document.
No such word as aprooaching….
Well this agrees with scientific information given in the Urantia Papers, published in 1955. It’s a whole pursuit correlating Urantia info and changing science.
This is hardly original. The original cyclic theory have been proposed by Hannes Alfven in 1960’s with even earlier work of Oscar Klein as the foundation. (Same Alfven that got Nobel Prize in 1970). There is even a popular level booklet about it by Alfven (Original: Varlden-Spegelvarden, Bokforlaget Aldus/Bonniers, Stochkolm 1967)…
Check out Hindu cosmology for early references to these ideas.
8 & especially 9 — you don’t get it, do you?
There’s a significant difference between “having an idea” and producing the math and physics to validate the concept. Sure, Democritus proposed dialectics over a couple of millennia ago; but, it took Hegel to develop the concept into something approaching modern science — and that required turning his work upside down.
I read Fred Hoyle in the 1950’s — offering essentially this same concept and I don’t doubt it influenced Alfven; but, this is another step forward. As far I have read, today.
I appreciate you posting this article. It is one of the reasons I love this blog. Thanks to all for the intelligent and thought-provoking comments.
I was going to bring up Fred Hoyle, whose “The Stars for Sam” fin the 1950s was my childhood introduction to astronomy. Hoyle liked the concept of the continuously renewing or “steady state” universe better than the big bang or… now I forget a third choice he described; maybe it was cyclic. He wrote that book in terms quite comprehensible to a 10 or 12 year old, which is pretty amazing if you think about it. For a long time, much of what Hoyle proposed seemed simply to be simply wrong – a scientist who loses the argument but spurs thought and investigation in th eprocess. Now some of Hoyle’s notions, like some of the Urantia books, seems to be coming back into vogue. Talk about a cycling universe.
Or an atom expands to become a universe, which is contained in an even larger atom – and so on infinately.
Wait a minute –
Wasn’t this was first articulated in the movie “Animal House” under the heavy influance of cannibis.
The nobel prize goes to Faber college instead
Or
1. an atom expands to become a universe,
2. which is contained in an even larger atom –
3. goto 1
(and so on )
Wait a minute –
Wasn’t this was first articulated in the movie “Animal House” under the heavy influance of cannibis.
The nobel prize goes to Faber college instead
Actually the big bang was first articulated by Kathy Washburn in the back seat of a Dodge at the University of Connecticut in fall semester of 1964 as I recall. Semenal work indeed!