Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
The theory of cyclic universe is independent of the theory of expanding universe. It is based on Einstein’s principle of equivalence of matter and energy. The scientists who support this theory refuse to accept the conclusion, on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics that the universe moves steadily to its doom. They have proposed that somehow, somewhere, the universe is rebuilding itself. In the light of Einstein’s principle of equivalence of mass and energy, it is possible to imagine the diffused radiation in space congealing once more into particles of matter-electrons, atoms, and molecules- which may then condense to form larger units, which in turn will aggregate by their own gravitational influence into diffused nebulae, stars, and ultimately, galactic systems. And thus the life cycle of the universe may be repeated for an eternity.[1]
Thus, though these scientists do not dispute that the present stars are melting away into radiation, they maintain that, somewhere out in the remote depths of space, this radiation may be transforming itself again into matter. Thus they advocate what may be called a cyclic universe; while it dies in one place] the products of its death are busy producing new life in others.[2] The above theory of cyclic universe is supported by laboratory experiments which show that the photons in the form of gamma radiation can produce electrons and protons. Also astronomers have recently determined that the atoms of the lighter elements in space may coalesce into molecules and microscopic particles of dust and gas[3]
Further, ‘dust cloud hypothesis’ of Dr. Fred. L.Whipple shows how stars are formed from tiny dust particles.
Thus, if all the heavenly bodies are really the products of radiations, we arrive at a model in which the universe is a self- perpetuating cyclic universe, renewing its cycles of formation and dissolution, light and darkness, order and disorder, heat and cold, expansion and contraction through never ending aeons of time.[4]
It is clear that this concept of a cyclic universe is entirely in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics which holds that entropy must forever increase, and that cyclic universe is impossible in the same way, and for much the same reason, as perpetual motion machines are impossible. But as Sir James Jeans has observed: “That this law may fail under astronomical conditions of which we have no knowledge is certainly conceivable, although I imagine the majority of serious scientists consider it very improbable. There is of course no denying that the concept of a cyclic universe is far the more popular of the two.”[5]
Thus, although some scientists consider the theory of cyclic universe very improbable, the logical inevitability requires that the universe should be beginningless and endless. Lincoln Barnett, the author of The Universe and Dr. Einstein, concluding his chapter on the origin of the universe, expresses this thus: “It merely pushes the time of creation into the infinite past. For while theorists have adduced mathematically impeccable accounts of the fabrication of galaxies, stars, star-dust, and even of the atom’s components; every theory rests ultimately on the prior assumption that something was already in existence-whether free neutrons, energy quanta, or simply the blank inscrutable ‘world stuff’, the cosmic essence, of which the multifarious universe was subsequently wrought”. [6]
