What is the Current Status of Cyclic Cosmology and its Relation to M-Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology Cyclic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The current status of cyclic cosmology, formalized by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok approximately 15 years ago, remains speculative, primarily due to its reliance on branes from M-theory. Despite some advancements, such as Turok's ongoing work, the model lacks definitive observational support, particularly in light of the BICEP2 results which failed to detect B-mode gravitational waves. Steinhardt's assertion that M-theory is merely a useful framework rather than a necessity for their cyclic model raises further skepticism about its foundational validity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of M-theory and its implications in theoretical physics
  • Familiarity with cyclic cosmology concepts as proposed by Steinhardt and Turok
  • Knowledge of gravitational wave detection and its significance in cosmological models
  • Awareness of the inflationary model of the universe and its predictions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest developments in M-theory and its applications in cosmology
  • Examine Turok's recent papers on cyclic cosmology for updates on model improvements
  • Study the implications of BICEP2 findings on both inflationary and cyclic models
  • Explore the role of branes in theoretical physics and their impact on cosmological theories
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, cosmologists, and researchers interested in the foundations and implications of cyclic cosmology and M-theory.

Jim
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Its been formalized for ~15 yrs now by Steinhardt & Turok; Wiki sez it has problems, but will not elaborate.
My concern is that despite their denial, their version of CC is built on branes, which are
of course a Very speculative basis, since it originates in M-theory. Worse, S&T do not
seem tb developing their CC model any further.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Thanx, & will check Paul's intvw out. In an earlier paper for gen. readership, Paul implied that M-theory was not necessary, just a "useful basis to build their cyclic model upon". Still not sure I believe this, as their `std.model' relies heavily upon the Branes of M-th.at every turn of the road. Turok has a recent paper indicating he's still working on & improving it.
Another question is why no definitive observations ? S&T pointed out in their book, `Endless Universe' that their theory predix everything inflation does except primordial grav waves. BICEP2 could've shot down their cyclic model if these B-mode grav waves had been discovered, but were not. So far, only this failure of inflation would appear to support the cyclic model, but no direct evidence exists.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
10K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K