cannot stand the eternity in cyclic models


by xponential
Tags: cyclic, eternity, models, stand
xponential
xponential is offline
#1
Dec31-12, 03:58 AM
P: 9
I have had this question for a long time and thought this forum might be the best place to answer..

If there is an infinite number of bangs happened before the big bang, our universe's bang should never have happened because it would require an endless number of bangs that -by definition- would never get covered all for ours to occur!
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Red moon at night; stargazer's delight
Computers beat brainpower when it comes to counting stars
Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere
Charmar
Charmar is offline
#2
Dec31-12, 04:48 AM
Charmar's Avatar
P: 64
Maybe someone can explain it better but here is my take on it.

If you divide infinity in half it is still infinity. If this is a cyclic event that keeps happening over and over as it always has and will continue to do so, it is infinite. Think of it as there was no first big bang, they just always have happened. You can think about a million big bangs ago and still go a million more, you can do this until you go loony making up any large number you like, and there will still be just as many previous to the last one because they have always happened.
xponential
xponential is offline
#3
Dec31-12, 06:31 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by Charmar View Post
If you divide infinity in half it is still infinity. If this is a cyclic event that keeps happening over and over as it always has and will continue to do so, it is infinite. Think of it as there was no first big bang, they just always have happened. You can think about a million big bangs ago and still go a million more, you can do this until you go loony making up any large number you like, and there will still be just as many previous to the last one because they have always happened.
Are you implying there is no causation between a cycle and another? Are the future events already happened?

Do you know of a source that illustrates this idea? I searched for cyclic models but didn't find a clear explanation about eternity.

Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#4
Dec31-12, 09:30 AM
P: 5,634

cannot stand the eternity in cyclic models


you question is not clear. If an infinite number of cosmological cycles have already occurred, that does not preclude them from continuing.

Cyclic models do not explain eternity. Eternity is a philosophical question not in the realm of science. Cyclic models don't explain a 'first' bang nor a 'last' one.

There ARE causal connections between cycles in the Turok-Steinhardt model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
xponential
xponential is offline
#5
Dec31-12, 09:46 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by Naty1 View Post
If an infinite number of cosmological cycles have already occurred, that does not preclude them from continuing.

Cyclic models do not explain eternity. Eternity is a philosophical question not in the realm of science. Cyclic models don't explain a 'first' bang nor a 'last' one.
Cyclic models don't explain eternity but they imply it. I don't see how eternity is even naturally possible. If there is infinite cycles of the universe before the current one in which we live in, our current cycle should never have happened since an INFINITE number of cycles before it should have passed first.
Naty1
Naty1 is offline
#6
Dec31-12, 09:54 AM
P: 5,634
If there is infinite cycles of the universe before the current one in which we live in, our current cycle should never have happened since an INFINITE number of cycles before it should have passed first.
just not so.

That's a misconception.

So if you like one,single, unique, bang in all of 'history'...why should THAT have ever happened?? nobody knows.

there is much in nature that is difficult to understand.
see my signature....don't blame the physics....nor math...
phinds
phinds is offline
#7
Dec31-12, 09:57 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,676
Look up Hilbert's Hotel ... it has an infinite number of rooms and they're all full, but you can always get in one more guest.
Drakkith
Drakkith is online now
#8
Dec31-12, 02:00 PM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,011
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Look up Hilbert's Hotel ... it has an infinite number of rooms and they're all full, but you can always get in one more guest.
Do you think he has vacancy tonight? I might need a place to stay.


Anyways, I believe it is a misconception to think that there cannot be individual bangs in an infinite cyclic model. In order for there to be an infinite cyclic model, you MUST have individual bangs occurring. Otherwise there would be no cycle.
Chalnoth
Chalnoth is offline
#9
Jan1-13, 12:04 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,721
Quote Quote by xponential View Post
I have had this question for a long time and thought this forum might be the best place to answer..

If there is an infinite number of bangs happened before the big bang, our universe's bang should never have happened because it would require an endless number of bangs that -by definition- would never get covered all for ours to occur!
An infinite past is no more a problem than an infinite future. It only becomes a problem when you try to impose colloquial notions of cause and effect that exist nowhere in the fundamental physics.
phinds
phinds is offline
#10
Jan1-13, 12:19 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,676
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Do you think he has vacancy tonight? I might need a place to stay.
Wife kicked you out again, huh?
mitchell porter
mitchell porter is offline
#11
Jan1-13, 02:08 AM
P: 747
Quote Quote by xponential View Post
Cyclic models don't explain eternity but they imply it. I don't see how eternity is even naturally possible. If there is infinite cycles of the universe before the current one in which we live in, our current cycle should never have happened since an INFINITE number of cycles before it should have passed first.
They had an infinite amount of time to happen in. You are still reasoning as if time had a beginning, after which infinitely many cycles occurred. In an eternal cyclic universe, there was no beginning to time. There are cycles before cycles before cycles, but there is no first cycle.
ImaLooser
ImaLooser is offline
#12
Jan1-13, 02:36 AM
P: 571
Quote Quote by xponential View Post
Cyclic models don't explain eternity but they imply it. I don't see how eternity is even naturally possible. If there is infinite cycles of the universe before the current one in which we live in, our current cycle should never have happened since an INFINITE number of cycles before it should have passed first.
Where does a Universe-sized gorilla sleep? Wherever it wants to.
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#13
Jan1-13, 04:30 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,178
Perhaps reviewing Cantor's theory of infinite sets would be instructive.
Drakkith
Drakkith is online now
#14
Jan2-13, 12:23 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,011
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Wife kicked you out again, huh?
Nonsense, I am not married. It was the cat this time. But wait, I don't own a cat...


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do cyclic models of the universe... Cosmology 3
Why do so many people claim cyclic models brake down due to entropy? Cosmology 2
is it possible to interfere in our dna and make the cells reproduce Medical Sciences 8
Big Bang v. Cyclic Universe models Cosmology 18
Space and time are relative General Physics 7