Ideas about a cyclic universe have been around for a few years, here is one paper discussing this type of universe:

Steinhardt, P.J. and Turok, N., 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science, 296(5572), pp.1436-1439.

Hello J.L. Brady

The Big Crunch theory can only work if the expansion of the universe slows down. However, recent information that I have read shows the opposite. Expansion of the universe is accelerating. I lean more to a big freeze. The universe will create by this expansion very cold areas, eventually cooling the whole universe. The entropy of the universe will be at its maximum, and according to the first principle of thermodynamics, at absolute temperature, no body / particles can move. In short: thermal death.

I think the main problem with the idea of a oscillating/cyclical Universe is the total lack of experimental evidence. Although it is a very interesting idea, all the current experimental measures go against the cyclic Universe. Let us look at the two main arguments (there are others) against the idea of an cyclical Universe:

1- The Second Law of Thermodynamics – The entropy always increases within an isolated system, and never the reverse. Thus, as time progresses, entropy increases, until it reaches its maximum, the thermal death of the Universe.

2- The acceleration of the Universe - The experimental evidences suggest, strongly, that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, at least in this period of its evolution.

In this context, any cyclic Universe theory would be pure speculation, it would have to assume that Entropy would diminish in the future of the Universe. Or to suppose that in some way, Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy, for example, could play a vital role in avoiding problems with the second law of thermodynamics.

Hello J.L. Brady ,

Waves are cyclic, seasons are cyclic, life is cyclic. A cyclic theory of a Big Bang ending up at a Big Crunch could easily explain why older galaxies closer to the Big Crunch are accelerating faster away from us.

Can you explain how older galaxies are closer to the Big Crunch? The further away we look into the universe the further we look back in time. This means that the galaxies the farthest away from us are the closest to the Big Bang.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Thank you all for interest in this "matter". I will attempt to address each statement:

1) Roman & Paulo both address entropy as perhaps a law which indicates that an expanding universe (entropy) could not then implode back onto its origin without breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

Let us then perform a mind experiment beginning with the following postulates:

a) We only can "see" a portion of the entire universe (and perhaps a very small portion).

b) Entropy for a closed system under consideration can only increase if the entropy for a second system decreases (as in the two separate box experiment, one box having a higher temperature or pressure than the other, and then combine boxes). Therefore the second Law of Thermodynamics for the entire "seen" and "unseen" universe is conserved.

Now if we attempt to model the universe based on the observable forces and fields we have made concerning say magnetism, could we not consider that the entire universe behaves in a similar N/S, In/Out field manner? Where at any spacial point in the universe, an equal and opposite spin, acceleration, charge, and velocity vector exists on the symmetric opposite side? With this approach, our physical experiments we observe on earth then give credence as to perhaps how matter behaves on a universal scale, and then entropy could be therefore conserved.

We have only assumed that entropy only expands based only our limited sight of an entire universe, especially if we further consider that there is a Northern and Southern toroidal lobe of the universe, and we exist only in one of the two. The opposite side of the universe could actually be experiencing an equal and opposite entropy condition to ours. This mind experiment is further supported due to the fact that most quantum mechanics are based upon not only "symmetry", but what type of symmetry (an asymmetric quantum model theory is rare). Why should the universe not behave in a similar symmetric manner? It would seem that our experimental data in both the quantum and macro support symmetry.

2) Paul asked "Can you explain how older galaxies are closer to the Big Crunch?"

To further our mind experiment, let us consider "which velocity vector direction" we are peering into as we look through our telescopes? This simple question may provide some insight. Most simply visualize a big bang outward expansion outward forever, this is not our cyclic mind experiment condition.

It is recognized that we exist in the portion of our universe where dark energy makes up around 70% of space-time. In our mind experiment, perhaps the outer reaches of the universe is100% dark energy (Λ =100%), and the center core is 100% matter (Λ =0%), and we are somewhere in-between (perhaps 70% of the radius of the universe). Of course this would mean that the current cosmological constant (Λ) of our "seen" universe is not a universal Λ, but varies depending on said radius. I believe I am correct when I state that the current "constant" is an average value estimated to match current accepted theories.

