jwalsh07 and beavus, y'all might be interested in this article:
The cyclic universe has roots in even more complex thoughts like so-called superstring theory, which suggests there are as many as 10 spatial dimensions, not just the three we know of. The seemingly inexplicable physics of a big crunch and a big bang might be explained with the aid of these extra dimensions, which are otherwise invisible to us, several theorists believe.
In fact, Steinhardt, Turok and others proposed last year that our universe might have sprung from the collapse of an extra dimension, an idea they called the Ekpyrotic Universe. The cyclic universe builds on this former work but, Steinhardt says, does a better job explaining observations of our present universe.
Other theorists are not quick to give up their standard model, so the concept of a cyclic universe faces an uphill battle for prominence. Even Steinhardt acknowledges that the prospect of unseating a well established cosmological theory "would seem extremely dim."
Meanwhile, the new concept is not free of cracks, either: Even the cyclic universe does not address when the cycles began, so "the problem of explaining the ‘beginning of time’ remains," the researchers say.
What kind of time? Theoretically, one kind of infinity consists in a cycle or series of beginnings and endings. In that sense, the "problem of explaining the beginning" hints at a misunderstanding that LogicWings pointed out.