Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum "Bouncing" universes.

Is an endless succession of bouncing universes possible?

I suspect that in order to continue indefinitely,and avoid the effects of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, each cycle would need to be symmetrical. If our Universe is closed, it will end in a big crunch, but in order to achieve a subsequent BB that would produce an identical universe, the end state of the Universe would have to be symmetrical with that of the BB. This does not seem possible. E.g. black holes have developed during the life of the Universe which would, presumably, be present, and perhaps continue to grow, during the contracting phase; thus the two phases would not be symmetrical.

Could the effects of this asymmetry be obviated if absolutely no physical structure or system propagated from one universe to the next?

I have dealt with this idea for over forty years. Over the course of that time, one develops a comfort level. In the beginning, aspects that are a strain to conceptualize eventually become “old hat”. In addition, (until recently) bouncing or oscillating universe was the only viable macro-model (to me). I mean, it really takes care of business (temporal infinity). So what if current observational measurements have the universe expansion rate accelerating (escape velocity). We don’t have the universe totalized anyway…perhaps there will be an inflection point. No need to throw away a pretty good theory prematurely. If I may go off-topic for a moment… the oscillating universe does a wonderful job of addressing “the truth” of temporal infinity but conversely it’s extremely poor at addressing ”the truth” of spatial infinity (being that it’s a closed system). But still it served me well for forty years and allowed me to progress beyond macro model “obstacles”. Even though it is no longer the front runner to me, it could easily turn out to be the right one anyway.

The first question that you posed was: “Is an endless succession of bouncing universes possible?” IMHO, absolutely…Is it probable? Not as long as we’re in escape velocity. If it wasn’t for the universe expansion acceleration rate; I think that it would have been a certainty.

Firstly, I don’t believe that the second law of thermodynamics would factor in at all. Each cycle would be 100% self contained with no residual (no communication)…no loss of energy. In effect, you would have the one and only true perpetual machine.

You stated that: “but in order to achieve a subsequent BB that would produce an identical universe, the end state of the Universe would have to be symmetrical with that of the BB.” Here, I don’t quite agree. One again, IMHO, there is no requirement that sequential cycles must be identical although I think that they will be identical in mass and energy but not in any detail beyond that. Rest assured that, since there will be an infinite amount of cycles and a finite amount of mass and energy; eventually there will be a cycle that is 100% identical to this one (as well as all the others).
I found it interesting that you cited the progress of black holes as the prime difference between the expansion and collapsing phases. They certainly would be the largest. I like to cite life because it is an active rearrangement of particles vs. a passive rearrangement. For instance, what causal law of physics makes me move my knight in a game of chess? Life wanders and destroys vectors.

It is obvious to me that the collapsing universe cannot be a rewind of the expanding universe. Why would the universe decelerate under extreme gravitational influence? Rewind is an interesting mind experiment but not a practical reality.

Well, I’m certainly delighted that you brought this subject up.

I hope that you (and anyone else reading this) understand that I can’t clog up the flow of ideas by qualifying my declarations with prefaces like IMHO and there’s always the danger of appearing arrogant and unduly authoritative. Conversely, I didn’t come here empty-handed and bewildered either.

If I don’t get a chance…Happy Holidays.

K G, thanks for an interesting response.
I was guilty of lack of clarity. When talking about the need for symmetry I was thinking of the possibility that something might pass from one universe to the next. Without that, I agree there would be no need for the symmetry, nor would the 2nd law of T D have an adverse effect on successive universes.
You said the B U copes well with temporal infinity. I see what you mean, but, as you have probably gathered from my posts elsewhere, I have a problem with this kind of infinite series.
One thought that comes to mind is the possibility that each universe may be all there is during its lifetime. We are assured that time and space were created with our Universe, so, presumably they are re-created with each universe. Leaving space out of it for the moment, this means that there is no time outside the Universe. If that is the case, it makes no sense to talk of there being any time between universes; nor is it appropriate to talk of one following instantly after the other, because this is a temporal concept.
It gets worse. If there is no time between universes, can it make any sense to say that they follow in sequence? Without an external time frame, can we distinguish between a succession of universes, and a whole lot of universes that all exist together?

