Talk:Cyclic model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Cyclic model is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


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 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and "been bold" and added in a new section "other cyclic models" with links to the Penrose one also Loop quantum cosmology. Doesn't seem to be any place in wikipedia where all the different cyclic models are listed, and this was where I expected to find it. Needs to be somewhere anyway.

Removal of Baum-Fraumpton model and other inconsistencies[edit]

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)

Thanks to users False vacuum, JocK and Michael Hardy for overhauling this article. I removed the banner. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Steinhardt–Turok model and its dependency on string-theory ideas[edit]

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)

All right, this is ridiculous.[edit]

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)

  1. The "large, random hunks of the physics stuff" is unsourced. Please read WP:V. Please do not re-add without sources.
  2. The Lynds stuff is sourced. If you think it is off-topic/unreliably-sourced/whatever, then please explain why. And please remove it without re-adding unsourced material.

HrafnTalkStalk(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! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking an even closer look, you're the one who deleted it in the first place (and every other time; I'm not the only one who's put it back in). What's wrong with it, exactly? Without it, the article doesn't even make sense. False vacuum (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"What's wrong with it, exactly?" What part of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" do you fail to understand? It has no source, therefore it is not verifiable. If "the article doesn't even make sense" without it, then we have three choices: (i) provide sources for it, (ii) find something equivalent to say that does have sources, or (iii) delete the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, you might want to remove the remaining paragraph about the Steinhardt-Turok model; the citation at the end is just for the last sentence, about string theory being controversial. False vacuum (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'll tag it -- allowing others a chance to provide a citation for it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The material removed is verifiable, only not yet properly verified using inline templates (references are provided at the bottom of the page). After reading the older version, there is nothing that stands out as nonsense, POV pushing, or anything warranting deletion/removal. Restoring the removed material and placing [citation needed] tags where needed seems a more reasonable course of action. Plus, the Peter Lynd material is giving undue weight, and does not meet WP:RS. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It sat there with {{cn}} tags for 17 months and nobody did anything about it -- which was why it was removed. If you want it back, then find citations for it. I have no opinion on the Lynd material, but if you want it removed, then you need to explain why it is WP:UNDUE/not-WP:RS, not merely assert that it is. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the tags were installed less than 12 months before Hrafn first deleted most of the article. False vacuum (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Hrafn, but do you actually know anything about this subject? False vacuum (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is obvious, but maybe I need to point it out: My last comment above was intended as sarcasm, and your response to it demonstrates fairly unambiguously that you didn't read the article and figure out what, if anything, was supported by what references, if any (way back when you first deleted most of it, or subsequently). False vacuum (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. I just noticed your edit summary for this edit. This subject has nothing to do with "creation science" or "intelligent design" (concerning which you and I, and most physicists, appear to be in perfect agreement: It's crap); perhaps that observation is relevant somehow. False vacuum (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That is odd, as this is neither an edit summary I remember making, nor something I would write (as it oversimplifies the complex relationship between CS & ID), nor was I editing any ID articles at the time. My best explanations for it are (i) I somehow managed to inadvertently copy & paste it from elsewhere (ii) the wiki-software had a brain-fart & picked up somebody else's edit-summary or (iii) I've developed multiple personality disorder & taken to inserting commentary of which my main personality is unaware. Take your pick, and sorry for the totally-off-topic edit summary.. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Taking a closer look at Peter Lynds, the material:

  1. Lacks reliable sources (being based upon self-published, blog, prepublication, etc, etc) material
  2. Gives WP:UNDUE weight to an individual who lacks formal training as a physicist, and whose sole claim to fame seems to be a single published article.

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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Connections to religion[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this page is for discussion of article improvements, rather than general philosophy or proselytizing. I'm sure that there are many suitable sites online for discussing your concerns.—RJH (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Something to ponder[edit]

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 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

arXiv and policy[edit]

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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Views of Richard Tolman are misrepresented[edit]

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:

  • As already pointed out in Chapter IX, a continued succession of irreversible contractions and expansions, as found for the models in the preceding section, would seem very strange from the point of view of classical thermodynamics, which would predict an ultimate state of maximum entropy and rest as the result of continued irreversible processes in an isolated system. Hence we must now examine the bearing of relativistic thermodynamics on this finding. PP.439-440.
  • As shown in &131 of the last chapter, the situation is analogous to the continued increase in entropy and energy which would occur in the classical case of a continued succession of irreversible adiabatic expansions and compressions for a dissociating gas in a cylinder with non-conducting walls and a movable piston, so long as external energy was available to complete the desired compressions; and in the relativistic case this external energy can be regarded as coming from the potential energy of the gravitational field associated with Einstein's pseudo-tensor (symbol). Similar considerations could also be given to the irreversible expansion and contraction of a mixture of matter and radiation, assuming a delay in their attainment of equilibrium which in the later stages of expansion might involve both a lag in the transformation of a portion of the mass of matter into radiation as well as a lag in the escape of radiation from the matter. PP. 441-442

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.

  • In the second place, in connection with the behaviour of the actual universe, some stress must be laid on the possibility found for a certain class of models to expand and contract irreversibly without ever reaching an unsurpassable state of maximum entropy. It would of course not be safe to conclude therefrom that the actual universe will never reach a state of maximum entropy, where further change would be impossible. Nevertheless, this finding in the case of certain kinds of models must be allowed to exert some liberalizing action on our general thermodynamic thinking. At the very least it would seem wisest, if we no longer dogmatically assert that the principles of thermodynamics necessarily require a universe which was created at a finite point in the past and which is fated for stagnation and death in the future. PP.444
  • In the second place, it is evident that the past history of the universe and the future fate of man are involved in the issue of our studies. Hence we must be specially careful to keep our judgements uninfected by the demands of theology and unswerved by human hopes and fears. The discovery of models, which start expansion from a singular state of zero volume, must be confused with a proof that the actual universe was created at a finite time in the past. And the discovery of models, which could expand and contract irreversibly without ever coming to a final state of maximum entropy and rest, must not be confused with a proof that the actual universe will always provide a stage for the future of man. PP.487-488

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)

Help from an expert[edit]

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)