Now to answer Paul's question, the cycle of the universe could in our mind experiment begin with a big bang in an expansion phase at Λ =0%, having enough expanding kinetic energy to overcome gravity. Then as this expansion continues, a "inboard push back" towards the center of the universe from the outer higher density dark energy slowing that expansion until such a time where it eventually overcomes the initial kinetic energy of the expansion, and begins to accelerate matter back towards its center in an ever increasing acceleration mode (as is currently observed). This could be thought of as anti gravity, but in fact could actually explain gravity as a "push", not pull, which has been greatly considered in previous theories. Dark energy's push into the center of all matter could be theorized as gravity (a separate discussion), where the summation of all this push has a general overall universal inboard push of all matter back towards the center of the universe counteracting the big bang kinetics over time.

- J.L. Brady

Hi Brady

I hold my position that any theory without any experimental evidence is pure speculation. For example, your theory of the distribution of dark matter in the Universe, with the suggested radial and temporal dependence, should explain the results observed in the NGC1052–DF2 galaxy. The article demonstrates that dark matter is not always coupled with baryonic matter on galactic scales.

A galaxy lacking dark matter

Pieter van Dokkum, Shany Danieli, Yotam Cohen, Allison Merritt, Aaron J. Romanowsky, Roberto Abraham, Jean Brodie, Charlie Conroy, Deborah Lokhorst, Lamiya Mowla, Ewan O’Sullivan & Jielai Zhang

Nature, 555, pages629–632 (29 March 2018)

Paulo,

I agree with you that the scientific approach is the best confirmation to our theories. My original statement above is simply a "mind experiment", which may used to postulate several what-if's prior to perhaps submitting a theory, which then could have an opportunity to perform an experiment onto. We all unfortunately find ourselves these days either in the quantum scale or universal scale, attempting to find answers, which due to their scale are difficult to propose effective experiments for proof.

Even with the paper cited, I don't see conclusive "evidence" of any experiment, but still attempt to consider all input in search of the truth. This may prove to be difficult today, since there are many such "unproven" theories... yet here we are.

For instance, the only reason there is a separate distinction between dark matter and dark energy is due to the general acceptance that "matter" (dark or light) must have some sort of inherent "attractive" force. This is a general belief, yet an experiment has never been created to prove that gravity is an attractive pull or an external push, yet is still simply accepted. I say, if you hold your position about experimentation, you must then also maintain that gravity has yet to be proven to be attractive, and therefore unconfirmed. The only thing proven by dropping a cannon ball off a building is that the ball moves towards the earth. Yes, Newton's equation works, Einstein's equation works, but it is an equation, not an experiment.

Hi Brady

Okay, of course, I understand your point of view.

On the other hand, obviously, there are different levels of confirmation (verification) of the three statements below:

1- There is an attractive interaction between a cannon ball and the Earth, named gravity.

There are a lot of different types of observations.

2- Dark matter (or dark energy) exists.

In fact, it would be good if they existed to explain the observed rotation of the Galaxy and the accelerated expansion of the Universe. I've "seen" a cannon ball, but I've never "seen" dark matter. However, it`s necessary "something" to explain these two phenomena.

3- The rate of change of entropy is time (and perhaps position) -dependent. In addition it can be positive or negative.

Although this hypothesis is very interesting, there is no measure of this.

And, I come back to my answer to the question posed:

I think the main problem with the idea of a oscillating/cyclical Universe is the total lack of experimental evidence. Although it is a very interesting idea, all the current experimental measures go against the cyclic Universe.

