The Universe was not born in one Big Bang, it has been going through cycles of creation and annihilation for eternity, according to a controversial new mathematical model1.

It's a compelling claim. The new cyclic model removes a major stumbling block common to existing theories of the Universe - namely, that physics can't explain what came before the Big Bang.

Because the model relies on new mathematics, it is having some teething problems, admit its proposers. Indeed, most cosmologists are treating the hypothesis with interested scepticism. Some are vociferously critical.

Criticism is to be expected, concedes Neil Turok of Cambridge University, UK, who developed the cyclic model with cosmologist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in New Jersey. "We're taking on some very fundamental issues here," says Turok.

Strings attached

Steinhardt and Turok draw on the emerging science of string theory. This mathematical idea uses up to ten dimensions - instead of the usual four - to explain the weird behaviour of tiny things in physics called fundamental particles.

When applied to big things like cosmology, string theory invokes weird mathematical entities called membranes - branes for short. In the cyclic model there are two branes at any one time, one containing our Universe, the other a parallel Universe that is the mirror image of our own.

The researchers suggest that these branes regularly collide, as they did 15 billion years ago, resulting in the massive release of energy previously ascribed to the Big Bang. And just like the Big Bang, "this collision made all the radiation and matter that fills the Universe," says Turok.

It's a very bad idea popular only among journalists - Andrei Linde, Stanford University, California


The branes are then flung apart. The Universes on each brane expand outwards over billions of years, as ours is doing today.

According to the model, a fifth dimension that we can't see or travel through bridges the branes. As each Universe expands, its matter and energy spreads ever thinner and is diluted. When the spring-like fifth dimension overcomes this expansion energy it heaves the branes back together, they collide, and the whole process repeats. "It's just like reproduction in biology," says Turok.

As well as solving the problem of what came before the Big Bang, the cyclic model could explain numerous other cosmological conundrums, such as dark energy. Our Universe should contain more energy than can be measured, and there are no good theories to explain why. Turok and Steinhardt's model suggests that this is because energy, in the form of gravity, leaks across the fifth dimension between our Universe and its complementary braneworld.

No braner?

Steinhardt and Turok's idea sounds appealing, but fellow astrophysicists are not greeting it with open arms. "The community is very, very sceptical," says David Lyth, a cosmologist at the University of Lancaster, UK.

Others are more scathing. "It's a very bad idea popular only among journalists," says one of the chief critics of the cyclic model, Andrei Linde of Stanford University, California. "It's an extremely complicated theory and simply does not work," adds Linde, the originator of a rival model of the Universe.

The cyclic model is cute and some elements of it may survive
George Efstathiou, Cambridge University



String theory is still in its infancy, and applying it to cosmology stretches it to its limits, explains Cambridge University cosmologist George Efstathiou. "Its connection to fundamental physics is really rather weak," he says, so until string theory matures, models that use it will be flawed and misunderstood. But on the whole, he says, "the cyclic model is a cute idea and some elements of it may survive."

Steinhardt and Turok agree that problems with the mathematics could be their undoing. "There may be disasters waiting for us at higher levels of calculation," says Turok. But, if it does add up, their theory overturns many ideas about the Universe, they say - like time and space being created in a Big Bang.


References
Steinhardt, P. J. & Turok, N. A. Cyclic model of the Universe. Science, published online April 25 (2002).


© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2002

I don't believe that we need 11 dimensions to explain the universe. People love to make things harder...

Well... even with a cyclical universe, when it began to happen? I mean... time will always be a strange and paradoxical factor. Because of time, it seems that the Truth is a paradox...!

?Begin?.............>?End?

it depends from what position are you watching. Use the imaginary time then. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA- YOU DON'T BELIEVE? (you will doctor Jones , soon you will become a believer [this phrase flashed in my memory])
you don't believe , Seeker? There is no use of your belief if there is no evidence. I could say tht I believe tht stars are just shiny little things tht are hung to the sky. BELIEVE means nothing.

BELIEFS control your actions. They mean A LOT...!

then say-> in what do I believe? believe with no evidence... one thing

Is imaginary time the real time??

Besides that, if you think about it, everything inthe universe is relative. Speed is relative. Space is relative. Time is relative. For this reason, you can say that the universe cannot exist without an observator...!!