“One thought that comes to mind is the possibility that each universe may be all there is during its lifetime.” I kind of agree with this. For all intents and purposes, each cycle is self-contained. However, there may be one link between each occurrence of universes…momentum. I don’t know. You see, I have no doubt that momentum is there; I just don’t know if the universe even needs it. Bear with me for a moment on this one.

One way of looking at the bouncing or oscillating universe is that it is a perpetual machine. (The universe itself is the only working perpetual machine in the universe.) Whenever we observe man’s attempt to design one, most of the time, momentum is a necessary component. In other words; if someone stops it by sticking their thumb into it they gum up the works. This universe (“God’s” perpetual machine) is so optimized that even if you could find a way to stop it, it would resume the moment you released the obstruction.

This is what I’m trying to get at. Momentum is present but I’m not so sure the universe depends on it. How could that possibly be? In short, perhaps the universe is in a state of perpetual imbalance geometrically. BTW, if this were true, I believe that it would have to “sift” its way right on down through the quantum model. Any thorough (correct) quantum model should “expose” this truth (as well as account for relativity). Just another opinion.

As I had stated before, oscillating universe is no longer my front runner. I don’t want to confuse my ability to deal with it as my belief or my best guess.

“We are assured that time and space were created with our Universe.”

Let me preface this by saying that it is really difficult to discuss these high level cosmological subjects without skewing off into all kinds of other heavy duty related concepts. Everything interrelates. For me, it’s a balancing act between thoroughness and readability (understanding).

Well, it’s the holidays and I am being pulled away and I don’t know for how long. Hope to resume this later.

BTW, very pleased to meet you Bill.

Pleased to meet you too, Kirby. Hope you have a great holiday. Have a break from all these mental contortions.

If momentum acts as a link between universes, would this throw any light in the problem of distinguishing between multiple universes, existing together, and a succession of universes existing one at a time?

I think that it does (somewhat)…but I don’t think that it constitutes a ”slam-dunk” that suddenly makes the bouncing universe overwhelmingly favorable or evidential. Some forms of parallel universe theories have an even stronger link that is claimed…gravity.

Of course, by definition; bouncing universes is a theory of serial (sequential) universes as opposed to parallel universe type theories or even single-shot theories.

I would like to point out that bouncing universes is not the only viable serial universe scheme available. Likewise, there are various schemes for parallel modes.

For instance, the theory of infinite progression/regression results in parallel universes that for all intents and purposes are totally disconnected while string theory and all of its variants find it convenient if gravity/ space was the interlink... and additive.

There’s also another thought. Even if serial universes is true; this still doesn’t exclude parallel universes from being simultaneous and true also. Series-parallel arrangements are observable in nature along with things like fractals. (plants, the shift register, evolution, the chain reaction,...)

Serial universe still leaves the question of what’s outside unanswered and badly wanting. That’s why I have concluded that infinite progression/regression is the only viable serial scheme available. In other words; If the entire megaverse is a serial scheme only, then infinite progression/ regression is the only possible working system.

There’s a lot more that I can say about this subject but first I have to make sure that you know what the term infinite progression/regression means as well as its relevance to bouncing/ serial universes. I think that most likely you do because you had no problem with the relevance of temporal and spatial infinities.

What I want to do next is propose a new twist on the common classical concept of infinite progression/regression that I hope will make it a more palatable idea.

Once again, keep in mind that I’m kicking around thoughts and ideas..not convictions.

Infinite progression/regression is something to which I have given thought, on and off, for more years than I like to admit to. It gave me problems when I first thought about it, and it still does, so I look forward to your "new twist".

Kirby, I take your point that there are numerous theories covering both serial and parallel universes, some of which stretch the credulity more than others.

Elsewhere I have, I think, detected some reticence where the multiverse is concerned, but it's something I am always happy to have a go at.

