The Steady-State Model which competed with Big Bang model 1948-1965 proposed a universe with no end or beginning - or change. Of course, it was wrong. Many multiverse theories now popular basically propose the same on larger scale; although there would have been, at some point, "first universe" it would be basically so far "back" that the multiverse might as well been forever (although this simplifies things, as there would be no unified time for them all).
But, if we accept universe coming into existence from nothing we face the conundrum of absolute nothing giving birth to the universe and the question of (although many physicists consider this a question that won't need to be answered, anymore than theologians where God was or did before the creation of the universe) where the nothingness itself came, because to get universe out of nothing still demands physical laws operating.
We also tend to think of time as linear (the idea of creation of universe from chaos and linear time until its end, with it dissolving back into chaos goes back at least to the Egyptians), which makes us predisposed to think that there must be a beginning and an end. It seems that this particular new theory implies a kind of resurrection of Steady-State model, but based on what little they say of the details I think its implied that universe would have existed in a very much different shape in that period they put in place of the singularity of the Big Bang.
No comments:
Post a Comment