Cyclical Universe

[Plat]

Who believes in this? I do

[John L]

I liked the idea of the Ekpyrotic Cosmological model, which is a cyclical system of coliding branes. I think if it is cyclic, the cycles are VERY long - on the order of billions of trillions of years.

How many cycles do you think our universe has already gone through???

[Plat]

quadrillions, i also think that universe may change form meaning the last universe might have been completely different from this one

yeah i do think that the cycles are very long

[StarLab]

Well, let's be frank....a cyclical universe is different from an Ekpyrotic universe, at least in my view. Well, it depends. By cyclical, one could mean Big Crunches all over again, but a never unchanging set of physical laws with time. Or, Ekpyrotically, cyclic could simply be the cycle of two or more colliding branes creating further ones. But, in this case/scenario, physics laws don't always have to repeat.

[ASEI]

Omega appears to equal 1, so the universe isn't going to recollapse in the classical sense, or expand to a rapidly accelerating heat death.

[StarLab]

If omega equals one, does that mean that Einstein's Cosmological Constant has value in the General Relativity equation after all?

[Plat]

so you guys believe when the universe dies off, it will be gone forever

[StarLab]

Yes, if it dies off, until it hits another universe floating in the vast void I like to call the Field.

If omega equals one, does that mean that Einstein's Cosmological Constant has value in the General Relativity equation after all?

Would somebody please answer the question posed here. I got a theory behind it all, but I can't , and I'm not gonna, post it on here uninvited.

[GOURDHEAD]

If omega equals one, does that mean that Einstein's Cosmological Constant has value in the General Relativity equation after all?

Yes. If I remember correctly he was trying to preserve a Newtonian steady state and constants (even though it isn't one) of integration are fair game. Since it isn't a constant, the GR differential equations obviously need at least another term.

[Plat]

so there are other universes?

[StarLab]

Quite Possibly. The point I'm trying to make, is that Einstein's Cosm. Constant was not meant to balance the universe in favor of a steady state; but rather to make the matter-energy ratio, c^2, constant throughout the universe and throughout time. With Omega possibly equaling one, this could be a possibility: that our universe may go on for an incredibly long time, because the matter-energy ratio has proved constant, fair game throughout most of spacetime, right up through now.

[Plat]

well since we got no way to prove or disprove other universes, no way of detecting them and this universe doesnt affect other universes (if there are any) and vica versa, well they might as well not exist, theres no point on arguing that

im sorry starlab my heads groggy right now so i still cant understand the point you are trying to make

right now most evidence points to the universe will decay forever, but i got a feeling there will be a discoveries made that will debunk all of that, the hindus and mayans will turn out to be right, the universe goes in cycles

[StarLab]

Well, if everything is les cyclical and more Ekpyrotic than it may seem, the universe may just go on forever until it slams into another universe in the Field it drifts endlessly in (and yes I am implying the universe is finite). Right now, our universe is expanding outwards at lightspeed, until it stops entirely. Then, space will not expand anymore, and will come to a dead end. But even though spacetime expansion will soon stop (it's accelerating right now though), the overall Kelvin will never ever reach zero. As a matter of fact, our universe is expanding faster than light will ever be able to reach the edges, in effect absorbing other universees out there without harming our own. It's like the opposite of meiosis, where the membrane is encasing two Universal Cell Nuclei. Our universe has reached a matter-energy equilibrium, c^2, six billion years ago, when the acceleration started, and now spacetime is the next equilibrium to be met, with total avergage densities propagating throughout the entire expanding universe. The Great Attractor is, in a sense, pure evil. But Light is good, light is peace, and light will triumph.

[Plat]

my question is, how do you even know that there are other universes out there?