The specific thing I'm trying to get my head round at the moment is the question of time, or the lack of it, between successive universes. If there is no time between, how can it be argued that there is any sort of sequence?

Many years ago, I watched a scene in the movie “Animal House” where one of the pledges aided by an abstract thought provoking substance (marijuana), has an epiphany and states that:

Wow, so our universe is an electron in the next universe and that universe is an electron in the next one… This is the basic idea of infinite progression/regression. Let’s refer to it as IPR. (The typing is getting tedious.)

IPR can be subjected to further scrutiny and refinement. For instance you could speculate that our universe is a “god” particle or photon. Something that can’t be cleaved.

When you take into consideration that all neighboring particles must also be universes the series/ parallel arrangement of classic IPR is pretty obvious. Bouncing universes is a series only idea.

I am going to convert IPR into a series only idea (scheme):

IMHO, the primary function of the megaverse is to provide an environment for existence. Having said that; Its secondary function is to perpetuate and it is only this secondary function that is of any concern to physics.

Our local universe has one primary function. When our universe gets done “doing what it is in the process of doing” (its job); it will initiate the big bang in the next universe.

If this is true, then there is no significance for neighboring particles because they’re not little universes…therefore there’s no parallel attribute remaining. This is a serial only scheme and it has lot more in common with bouncing universe than it does with multi-dimensional universe or single-shot universe.

This scheme takes from the best that BU has to offer (temporal infinity, repetition…) and simultaneously accounts for spatial infinity using the same stroke.

Now there are some interesting observations that could be made about this arrangement of IPR. For starters, this would mean that our local universe is the only one doing anything right now. Time is only marching for us. The next universe is in a static condition all coiled up and ready to fire. In other words; all of its energy is potential energy… tensor fields…100%. Me-thinks that it’s going to get all of its kinetic energy from us. This universe’s job is to deliver the missing ingredient to the next one.

Some imagination, huh?

Now back to metaphysics:

It’s not “God the Father”…it’s “God the Mother”.

Are you saying that time passes from one universe to the next, like a baton in a relay race? This would imply that time exists between each universe, rather than that is "created" at the start of each universe.

Would it be equally relevant to regard time as being a feature of your megaverse, so that it would be "marching" for all possible universes, but only one at a time would be aware of it?

A terminology question here: would it be reasonable to suggest that "megaverse" = "multiverse" = "cosmos"?

“Elsewhere I have, I think, detected some reticence where the multiverse is concerned”

Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think that BU, IPR, M-theory are all multiverse schemes…some serial, some parallel. Ironically, single-shot is the lone exception and I find it to be the least palatable. For me, the next least favorite is parallel systems that occupy the same space at the same time... much too “magical” for my tastes and sensibilities. This isn’t due to disinterest or ignorance…I think that I have decent grasp on what’s being said.

"The specific thing I'm trying to get my head round at the moment is the question of time, or the lack of it, between successive universes. If there is no time between, how can it be argued that there is any sort of sequence?"

I think that I see what you are getting at. You have a tripping point in your concept of time that I’m not stumbling over. This is because I don’t “realize” time the same way that you do on a fundamental level. My concept of how time works (as a mechanism) in our physical universe is very different from yours…as well as most peoples.

As a result, you see the transition point from universe to universe as a super-massive, insurmountable obstruction. Correct me if I’m wrong but, you believe or deduced that at the point of “singularity” that space and time no longer exist because they are created only when the big bang is initiated and the universe is no longer a “singularity”. I can see the dilemma. Under these conditions the universe should be frozen as a singularity…and it would…if those were the conditions.

I got to tell you; I have a million ideas regarding this subject but there’s no way that we can discuss it all at once. I have faith that, “God” willing, we’ll get around to it…but the title won’t be BU.

I certainly didn't have you in mind, Kirby, I was thinking of other threads that have faltered almost before getting off the ground.

It's not quite as simple as that. I'm not sure if I have already mentioned on this forum that a few years ago I started thinking seriously about time travel. I very soon found I was going round in circles. My wife suggested that I write everything down, her advice is usually good, so I did. A couple of years and over 180,000 words later, I realised I had written a "book". All this effort raised more questions than it answered.

