A new theory on origin of the universe

[NLN]

The universe’s clock has neither a start nor finish, yet time is finite -- according to a New Zealand theorist. The theory, which tackles the age-old mystery of the origin of the universe, along with several other problems and paradoxes in cosmology, calls for a new take on our concept of time -- one that has more in common with the “cyclic” views of time held by ancient thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and Leonardo da Vinci, than the Christian calendar and Bible-influenced belief in “linear” time now so deeply imbedded in modern western thinking.

[freeztar]

It's always wise to post pertinent citation towards new theories. ;)

[NLN]

The link I included along with the post contains all the citations you'll need. ;)

[von Faulkenstein]

Could be link--http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612053

 

There are a few other such theories that provide a cyclic cosmic model--I proposed one myself a few years back, on a science forum. Interesting idea in that there is no need for a creator.:)

[CraigD]

I suspect nearly everyone who’s studied cosmology at much length has encountered “cyclic universe” theories of various kinds, and been intrigued by them. They have a satisfying philosophical neatness. Even though there have been many of them, each new one of much merit, such as Peter Lynd’s most recent, seems to stir renewed interest and discussion.

 

The big problem with ones of the “big crunch/bounce” variety, which Lynd’s is, are that, according to nearly all evidence and best accepted theory, they’re most likely wrong. As Lynd says in the more detailed version of the summary linked to by post #1,

It is reliant on the universe being closed and eventually collapsing,” says Lynds. “At the moment, it is very uncertain whether there is enough mass in the universe to cause it to eventually collapse, or if it will continue expanding forever. If the universe isn’t closed, my theory is wrong.

 

Interesting idea in that there is no need for a creator.:)

I don’t think Lynd’s, nor other cyclic universe theories, address the “where did it all come from?” question. In Lynd’s own words,

This does not explain why the universe exists at all (rather than not), nor do I think that it takes away at all from its mystery and the impression of it being extraordinarily well-designed. Indeed, that the universe can be the way it is, and yet not have any causal explanation, would suggest that Nature is even more deserving of our incredulity.

My personal “I believe but cannot prove” take on the subject is that essentially classical mechanical macro-cosmological theories such as Lynd’s badly underestimate how ultimately strange the universe fundamentally. If and when a satisfying, compelling “theory of everything” is articulated, I think they’ll be relegated to the status of interesting, but ultimately wrong, physics theories, presently shared by such theories as geocentricism and the caloric theory of heat.