In their cosmology model, the cyclic nature of the universe occurs as a result of incorporating quantum effects into a cosmological model of the universe.
Prof Faizal explained that even though there are many different mind-bending approaches to quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, what most of these different approaches have in common is that there is a minimum length below which space does not exist.
Many of these approaches also predict that there is also a maximum energy and no object in the universe can have an energy beyond that maximum energy.
They research team incorporated the effect of having a minimum length and an maximum energy into a cosmological model, and then they ended up with a cyclic universe.(source)
Hmm, "what's the point"?
I suppose that is one of the big questions...but, to me at least, that implies "why" as opposed to "how".
Why is just as good a question if that's what you need to/want to, know...but, my own "philosophy" is that there is no "why" per se...but there are many "hows".
Whys, to me, imply a purpose. Hows imply a mechanism.
If the context is "Why is the sky blue", vs how is the sky blue...sure, its sounds like the same question...with potentially the same answer...if accurate.
What makes the sky appear blue is perhaps the better question....and so forth.
But if the context is "What is the point of our existence?" - that, to me, is philosophy, and, ponders the great why. Its also why the answers tend to be along the lines of "Whatever you make it" and so forth.
Wasn't it you who described the notion that if there are other universes, they would be too far away for the light to reach us while we still exist?
Assuming that's the case, there's about as much "point" in talking about them as there is in speculatingabout undetectable jackalopes.
Not the same thing...and I have a Jackalope, its a very nice.
That some MIGHT be too far away to allow their light, or craft, signal, etc, to reach us, or MIGHT be existing before or after we do, such that we never overlap, doesn't GUARANTEE that looking, or speculation, is pointless.
You are confusing the search criteria, conflating potential complications with impermeable barriers.
So, yes, we might not find them/they might not find us...due to the complications...but, we don't know that the complications apply.
I think you mean experimentation...theorizing tends to stay in the mind either way.
No. Amongst some of the most important labs and research centres comes funding from businesses, private research groups and the philanthropy of the rich. While most of it goes to science/technology/medicine/law...some of it (a small amount) goes to the humanities...even into philosophy institutes. This is especially the case in many institutions in the United States where state subsidies are low or even non-existent. Just think...a full tuition with room and board for one year is easily $35,000 such as Loyola College in Baltimore. And that's not even in the top 10 of expensive. As for theorising on scientific stuff...you can be sure that Einstein's theory of relativity (which at the time was a very abstract concept) led to incredibly important (and ghastly) technology. Without such knowledge, we'd be rather unable to coordinate satellites and GPS. If you got lost in the forest while fishing...there would be no Google maps telling you which direction to go...north to home...south to endless cold forest. All because a guy theorised about something that seemed useless...or what's the point?
In any case...the investment certainly comes back into the public coffers in indirect ways. With openings in neuro-science, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, international-IT-law, cyber-security etc. if the research group makes a notable discovery this can easily morph into a large business in no time making that lab self sufficient as well as creating jobs and tax revenue. In more indirect ways, especially with the humanities of which many workers become school teachers or middle management...the question is...would you like teachers of your children in your country to be well educated themselves? What about senior police officers and detectives? How about sanitation engineers and inspectors? And of course nurses. A private system with no government assistance will never generate enough graduates to fill these roles (especially the ones that don't have high salaries). Many of them go to state universities (with relatively low tuition with open spots rather competitive), graduate with tons of debt and then work it off for a dozen years while being a nurse. If these low tuition universities didn't exist...you would be importing your nurses from Latin America and Asia...until of course Trump builds his wall on the Canadian/Mexican border and puts sharks all around the coast.