Is the Steinhardt-Turok Cyclic Model Gaining Support?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Descartz2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cyclic Model
AI Thread Summary
The Steinhardt-Turok cyclic model is currently viewed as speculative and lacks widespread acceptance, primarily due to its reliance on string theory, which remains unproven. While the model presents interesting ideas, it is considered controversial within the field of cosmology. There are no definitive reasons to favor this model over others, as many existing theories, including LCDM, also have significant gaps. The ongoing development of new theories is essential, as they may eventually lead to improvements in our understanding of the universe. Overall, the discussion highlights the need for continued exploration in cosmological models.
Descartz2000
Messages
138
Reaction score
1
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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Descartz2000 said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top