Regards,

Paulo Natti

Yes, cyclic or periodic phenomena abound in the Universe - electromagnetic radiation, gravity waves, planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting black holes at the center of galaxies and, of course, the beating of a human heart. All of these phenomena occur within the Universe on scales small compared to the overall dimensions of the Universe. To introduce a cyclicity affecting the Universe as a whole we must be prepared to accept space and time scales of "cosmic" dimensions such that it would be practically imposible to describe let alone detect such periodocity and attempts to do so are pure speculation of, I suggest, little value.

Thanks Dwight.

I suppose we must also realize that the ever expanding theory of the the universe is also "speculation" of the same cosmic dimensions, but both it or a cyclic approach have been relatively easy to visualize and describe, and so should we not continue to hypothesize until either are "detected" or verified? This is the primary reason I brought up the question to begin with.

If then we are all in agreement as still working within the realm of speculation, then I would think that a more believable universe hypothesis would behave closer to what we observe all around us instead of an exploding ever expanding approach which we don't observe in electromagnetics, black holes or orbits etc. I am not opposed to constructive criticism, but would prefer a think tank approach here, working together with a positive "what-if" comments to at least consider the cyclic approach. It's easy to review and comment, not so easy to conceptualize. With that said, I think I've unfortunately eliminated 80% of any potential future comments here.

New ideas, in contrast to the fantasy story of "expanding space", can emerge if:

(A) a mechanism could be thought which explains the cosmic background radiation as the consequence of a creation process of 3K photons involved with some "hidden" constituents of non-empty space,

and

(B) a mechanism could be thought which explains (similar to the idea of "tired light") the non-grav. part of the red shift of photons as a result of an interaction (and tiny energy loss or increase) with these "hidden" constituents of non-empty space.

Therefore, the question of the very nature of "space" is related to the question of the very nature of matter and interaction at the almost lowest scale of "space", and in particular to the very nature of "light" at this lowest scale.

Karl & Paulo,

Thank you for your comments.

First let me address an earlier concern by Paulo on the NGC1052–DF2 galaxy. A recent study (see below) suggests that the earlier proposal that this galaxy does not contain any dark matter states that this proposal is not conclusive.

[Martin, Nicolas F; Collins, Michelle L. M; Longeard, Nicolas; Tollerud, Erik (2018). "Current Velocity Data on Dwarf Galaxy NGC 1052-DF2 do not Constrain it to Lack Dark Matter". The Astrophysical Journal. 859: L5.]

Onto Karl's comment.

It is interesting, that both your conditions A) and B) begin by proposing a "mechanism" which could "explain" two aspects of photons utilizing hidden constituents of non-empty space. By "explain", I would expound upon this, and exchange it with the verb "demonstrate", since a mechanism has an inherent physical quality, including that of kinematics or simple dynamics. If one could actually demonstrate the potential and kinetic energy charge movements of electromagnetics (or within a set of nucleons) within such a mechanism, this could possibly then be extrapolated into the "non-empty" space realm, perhaps even demonstrating dark energy and the photon/electron interactions you posted (3K and tired light).

I absolutely agree, and has been my focus over the past 6 years, with great success. Due to the observable geometric mechanism, 14 of the currently accepted SM particle (and anti-particle) properties have been numerically verified within their interactions to other particles as well as separately during decay events. Further discoveries have also been revealed attesting to your final comment concerning "the very nature of matter and interaction at the almost lowest scale of "space", and in particular to the very nature of "light" at this lowest scale". This mechanism has shown not only to reveal the construction of the Planck length, but to define its unity value simultaneously with a dynamic spacial unity volume. The mechanism of North/South, why there are only 6 quarks, electron/neutrino & electron/photon interactions, and why the chargless neutron is necessary within the atomic nucleus, are but some of the alternate discoveries within the mechanism.

I am due to publish in 2019, and wish to attract like minded researchers to peer review this paper once released. Please follow me if interested in receiving notification once released.

- J.L. Brady

@ J.L

I used the word "mechanism" in order to express that a process is meant which allows for a description in terms of arguments which are basically deterministic, being aware of the fact that determinism as well as indeterminism on an alleged lowest scale is in principal a disputable matter.

