The (classical) Standard Model only covers a tiny part of the mass scale up to the Planck mass, so it would be extremely unlikely (and disappointing) not to find anything beyond. A different issue comes up as to HOW this region might be explored. The current technology is limited, and even some perspectives of improvement, as promising as it is, will not open up a large amount of that region. Of course, disproving the “Cyclic Model” would perhaps be worth it (and be fun) …

Stable vacuum might be more comfortable.

I think that we must concentrate efforts in order to understand the vacuum properties, from experiment and theory.

It would be a little weird, because SUSY helps with a bunch of stuff. The mystery of why the dark energy has its current value would deepen, for example, because one possible explanation is that we have a SUSY and because of it the value of the cosmological constant is so close to zero (because the contributions of all the fields, including the supersymmetric ones, almost cancels perfectly). The forces of nature wouldn’t add up to a single, unified force at the Planck energy, either. SUSY simply makes a lot of sense.

So, in the meantime gravitational waves have been detected by LIGO. Does this then disqualify this cyclical model?

If there were shown to be ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ beyond the Standard Model it should not be described as a good ‘Thing’ or a bad ‘Thing’ – it would be just the only ‘Thing’ and science would digest the implications and move on.
Models, however compelling, are merely models that we use to try to make sense of our environment – reality is what is important. Keep it Real!

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

One of the contradictions we see at World Science Uni is a concept of dubunking the aEther.

Yet B2 bomber technology is what the has required this concept to pour the billions into the working models.

Gravity and gravitons are said to exist now, with LIGO and possibly LISE insight also one day.

So both contradictions and work in progress continue.

What is important to notice are the unanswered questions.

Locally in Calgary, Ed Lukowisc has a trillion concept that also explains… surviving and older stars.

Prof. Berin talks of the weak and strong nuclear forces joining the electromagnetic at a higher state, but that does leave out gravity in a Unified Theory.

Prof. Berin has endurance. He has a Nobel Prize now, with Prof. Weiss also.

While we can all see the big bounce as having said to be discounted by gravity waves, the research may lead somewhere, even if the dead ends seem final.

hmm, one of the things that hits me is this, what if, what we have observed has merely been misinterpreted, And what has been seen isn’t evidence of a Big Bang but just the decay of photons that have a 13.8 billion light year lifespan. Consider if photons didn’t decay light would occlude all else and we would have daylight all the time. So redshift is from distance and speed instead of just speed. like I said ‘yum yum’ more knowledge is always good.

Two answers:
1. If there is an adequate solution for SUSY and the interactions within the Standard Model, it would be a beginning to understand more about gravity. And also Dark Matter, perhaps Dark Energy. Perhaps the Randall – Sundrum theory …
2. If we take the chance to rethink all of this – as Paul Steinhardt says – and start with a new fresh beginning of the cycles : I do think that the science has more possibilities to explore and find the solutions, based on theory – test (and again and again).

We do now have LIGO, JWST, and since a couple of days the ESA Euclid … With future data …

Wonderful lecture !