The nature of time, and of infinity are two issues that still need work. I'm really looking forward to hearing your ideas about time.

Currently, the point I am at is that I think we live in an infinite cosmos in which there is essentially no change and no passage of time. Our experience is of a 4-dimensional Universe in which the illusions of time and change are necessary in order for us to make sense of our environment.

“Are you saying that time passes from one universe to the next, like a baton in a relay race? This would imply that time exists between each universe, rather than that is "created" at the start of each universe.”

This is one area where I am willing to avoid ambiguity and “put my foot down”. I think that “time” does pass through…and you’re right; this implies what I actually believe… time is not created. Let’s put it this way; NEW time is not created…I don’t think that new space is created either.


“Would it be equally relevant to regard time as being a feature of your megaverse, so that it would be "marching" for all possible universes, but only one at a time would be aware of it?”

No, I meant exactly what I said. Amongst all of the sequential megaverses, ours is the only one that has any motion “inside it”. The previous (smaller) universe is spent, dead and motionless, the median universe (ours) is “alive and kicking” and the larger, next universe is static and “unborn”. Keep in mind that it wasn’t the analogy to reproductive cycle that sparked the idea but rather, the reverse. It’s just one of the ramifications of serialized IPR.

I’ll go out on a limb and be more specific. The next larger universe already has all of the material and potential that it needs to work and get into motion. Indeed, it is out there, in a frozen condition…massive and static and real but it isn’t “going anywhere” until this universe is done with its cycle, its job, its function. The next universe needs something that we’ve got (and it isn’t time.)

At this point, I’m sure that my explanations so far appear nebulous and over-simplified…and they should. This is a heavy duty subject. It would be impossible to cover it like a blanket in 40 words or less. I definitely have some ideas regarding the mechanics of it.

Yes...for sure. i already know that most people here are comfortable and know the distiction between universe and multi-verse/ megaverse. I do notice a slight tendency for multi-verse to be used within the context of parallel and megaverse to be used in the context of serial. It would be nice if that was official though.

“It's not quite as simple as that. I'm not sure if I have already mentioned on this forum that a few years ago I started thinking seriously about time travel. I very soon found I was going round in circles. My wife suggested that I write everything down, her advice is usually good, so I did. A couple of years and over 180,000 words later, I realised I had written a "book". All this effort raised more questions than it answered.”

Those are a lot of words and no doubt a bear to keep organized. I’m sure that eventually, it becomes all encompassing and touches upon philosophy, math, theology and even psychology in addition to the physics/ metaphysics. I find it impossible to completely divorce one aspect from another.


"Currently, the point I am at is that I think we live in an infinite cosmos in which there is essentially no change and no passage of time. Our experience is of a 4-dimensional Universe in which the illusions of time and change are necessary in order for us to make sense of our environment."

It’s hard to argue with that statement. It’s too astute.

When I first started to size up the nature of existence; I realized early on that idealism vs. realism was the first stumbling block and indistinguishable. I probe deeper into the realism branch (science/ causality) because, well, isn’t that why we’re here?

Whether it is illusory or not… the physical universe, ”this thing of ours”, really is quite marvelous and worth a closer look.

Absolutely! I don't think the Universe is an illusion; I think it is that aspect of the infinite whole that we are able to see. I suspect that change is an illusion, and that time is what lets us make sense of that illusion.

Sounds OK to me. What about "cosmos" as a blanket term to cover both?

This raises the question: "What is time". I think I'm sort of with St Augustine here: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not".

Two questions about your scenario:
1. Is the "current" universe the only one that experiences time?
2. Would I be right in thinking that in your scenario time is more than just a measure of change? Does it have some independent existence of its own?

Sounds OK to me. What about "cosmos" as a blanket term to cover both?

Agreed

Two questions about your scenario:
1. Is the "current" universe the only one that experiences time?

Yes.

2. Would I be right in thinking that in your scenario time is more than just a measure of change? Does it have some independent existence of its own?