Karl

J.L. & Paulo,

Concerning the sense or non-sense of the believe in "dark matter" a vague and preliminary answer can be given in the context of an alternate particle theory, that is "Hypotron Theory" (HT),

https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY

which is somewhat similar to the quark model for hadrons, but is more general than the standard model, because even leptons and photons and photon-like objects are considered as compound objects.

In addition to the electron and proton, HT is able to predict two other stable fermionic particles with charge 2 and 3 ( and an instable bosonic particle with charge 3 ) which can be considered to be involved with the existence of some new nucleus-like and atom-like objects and some stable bulks of matter residing somewhere in the universe, which does not emit photons, because electromagnetic excitations of atom-like objects seems to be not possible.

Note that HT is an ongoing project. Although it has many gaps, it offers some surprising and interesting results.

Chapter 29 "Exotic Matter" ( under construction ) of WORKING PAPER :

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH29.pdf

Chapters 13+14 of WORKING PAPER contains the identification of the objects of HT with the objects of the "real world":

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH13-CH14.pdf

Flyer containing links to various chapters of WORKING PAPER:

http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

Karl

HT also allows to consider one particular dynamical aspect of "space" itself, because in HT "space" is not considered as an "empty" container, but "filled" in principal by fluctuating physical objects, called "hypotrons", which carry two kinds of charge, i.e. "ordinary" elec. charge +1/3 or -1/3 or +2/3 or -2/3 and "supercharge" +1/6 or -1/6, the latter can be identified with the alleged magn. charge.

A dipole consisting of 2 hypotrons, called "hypotRIno" in HT, represents an object which is usually called "dyon" (in the literature about magn. monopoles). Thereby "filled space" can be imagined as a huge cluster of fluctuating "dyons", where the regularity or irregularity of the collapsing and re-extending dipoles is thought to be involved with the "denseness" and "smoothness" of "filled space". Ignoring the regularities or irregularities of fluctuating "dyons", by means of a math. process of embedding such kind of "filled space" into a "continuum" accomplishes a GENERALIZATION as well as an APROXIMATION, and leads to what human beings on earth are used to imagine (due to Newton) "space" as an empty container equipped with a metrical and Euclidian structure.

The dynamical aspect of "filled space" emerges, when particle processes such as decay/conversion/creation are considered. In this case some of the hypotRInos, being "consituents" of a particle (which is 'dressed' by a 'field'), in an interaction can "leave" the particle and become irregularly fluctuating constituents of the "filled space".

Following this paradigm of "filled space", in any particle reaction the resulting "OUT"-going particles are affected by what is coming "IN", but also affected by what is actually going on inside that tiny region of "space" where the interaction happens.

One of the reasons for the fact that in interaction experiments at the subatomic or subnuclear scale the experimentalists are faced with probabilistic features of the results, is that the dynamical features of "filled space" are not present in the ordinary and static Newton sight of "space". Instead, the dynamical features of "filled space" are 'reintroduced', so to speak, by assuming a principal stochastic or probabilistic nature the colliding particles. This finally leads to the paradigms and dogmas and paradoxes and flaws of contemporary QM and QFT.

Karl,

After reviewing some of your work (as well as your above two comments), I believe we may be describing a very similar construct, and approaching into the realm through two alternate doors. Within my mechanism "Unit" discovery, I not only see the operation described in your "collapsing and re-extending dipoles", but easily follow your description of particle interactions becoming "irregularly fluctuating constituents of the filled space" when combining these Units into what I show as the kinematic Manifold of space-time. All of this is accomplished and verified by way of the mysterious and foundational charge, simply by utilizing integers 1 through 9. A simple beginning foundation, yet leading to a dynamical "IN/OUT" process you also describe, continuing further into the N/S, +/- and particle/anti-particle aspects. The dynamo which runs this manifold is simply its desire for a highest state of geometric symmetry, nothing else.

With this said, I would be very interested in your review of my Geometric theory of the Unified Field project once submitted.

- J.L. Brady