This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should definately be merged with the Cyclic Model page. The two pages are talking about the same thing.-- Paulamicela 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the new Penrose model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychogenius018 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if I am a complete analphabet regarding quantum mechanics or cosmology, I think that the edit of September 6, which removed the Baum-Frampton model from the article and left just a few lines about Steinhardt-Turok on the basis of unsourced text is unjustified.
I don't know how popular in the academic world is the model of Baum-Frampton, but I doubt that at least one properly sourced summary couldn't be found elsewhere. Steinhardt and Turok were also largely disregarded, since their work was reflected only by a detractor in the version of September 6.
The edit also gave undue weight to Lynds model; although personally I find his theory quite attractive, it deals more with philosophy than cosmology. Even one of his apologists from the academy acknowledges that his model is mostly 'speculative'. Furthermore, Lynds has no university degree.
I think the article needs the review of a specialist in this matter, so I posted the "expert-subject" template.-- Darius ( talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I just heard Steinhardt assert that the branes and so forth needn't be thought of as anything more than a convenient geometric visualisation (i.e. the cyclic universe doesn't require string theory). I am not personally competent to evaluate this, but presumably he is. -- False vacuum ( talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop deleting large, random hunks of the physics stuff and replacing it with Peter Lynds, whoever you are. If you were just adding the Lynds without deleting the legitimate stuff, there might have been some grounds for discussion, but as it is, well... False vacuum ( talk) 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look, the material you were re-adding was tagged as unsourced in October 2007 -- 17 months ago! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, Hrafn, but do you actually know anything about this subject? False vacuum ( talk) 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at Peter Lynds, the material:
I would suggest that this material not be included in the article unless and until it can be demonstrated (with RSs) that Lynds' ideas on this topic have received notice/discussion from mainstream physicists. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I am no scientist but I have made some connections between this theory and religion. I believe that the cyclic nature of the universe and references in the bible and other holy books actually tie in with each other. The concepts of a heaven for example, when judgement day arrives is it not said that the all will become one again? is this not the big crunch? One day we will all become one. I find it hard to ignore that in religion a single point is chosen for all to be as one? Eternity is also refered to in many religions, such as the cycle itself. Being one with god? yet again, the big crunch. God itself is a single figure, such as the model of the cycle, a single power. Remember that when these tales were written it had to be put across in a way the people would understand. Stories can have very viable meanings in real life. I just cannot shake this from my mind, it seems so true to me. (====) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiomale ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I keep an open mind in science, but i have never been schooled in it, but i am noones dummy either. As many people, i have wondered for years what/where & why black holes are made from/out of. I watched the discovery show the other day about The Steinhardt–Turok model. And it came to me that if what they suspect is true, where these dimensions collide could possibly be the creation of blackholes, it would explain alot all the energy between these would easily explain why light bends and matter cant escape them. Just wanted to throw that out there, just seems logical. Havent read anything about this possible connection. It could also be a possible way to date how many times this has happened, each black hole could be a past collision. Maybe the smaller ones are older and the bigger ones the newest collisions, or vice versa. It would also explain why matter gathers around the blackholes and seperates galaxies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.29.136 ( talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy (e.g. at WP:V & WP:PSTS) is that Wikipedia articles should rely predominately on published WP:SECONDARY sources. arXiv articles are pre-publication typically-WP:PRIMARY sources, so should not predominate. Currently 8 out of eleven citations in the article are to arXiv. I am therefore reverting the most recent addition of one & tagging the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads: "In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] The footnote refers to Tolman's famous book "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology." I decided to buy the book to check this out. Actually, Tolman says that under the 19th century view of the conservation of energy, an eternal cyclic universe would not be possible but under relativity it may be possible. In Tolman's view, one cannot rule out the possibility the universe can tap into an infinite source of energy necessary to keep the cycles eternal. Here are some quotes:
Note: Here Tolman depends on an infinite supply of energy coming from "the gravitational field associated with Einstein's pseudo-tensor (symbol)" in order to maintain an eternal series of cycles.
If Tolman's view was accurately represented in the article, then he would be convinced the universe had started "from a singular state of zero volume." Tolman's actual view seems to be agnostic regarding the question of if the actual universe could exist in eternal cycles of expansion and contraction. On a final note, Tolman's comments regarding the universe "as a stage for the future role of man" seems comical. Man certainly could not survive a contraction of the universe like the ones contemplated here.
I wanted to bring this up because Tolman is misrepresented in the article. I would be happy for someone else to fix it. If not, I will check back later. RonCram ( talk) 13:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to worry about the Second Law of Thermodynamics; GR clearly takes precedence over it! Davidaedwards, 9/23/17
I've added the templates requesting help from an expert and to add non-primary sources. To me the article seems somewhat disjointed in places and overly simplistic in others (primarily the overview section). I know there is a great deal of debate within the scientific community on the various competing cyclic theories and I think the article is in need of a general overhaul. And as discussed before the article relies on primary sources for most of its references and generally Wikipedia requires secondary & third-party sources to make up the backbone of referencing. Coinmanj ( talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The section Pulsating universe as in Hinduism refers to an astrological blog! Astrology is not science! IP User:203.99.211.133 shall refrain from adding pseudoscientific woo to this scientific article! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The term closed universe does NOT define what happens after closure (it may loop or it may not)!!! Thus it's not antonymous to the cyclic model!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:99BE:E84F:697:6687:F968 ( talk) 01:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should definately be merged with the Cyclic Model page. The two pages are talking about the same thing.-- Paulamicela 21:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the new Penrose model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychogenius018 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if I am a complete analphabet regarding quantum mechanics or cosmology, I think that the edit of September 6, which removed the Baum-Frampton model from the article and left just a few lines about Steinhardt-Turok on the basis of unsourced text is unjustified.
