Sunday, March 09, 2008

Endless Universes

So, I've been reading the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang over the past few days (and yes, I am trying to impress you all by letting on that I'm reading cosmology theory (in NOVA-type very diluted form)) and (although I have this unfortunate tendency to fall asleep while reading it, which partially contributed to my missing 1/3 of church this morning) I have to admit, I find it rather wonderful.

Basically, the book takes a look at both the commonly taught model of the universe (the inflationary model) critiques it, and also introduces a new model (the cyclic model of the universe) that fits with the same astronomical observations and yet has (they claim) fewer problems than the inflationary model.

While I am certainly no cosmologist (I have trouble really visualizing some of the more intense theoretical stuff, like Higgs fields (which apparently make it possible for elementary particles to differentiate into the types we know today)), still the idea of the cyclic universe appeals to me much more than the inflationary model, simply from (oddly enough) an aesthetic and theological perspective.

The inflationary model claims, essentially, that time and space began at the Big Bang, that the universe rapidly expanded, then slowed, and now is undergoing a period of increasing expansion because of dark energy (all of which was explained in the book in a way that made me pretty much understand what dark energy is supposed to be, thank goodness). This increasing expansion will continue forever, until the universe is basically dead: all burnable fuel used up, all matter so widely distributed that space has become a virtual vacuum. And this state lasts forever.

While the cyclic model incorporates the same idea of the current universe as the inflationary model (that of rapid expansion after the Big Bang, gradual slowing and cooling, and a relatively recent period of increasing expansion due to dark energy), it differs from the other model in essential points. Instead of the universe being created at the Big Bang, the model claims that the event was only one in a series of cyclical events or periods that are endlessly repeating. Basically, the model makes the assumption (and I haven't yet discovered how the theorists provide a good reason for supposing this assumption is valid, but I'm only halfway through the book) that dark energy eventually decays when the universe is fairly homogenous (vacuum-like) in nature, and that then the universe gradually contracts until it reaches another Big Bang event, matter and energy are once again concentrated and distributed throughout the universe, and another period of creation begins.

So.

Here is why I prefer the cyclic model: firstly, it's just plain more hopeful. Thinking about the universe cooling and dying and expanding forever and ever and ever with no end is just plain depressing. It means that the majority of the creation of galaxies and other major astronomical structures is pretty much over and entropy wins in the end. That's a pretty bleak view. Whereas the cyclic model provides for an endless repetition of periods of creation. That's an inherently hopeful view, one I find fits more with my idea of how the universe should be. It's efficient (as opposed to the seemingly wasteful inflationary model) with no loss of matter/energy as the universe undergoes these cycles. That's the aesthetic appeal.

I also find that the cyclic model fits very comfortably indeed with my theological views. In the LDS scriptures, the phrase "one eternal round" comes up frequently and is always related to God, and always related to his course. I find it wonderful that there's an idea of the universe that plays into this idea of endless creation. Endless. Which means that God's work is wonderfully, beautifully, joyously, never finished. Which fits so much better into the cyclic model than the inflationary one. While I suppose the inflationary model could work with this idea of God (He'd just move on to another universe when this one was burned up, I guess), still, again, it feels inefficient and just wasteful. Using the same universe over and over again for works of creation seems to be wonderfully simple and beautiful.

So what does all this mean?

Nothing much.

I doubt I'll be able to tell after reading this book which, if either model, is more reliable, fits more with the astronomical evidence, or is more mathematically viable.

But I know which one I like, which one I'm rooting for. And whichever model is true (if either) the universe is more grand and strange and gorgeous and complex and simple than I can comprehend. And that's kind of wonderful in itself.

9 comments:

Papa said...

So, think of space as consisting of not three dimensions, but four (and no, the fourth dimension is not time in this scenario, as H. G. Wells might suggest). Just as in a three-dimensional space there are an infinite number of two-dimensional planes stacked side-by-side, in a four dimensional space there would be an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces (or universes) all coexisting "side-by-side" but without any connection or knowledge of each other.

Now, consider a five-dimensional space with an infinite number of four-dimensional spaces all coexisting "side-by-side". Now keep adding dimensions. Does your head hurt yet? :-)

Just exploring possibilities and giving us something to think about while we contemplate the meaning of "eternity" and "infinity" and other such things....

Your Name said...

*brains goes nova*

0_0


I think black holes are super cool.

That's about the extent of my knowledge of the universe.

Mama M said...

God's Heart Beating.

Maybe that is what the repeating cycle of Big Bangs will prove to be.

I can't wait to get all the answers.

Mama M said...

Oh, and what is this about missing Church? Or a third of Church.

Tut. Tut.

melissa @ 1lbr said...

Not only are you a kindred librarian spirit, but you are reading cosmology books. *SMILE* (I did my undergrad in astronomy.) Anyway, love that you read this for fun! Makes me want to pick up my A Brief History of Time and finish it (finally :)

Jekka Goaty Senoj said...

And in the eternal round, I tag you! *pokes*

Wookface said...

"I started watching Nova the other day...they had one on string theory. I started watching that thing at 8 pm...and at 8:03, my brain exploded!"

Pat said...

Wow - I got me some serious scalp-burn from all this heavy stuff going over my head, but yeah, I do sort of get it. I was watching a show on PBS the other day about Einstein and what he learned about the speed of light and theories about time - and it was pretty amazing. To me the perfection of all the laws that govern this universe are not only proof that God exists, but that he loves us too - and isn't that just the coolest?

lightbringer said...

Hi,
First off I will admit that my knowledge of cosmology and physics goes no further than higher grade physics at school and an interest in the popular science section of my local book shop.
I was thinking though that what we think of as the expansion of the universe, dark matter, dark energy,basically internal forces are not driving the expansion at all but the forces doing so are external to the universe?
To help visualize what I mean,imagine the universe as a large dough ball,visible matter being bits of unmixed flour, the rest of the properly mixed flour is what we would term dark matter, dark energy, whatever you want.
Now along comes a pizza chef, our external force and starts rolling out the dough ball
Now to any intelligent beings in the dough ball universe, would it not appear that their universe is expanding,and as the dough ball was flattened more evenly, smearing out the unmixed flour, would this not appear as for example heat death or proton decay?
Now feel free to shoot down my half baked idea, but I do wonder, can we totally discount that the apparent expansion of the universe is not being driven to forces external to it, and if so would this ultimately matter?