More similar to the first one… except that time is a mechanism of change not a measurement. Time is just the dynamic interaction of all of the constituents of change. Without change there will be no phenomenon of time. Likewise without time no change will take place…but their relationship to each other isn’t causal. Both change and time come about simultaneously. They're initiated by energy...kenetic energy to be specific.

Actually there’s nothing new here. This is how we actually perceive and detect time and change (science aside). The question is can you believe your eyes. I think that we can. All science needs to do is represent it with a mechanism that follows all physical laws.

If they can do this, then; they will have the correct framework, dynamics and language for the quantum model…oh, and I harp on this a lot; relativity will be unveiled.

I like that, it's a good, concise, quotable quote; but what does it mean to say that time is a "mechanism" of change.



My understanding is that an "interaction" has no existence of its own, apart from the entities involved in the interaction.



This seems to provide a response to my second point, but it would also mean that if there was nothing between successive universes, there would be nothing for time to interact with.

“…but what does it mean to say that time is a "mechanism" of change.”

Time is a feature that emerges simultaneously along with change.

“My understanding is that an "interaction" has no existence of its own, apart from the entities involved in the interaction.”

That’s exactly it. Time is not a lone physical entity. However, the phenomenon of time has enough detail and characteristics that it can be discussed, “described” and measured. It’s certainly not a word that I would want to live without. (It’s just too damn handy.) One could discuss the rhythm of time or time dilation. We can assign a measurement unit to it. After a while, it takes on a life of its own.

At some point, I would like to initiate a thread on time and relativity which should be controversial and blasphemous; but it could serve as a predecessor to this particular idea of time.

”…if there was nothing between successive universes, there would be nothing for time to interact with.”

I agree… that’s why I’m not a proponent of virtually nothing at the “singularity”…nor am I a proponent of nothing before or after the singularity.

In addition; I can’t reconcile new space being created during the universe’s expansion. For starters, space is the lousiest “carrier” of matter that one could conceive of.

I like the sound of a thread on time and relativity. Go for it!



Does this mean that you do not subscribe to the belief that the galaxy groups are not travelling through space?

What are we actually measuring when we measure time? We might talk of "one second", but what is it? It looks like an arbitrarily chosen unit that seems to make sense of change.

This kind of discussion is perhaps best saved for your future thread.

All motion involves something traveling through space. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that our expanding universe is caused by “new” space magically appearing in between objects (adding more distance).

From what I can observe, all matter “sees” space as zero resistance to its motion. If we throw a ball out in space; it continues to travel at the same speed, unimpeded by space and will continue unabated until it collides with something. Likewise, I believe that newly created space would ”happily” expand past a stationary object and that there would be no change in the object’s relative position to other objects. Hence, space is the worst possible carrier of matter that I can imagine. Add in the fact that all of the supposed new space is not diluting existing gravitational fields.

I propose that, prior to the Big Bang, all of the space was already there. All that we can actually observe and track are particle motions. I think that space expansion is just a “convenient” way of accounting for the relative motions of the particles…just like dark energy is a “convenient” way of accounting for the acceleration. Personally, I have to be extremely careful before I can adopt either of these as reality. However, there is no doubt that the particles are behaving as if there was an expanding carrier and they are also behaving as if there was a repulsive force. I think that science needs to exhaust all possibilities for the particle behavior before it resorts to non-detectable, unverifiable causes.

The idea that galaxy groups are separating because they are being carried along by expanding space allows for a horizon beyond which we would never be able to see, because light from beyond it will never reach us. Would the same thing happen if the galaxy groups were moving through space, or would no such permanent horizon be able to arise, because relative speeds through space can never reach "c"?

BTW, Kirby, I like your idea that space is a very poor carrier of matter. I shall have to mull that over.

