Cyclic universe theory - why it fails
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2471-cyclic-universe-theory-why-it-fails
Charlotte Hsu Do: 'bouncing universes' have a beginning? AUGUST 5, 2022
"Unfortunately, it's been known for almost 100 years that these cyclic models don't work because disorder, or entropy, builds up in the universe over time, so each cycle is different from the last one. It's not truly cyclic," Kinney says. "A recent cyclic model gets around this entropy build-up problem by proposing that the universe expands a whole bunch with each cycle, diluting the entropy. You stretch everything out to get rid of cosmic structures such as black holes, which returns the universe to its original homogenous state before another bounce begins."
"But," he adds, "long story short, we showed that in solving the entropy problem, you create a situation where the universe had to have a beginning. Our proof shows in general that any cyclic model which removes entropy by expansion must have a beginning."
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-universes.html
MICHELLE STARR: The Universe Could 'Bounce' For Eternity. But It Still Had to Start Somewhere 9 AUGUST 2022
https://www.sciencealert.com/eternal-bouncing-universes-still-have-to-start-somewhere
Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe 1
The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.
Vilenkin states:
Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.
One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.
That the law of entropy applies to the future of the universe was answered by the supernova studies of 1997 -1998. Hawking wonders if the value of omega was great enough to pull the universe back together in the cyclical Big Crush Big Big cycle to account for the eternal nature of matter-energy space-time or if the value of omega was not great enough and that the universe would keep eternally expanding. The supernova studies showed that the rate of expansion of the universe was increasing not decreasing as predicted by the eternal cyclical model of the universe. This means that the observable universe will continue to expand ever more rapidly towards maximum entropy where there is no matter left and all energy is at a temperature close to absolute zero where no matter can be created or any work done. The clear implication is that the observable universe has not always existed and therefore matter-energy space-time is not eternal backward in time. Shortly after the results of the supernovas became known alternative theories of how matter and energy could be eternal started to be developed, such as parallel universes, alternative universes, and the popular multiverse theory. The common-sense conclusion is that matter-energy space-time has not always existed and must have been created. The law of entropy and the empirical evidence make the creation of matter-energy space-time the most logical conclusion.
Accelerating universe
The supernova studies of 1998 show that the observable universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate towards maximum entropy. This means that the observable universe must have had a beginning and will not recycle. Therefore the observable universe of matter-energy space-time has not always existed. If matter-energy space-time have not always existed then the philosophical world view of naturalism can not be true.
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4czibiGqB
2. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2471-cyclic-universe-theory-why-it-fails
Charlotte Hsu Do: 'bouncing universes' have a beginning? AUGUST 5, 2022
"Unfortunately, it's been known for almost 100 years that these cyclic models don't work because disorder, or entropy, builds up in the universe over time, so each cycle is different from the last one. It's not truly cyclic," Kinney says. "A recent cyclic model gets around this entropy build-up problem by proposing that the universe expands a whole bunch with each cycle, diluting the entropy. You stretch everything out to get rid of cosmic structures such as black holes, which returns the universe to its original homogenous state before another bounce begins."
"But," he adds, "long story short, we showed that in solving the entropy problem, you create a situation where the universe had to have a beginning. Our proof shows in general that any cyclic model which removes entropy by expansion must have a beginning."
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-universes.html
MICHELLE STARR: The Universe Could 'Bounce' For Eternity. But It Still Had to Start Somewhere 9 AUGUST 2022
https://www.sciencealert.com/eternal-bouncing-universes-still-have-to-start-somewhere
Pre-Big Bang models, cannot be extended into the infinite past if they are taken to be realistic descriptions of the universe 1
The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.
Vilenkin states:
Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.
One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.
That the law of entropy applies to the future of the universe was answered by the supernova studies of 1997 -1998. Hawking wonders if the value of omega was great enough to pull the universe back together in the cyclical Big Crush Big Big cycle to account for the eternal nature of matter-energy space-time or if the value of omega was not great enough and that the universe would keep eternally expanding. The supernova studies showed that the rate of expansion of the universe was increasing not decreasing as predicted by the eternal cyclical model of the universe. This means that the observable universe will continue to expand ever more rapidly towards maximum entropy where there is no matter left and all energy is at a temperature close to absolute zero where no matter can be created or any work done. The clear implication is that the observable universe has not always existed and therefore matter-energy space-time is not eternal backward in time. Shortly after the results of the supernovas became known alternative theories of how matter and energy could be eternal started to be developed, such as parallel universes, alternative universes, and the popular multiverse theory. The common-sense conclusion is that matter-energy space-time has not always existed and must have been created. The law of entropy and the empirical evidence make the creation of matter-energy space-time the most logical conclusion.
Accelerating universe
The supernova studies of 1998 show that the observable universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate towards maximum entropy. This means that the observable universe must have had a beginning and will not recycle. Therefore the observable universe of matter-energy space-time has not always existed. If matter-energy space-time have not always existed then the philosophical world view of naturalism can not be true.
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4czibiGqB
2. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
