It was as silly sounding as it was serious: The Bounce Hypothesis. It wasn’t so much a competing idea to the Big Bang Theory, but a cyclical interpretation of its better known cousin, which the universe contracted and expanded across infinite time. Rather than the Big Bang being the source of our universe, it was the result of the previous universe’s collapse.
To humans, this made little difference. To Cosmologists, it was an idea that was largely discredited in the latter half of the 20th century. However, long into the 21st century Professor Hardwick continued to spend at least a day every semester teaching this interpretation of the universe’s cycle.
The professor was often teased by friends, ridiculed by rivals, and questioned by the Dean about wasting his students time in teaching a defunct theory. He always replied that it was good to explore competing ideas, even old ones, to illustrate the flow of academic thought.
That was a lie, though. Hardwick taught the idea because he wanted to believe it. If the universe always began and ended in the same way, it would move on for eternity, in endless renditions. And if it went on for eternity, eventually there might be a version where he would get to see his Susie again.
See the author’s published work here.
Related Posts
The Case With No Client, Chapter 3 Next Post:
