Is the Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Model Gaining Support?

[Descartz2000]

I typically post in the QM section, but I was reading an article about the cyclic model and wanted input on if this model of Steinhardt–Turok is widely accepted, is gaining support, has been upgraded, or replaced by something more current?

 

[Chalnoth]

I typically post in the QM section, but I was reading an article about the cyclic model and wanted input on if this model of Steinhardt–Turok is widely accepted, is gaining support, has been upgraded, or replaced by something more current?

All such models are at present considered exceedingly speculative, with no real reason to favor anyone particular model over any other.

 

[Io_18]

The problem with the Steinhardt-Turok model is that it bases many of it's ideas off of string theory which remains theoretical. So in a way it's controversial cosmology based on controversial physics.

 

[Chronos]

I give the guys credit, they take a stab at it based on string theory - which is itself open to debate. It's a reasonably well conceived theory with the usual addon speculations. Right now, I know of no model that is less than speculative. LCDM is a fine model, but, still has some bus sized holes. Heck, even MOND is still sticking needles in that balloon. The more important thing is to keep new theories flowing. One of them might actually improve on what we now have.