I don't know how popular in the academic world is the model of Baum-Frampton, but I doubt that at least one properly sourced summary couldn't be found elsewhere. Steinhardt and Turok were also largely disregarded, since their work was reflected only by a detractor in the version of September 6.
The edit also gave undue weight to Lynds model; although personally I find his theory quite attractive, it deals more with philosophy than cosmology. Even one of his apologists from the academy acknowledges that his model is mostly 'speculative'. Furthermore, Lynds has no university degree.
I think the article needs the review of a specialist in this matter, so I posted the "expert-subject" template.-- Darius ( talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I just heard Steinhardt assert that the branes and so forth needn't be thought of as anything more than a convenient geometric visualisation (i.e. the cyclic universe doesn't require string theory). I am not personally competent to evaluate this, but presumably he is. -- False vacuum ( talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop deleting large, random hunks of the physics stuff and replacing it with Peter Lynds, whoever you are. If you were just adding the Lynds without deleting the legitimate stuff, there might have been some grounds for discussion, but as it is, well... False vacuum ( talk) 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look, the material you were re-adding was tagged as unsourced in October 2007 -- 17 months ago! Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, Hrafn, but do you actually know anything about this subject? False vacuum ( talk) 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at Peter Lynds, the material:
I would suggest that this material not be included in the article unless and until it can be demonstrated (with RSs) that Lynds' ideas on this topic have received notice/discussion from mainstream physicists. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I am no scientist but I have made some connections between this theory and religion. I believe that the cyclic nature of the universe and references in the bible and other holy books actually tie in with each other. The concepts of a heaven for example, when judgement day arrives is it not said that the all will become one again? is this not the big crunch? One day we will all become one. I find it hard to ignore that in religion a single point is chosen for all to be as one? Eternity is also refered to in many religions, such as the cycle itself. Being one with god? yet again, the big crunch. God itself is a single figure, such as the model of the cycle, a single power. Remember that when these tales were written it had to be put across in a way the people would understand. Stories can have very viable meanings in real life. I just cannot shake this from my mind, it seems so true to me. (====) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpiomale ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I keep an open mind in science, but i have never been schooled in it, but i am noones dummy either. As many people, i have wondered for years what/where & why black holes are made from/out of. I watched the discovery show the other day about The Steinhardt–Turok model. And it came to me that if what they suspect is true, where these dimensions collide could possibly be the creation of blackholes, it would explain alot all the energy between these would easily explain why light bends and matter cant escape them. Just wanted to throw that out there, just seems logical. Havent read anything about this possible connection. It could also be a possible way to date how many times this has happened, each black hole could be a past collision. Maybe the smaller ones are older and the bigger ones the newest collisions, or vice versa. It would also explain why matter gathers around the blackholes and seperates galaxies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.29.136 ( talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy (e.g. at WP:V & WP:PSTS) is that Wikipedia articles should rely predominately on published WP:SECONDARY sources. arXiv articles are pre-publication typically-WP:PRIMARY sources, so should not predominate. Currently 8 out of eleven citations in the article are to arXiv. I am therefore reverting the most recent addition of one & tagging the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently reads: "In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] The footnote refers to Tolman's famous book "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology." I decided to buy the book to check this out. Actually, Tolman says that under the 19th century view of the conservation of energy, an eternal cyclic universe would not be possible but under relativity it may be possible. In Tolman's view, one cannot rule out the possibility the universe can tap into an infinite source of energy necessary to keep the cycles eternal. Here are some quotes:
Note: Here Tolman depends on an infinite supply of energy coming from "the gravitational field associated with Einstein's pseudo-tensor (symbol)" in order to maintain an eternal series of cycles.
If Tolman's view was accurately represented in the article, then he would be convinced the universe had started "from a singular state of zero volume." Tolman's actual view seems to be agnostic regarding the question of if the actual universe could exist in eternal cycles of expansion and contraction. On a final note, Tolman's comments regarding the universe "as a stage for the future role of man" seems comical. Man certainly could not survive a contraction of the universe like the ones contemplated here.
I wanted to bring this up because Tolman is misrepresented in the article. I would be happy for someone else to fix it. If not, I will check back later. RonCram ( talk) 13:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to worry about the Second Law of Thermodynamics; GR clearly takes precedence over it! Davidaedwards, 9/23/17
I've added the templates requesting help from an expert and to add non-primary sources. To me the article seems somewhat disjointed in places and overly simplistic in others (primarily the overview section). I know there is a great deal of debate within the scientific community on the various competing cyclic theories and I think the article is in need of a general overhaul. And as discussed before the article relies on primary sources for most of its references and generally Wikipedia requires secondary & third-party sources to make up the backbone of referencing. Coinmanj ( talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The section Pulsating universe as in Hinduism refers to an astrological blog! Astrology is not science! IP User:203.99.211.133 shall refrain from adding pseudoscientific woo to this scientific article! Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 17:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The term closed universe does NOT define what happens after closure (it may loop or it may not)!!! Thus it's not antonymous to the cyclic model!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:99BE:E84F:697:6687:F968 ( talk) 01:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)