[StarLab]

Because our universe is not isolated. Chance and random events are what's controlled by a Preexisting Matrix. the Ekpyrotic Universe model is what's making me say other universes exist. The Matrix could lead to anything, so it lead to us. Higher orders of magnitude, while containing higher orders of entropy, also utilizes and controls that entropy. Life is based on orders of scales and levels. With the Preexisting Matrix, each builds up until a final product is reached, so isolation is breached. On the higher order of things. Because the matrix could only have been set up by a Sentientity; Why? Because it was lonely. It's like having five elements at your disposal, and seeing which ones offer the best combination with a Carbon.

[Plat]

so are there infinite numbers of universes

[StarLab]

No. Finite number of universes, yes.

[ASEI]

No. Finite number of universes, yes.

How do you know? How do you even know that there are other universes out there, not to mention the finity of ours, considering that we can percieve neither. (BTW, our universe is flat No really, I'm not kidding. The universe isn't round, it is flat! Revenge of the Portuguese! ) Oh well. I think this is one of the consequences of Omega equaling one. (Omega equaling one is suspicious since one is the unstable critical point. For it to remain one for 13 billion years suggests that something requires it to be there).

But even though I suppose you can never really prove universal infinity, I honestly don't know what you expect to force universal finity. What do you suppose is at the end of the universe? An infinite empty void? A construction sign? Maybe a brick wall. I don't know. I just know that we can't see the end of it yet, and the hubble time-horizon is conveniently peeling back at the speed of light revealing ever more universe. I assume universal infinity, since we take the universe to mean everything there is, and there constantly seems to be more stuff in every direction on every degree of scale. That we can't see all of it yet due to the time horizon, doesn't mean it won't be there (is there already?) eventually.

[StarLab]

You have a good point. With every passing decade, our ability to see further into the stars increases, at an alarming hyperbolic, exponential rate! However, the nature of the beginnig of the universe, according to Ekpyrotism, suggests the existence of extra universes existing outside our own. I didn't come up with it myself. I believe in Ekpyrotism, and multiple universes is simply one of the consequences.
By the way, did you read my post in this string on matter-energy equilibrium?

[Plat]

we will never be able to see the "end" if there is an "end", as i said before you dont know for sure that the universe is flat, its all assumptions, right now theres insufficent data, we dont know yet, a discovery tomorrow might change it all

i dont believe in the ekpyrotic theory

[StarLab]

as i said before you dont know for sure that the universe is flat, its all assumptions, right now theres insufficent data, we dont know yet, a discovery tomorrow might change it all

Not to be rude, plat, but don't state the obvious; I speak from experience: it really does turn off a discussion. But I don't want this post to draw people away from the string. If you read this post, heed it but do not comment on it.

Remember: we are all entitled to our own opinions. Everyone. If you can back it up, then you should .

[Plat]

okay, i got you

but that ekpyrotic theory is basically metaphysics

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Aug 29 2004, 03:54 AM
that ekpyrotic theory is basically metaphysics

Anything that discusses other universes, or time before our universe started is metaphysics. The cyclic universe topic is metaphysics. There aren't many contradicting facts, so feel free to have a way-out opinion.

Personally, I don't think the universe is cyclic. Based on the WMAP data and the Type 1a Supernova data, I think it will expand forever.

[Plat]

im going to have to disagree, theres no reason to be sure that it will expand forever, it could contract anytime, for all we know it started contracting yesterday or will contract tomorrow, "what goes up must come down"

[StarLab]

Actually, I like to think that it will expand forever. Makes me feel more at ease that my nth-generation grandkids will not die needlessly. This universe was built for us.

[Plat]

exactly, we have our time (this cycle) others will have their time (future cycles)

[StarLab]

Did you hear me? <_< I said expand forever - not contract in repeated cycles. You need some online hearing aid, friend. :blink: :unsure: :P B)

[Plat]

i am far from being your friend, maybe the opposite

[StarLab]

Hmm...oh, well, we are all enitled to our own opinions, as I said.

However, it&#39;s hard for me to maintain a personality online, as it&#39;s too easy to type things without meaning them.

[Plat]

never mind what i typed, its cool