I don’t really know. This isn’t something that I am even close to reconciling.
For instance, when we adjust our telescope magnification to see near the horizon regardless of the direction that we choose, we see a lot of quasars. The problem isn’t that we “see” a horizon; it’s what we see near the horizon. If you apply a lot of common sense, it’s easy to think of quasars as the birth of galaxies. However, to me, quasars also look a lot like what I would envision the “death” of galaxies to be like and I don’t think that this possibility can be ruled out 100%. Like everyone else, I have no choice but to lean towards birth mainly because of the homogeneity (consistency) that existed billions of years ago.

I would like to run a mind experiment: Let’s take the current viewpoint (consensus) of the universe’s evolution except; let’s keep track of one elemental particle… an electron. And out of all the electrons in the universe, I choose the one that is orbiting within a carbon atom at the tip of your nose.

~13.7 billion years ago the Big Bang is initiated and our electron doesn’t exist. Sometime between 1 millionth of a second later and 1 second later our electron comes into being, congealed out of pure energy.

Sometime between 3 seconds and 300,000 years later, our electron is captured by a proton/neutron combination’s strong force and is now part of a stable hydrogen atom. This atom is a part of hydrogen plasma soup.

Sometime between 300,000 years and 300,000,000 years this atom finds itself as a constituent of a star. The star resides in a proto-galaxy which will congeal into a quasar and then into a distinct galaxy that will later be known as the Milky Way. Sometime within this time frame the universe begins to glow with visible light. Later on, I will be referring to this time frame and the visible light.

Sometime between 300M years and 5B years the star is ready to go supernova and our electron finds itself fusing into a heavier carbon atom. The star goes supernova and spews mostly light elements and a tiny portion of heavier elements (including our electron).

~9B years after the Big Bang our solar system begins to congeal; the sun reaches critical mass and flashes on. Our electron is a part of a carbon atom that will later congeal into the Earth.

~13.7B after the Big Bang our electron finds itself orbiting within a carbon atom that resides on the tip of Bill S.’ nose.

Now, Bill S., the nose and the electron find themselves behind a rather large telescope and he focuses the telescope so that it can see 13.4B light years distant. He is also looking back 13.4B years ago. This is the point where the universe first became visible. 13.4B years ago a photon began its journey through the universe at the speed of light. 13.4B years later it reflects off of the telescope’s objective and lands on your retina.

I have one simple question: How did the electron beat the photon to this vantage point? How could the electron win the race against an entity that is traveling at 1c? Supposedly, 13.4B years ago the photon and electron were both in the same general locale. Now the electron is behind a telescope receiving photons from the universe’s flash on point. This seems paradoxical to me.

I think that the point I am trying to make is that there is much for me understand before I can hazard a guess about the universe’s horizon.

BTW; I just recieved Stannard's book in the mail.

“What are we actually measuring when we measure time?”

I believe that we are measuring the rate of change. There is a consistency for most changes that can be described as time. Repeatability really solidifies this concept until it becomes “second” nature. Time also has a linear “feel” that is helpful.

“We might talk of "one second", but what is it? It looks like an arbitrarily chosen unit that seems to make sense of change.”

Yes. The premise for a second of time was mostly arbitrary. Fortunately, that’s no longer the case. For instance; 1 coulomb is the accumulation of electrons at a 1amp rate over 1 second.

I think that the true nature of time is the “hinge pin” to understanding the cosmos…or at least it’s one of the big three. Newton thought that it was dynamics and Einstein thought that it was a constant (c).

I have struggled with similar problems arising out of the apparent fact that astronomers can look back in time such vast distances. I have not thought of this specific one, though. at first glance, the weak link here seems to be the assumption that the photon and the electron were "in the same general locale". Surely, they could have been on opposite sides of the Universe, they would then be separating at a considerable speed. They would be going in opposite directions which (I assume) would double the speed of expansion.

My attempts to find solutions to other problems of this kind lead me to suspect that the answer could not be that simple. Where are the experts when you need them?

I agree with this, as far as our understanding of the Universe is concerned.
Our understanding of the Universe necessarily includes an understanding of what we perceive as change. We are aware of change in our Universe, but this brings us back to the spider walking through Flatland. How can we be sure that what we see equates in any real way to what is happening in the wider context of the whole cosmos?