If everything depends on someone observing something, then the only thing that can avoid the paradox and the complete collapse of the universe is an ominipresence conscience, which for a curious coincidence IS GOD...!

imaginary time is tht which is the same for all singularities and unvierses (it there are those). it needs no observer, it needs no god, it needs no begining.

It's still "imaginary"...

it is used in physics. imaginary numbers are used in math

For this reason, you can say that the universe cannot exist without an observator...

Hogwash. The universe was here long before there were any observers and will probably be here long after we're gone. The universe does not need to exist, it just does.

If everything depends on someone observing something, then the only thing that can avoid the paradox and the complete collapse of the universe is an ominipresence conscience, which for a curious coincidence IS GOD...!

More nonsense. Nothing depends on someone observing something. There is no paradox except that which you make yourself. If the Earth exploded tomorrow and everyone was gone, the universe would continue to operate exactly as it is today. Weak minded fools require a god, the universe does not require any gods.

Avatar,

Why are they called "imaginary"?
Because here, we are talking about reality...


(Q),

Every variant needs a point of reference to exist. Speed, position, time... everything. That's how it works...

Every variant needs a point of reference to exist. Speed, position, time... everything. That's how it works...

So what ?

Your "reality" is nothing but the wool that "they" have pulled over your eyes!

You are DELUDED AND BLINDED BY THE FALSE GOD OF "SCIENCE". Just like Q and Xev and other so-called "skeptics".

But you should know better as a Christian! No true Christian would worship at the alter of science. No true Christian would be posting in this forum!!!!!!!

That is NOT true, Truthseeker!

(Q),

Already said above...


FoxMulder,

What are you talking about...?

Do you really understand what I'm saying...?

imaginary numbers are just as real as the number 1, -1, 0.5, and e (taken from N, Z, Q, and R respectively).

here is how it works:
take the natural numbers. N = {1,2,3,4,5,....}
in this set of numbers one can add up and multiply, but subtraction is not a closed operation (you cannot substract under 1).
To do so, we need all whole numbers:
Z = {...., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
Here we can substract, add, muliply. But division is not possible. Division is not a closed operation, one can devide 6 by 3, and 1024 by 32, but not 1 by 2, or 431 by 3.
We now need all quotients:
Q= "all numbers that can be written as a division of two numbers element of Z" ( c E Q if c = a/b, with a,b E Z; In words: "c is an element of Q if c is a quotenient of two numbers that are both elements of Z")
Then there are some numbers (like SQRT(2)) that cannot be part of Q, so we need R (all real numbers).
R is not closed for SQRT(-1), so be need a new set of numbers: the imaginary (or complex) numbers: C.

Complex or imaginary numbers manfest themselbes in real (ordinary) life as vibrations. For example, if you are going to calculate the position of the heelbone in the foot during a landing (after a jump or whatever) you will soon find you need imaginary numbers.
Oeler is the mathematisian who proved that the complex function can be re-written as a set of periodic functions... ergo there is a vibration. Lo and behold. it makes sense: it you jump there is a damped vibration absorbing the energy from the landing.

Nothing imaginary about imaginary numbers!

Fox, thanks a lot.
Makes me wonder: is anybody home?

(Q), there is no evidence that only fools need a god. To be honest, being a "believer" in logic and in absolute truth, I can very well imagine that one beliefs in a god.

Truthseeker

Already said above...

Typical response from you. Whenever you have nothing to say, you start talking in circles. This is a forum for debate. If you cannot backup anything you say with argument, then go home. No one is interested in monologues.

Do you really understand what I'm saying...?

No. That's the problem. No one understands you because you having nothing to say in the real world. Everything you spout is based on a dreamworld fantasyland.

Merlijn

First of all, welcome back. It appears you're not going to let the bastards get you down. Good on ya'.

(Q), there is no evidence that only fools need a god. To be honest, being a "believer" in logic and in absolute truth, I can very well imagine that one beliefs in a god.

How so? Are you saying that believing in logic and absolute truth is a religion unto itself ? Are we the individual gods of our own reason and rationale ? Our temples are our minds ? We pray by thinking critically ?

Or am I misunderstanding and beginning to ramble....

(Q),

Ok... I repeat...

Not what I've been listening. In reality, you are not able to understand me because of your limited perspective of life...

I would suspect the (Q)'s perspective is considerably larger than yours, TruthSeeker. It has to do with experience from having lived and dealt with life a bit longer than you have had the chance to do at this point.

You would be better to argue your point than to put off on others what is probably not true.