Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematician in mathematics at Oxford University, won the Nobel Prize earlier this month for the lifetime of the study of black holes, from which even light cannot escape. Yet it is also behind the provocative and controversial theory about the creation of the universe – that is, the Big Bang does not mark the beginning of the universe, as we know, but only the next iteration of our universe. In his theory, known as conventional cyclic cosmology, our current conception of the universe is just one of the series of infinite universes that preceded it and will continue to do so.
Cosmology, of course, is replete with theories of varying degrees of hairdressing, and many popular – such as string theory – lack any observational evidence. But Penrose’s predictions are different, as there is some evidence in observations of cosmic background radiation – which means the average background temperature of the entire night sky, in which one can see the heat of the remnants from the Big Bang and distinguish bright patches in the sky. As depicted in the featured photo of this story, Penrose believes that some of them may have been “bright spots”, radiating from the ancient black holes that propel this universe.
Roger’s idea of ’traditional cyclical cosmology’ [CCC], Based on three facts, “Pavel Nurosky, a scientist at the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, explained to the salon via email.
Roger’s idea of ’traditional cyclical cosmology’ [CCC], Based on three facts, “Pavel Nurosky, a scientist at the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, explained to the salon via email. In particular, Nuroski says, in order to understand Penrose’s theory, one must. There is relative stability (i.e., a mysterious, persistently destructive force that pushes everything in the universe by gravity), as well as a universe that will look alike at its end. Observations of our universe indicate that it is in a disordered, empty state. Will end, all things will be transformed into wandering photographs that never interact with each other.
Nuroski concludes, “We believe that every possible universe would have these three features,” that “we have an infinite order of the universe (Eons)” and that “Penrose considers this order of special gloss ins as the whole physical universe.”
Nurosky added, “In this picture, our standard universe universe is only one time.” “So the main difference between ‘conventional cyclic cosmology’ and standard cosmology is that our universe is only a part of the universe of Penrose,” while the followers of the traditional idea of the Big Bang believe that this particular event started our current universe.
This brings us to the latest discovery that could support Penrose’s CCC hypothesis. According to a paper co-authored by Penrose, Norovsky and two other scientists, the unexpected hot spots found in the cosmic microwave background of the universe indicate “inconsistent regions”, probably black holes remaining from the previous universe. Is about to crumble. These regions are known as “Hawking Points”, after Stephen Hawking, who first theorized that black holes would erode very slowly over unimaginable long-term blacks, emitting so-called Hawking radiation in his honor. The discovery of these Hawking points suggests that Penrose’s cosmological model is accurate.
The paper explains that “the existence of such inconsistent regions, resulting from sources such as the traditionally stretched-big bang point, is a predictable result of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC),” explaining that these would be so-called Hawking points. Due to the radiation emanating from the supermassive black holes in the era. “
It must be emphasized that Penrose’s Nobel Prize was not awarded because of his traditional theory of cyclic cosmology. Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb explained in an email to Salon: “In 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a paper in als nals mf mathematics which suspected that black holes were in nature. Doing so invented a new mathematical tool to represent space-time, called the Penrose Diagram. “
Loeb added, “He also showed that it is possible to send energy from a spinning black hole as if it were a fly wheel, through a process called Penrose.”
Loeb says Penrose’s belief that hot spots prove the black holes in question from the previous universe is controversial.
“Penrose, a special theory backed by conformal cyclic cosmology, insists that the Big Bang repeats itself in successive cycles of expansion, suggesting that one can see past Big Bangs through our current Big Bang, giving the global microwave background, Loeb explained. “Penrose made the controversial claim that such patterns are seen in the data, but he was shown by others that the patterns he identified are not statistically significant …. and so his claim is controversial.”
In the astrophysics community there is skepticism. Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist who penned a science blog published in Forbes magazine, was highly critical of Penrose’s theory. Last week, he wrote an article entitled “No, Roger Penrose, Evidence of VC No A ‘Big B Before the Universe”.
“Predictions that [Penrose] “Has been refuted by data, and their claims to see these effects are only reproducible if one analyzes the data in a scientifically unrealistic and illegitimate fashion,” Dr. Cigel wrote. “Hundreds of scientists have turned their attention to Panerose – repeatedly and over a period of more than 10 consecutive years – who have continued to ignore the field and have to move forward with its conflict.”
Both Nuroski and Loeb pushed against Siegel’s claim.
“The person who wrote this article seems to have never read our recent monthly notice paper,” Nurovsky wrote in a letter to Salon, showing evidence for the Hawking points linking him and Penrose’s article. “[Siegel] Don’t even think to read our three other papers. It quotes a picture from an old paper with Penrose and the church. We have the latest MNRAS. There is not a single argument against it [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] Paper …. I emphasize that the statistical analysis in our paper is at the highest astronomical standards. “
He added, “I’m happy to answer any critics, although I can only hear one argument against what we’ve written, and not this repetition of what standard cosmology says. Either we’re talking about facts or beliefs. We have a paper about facts. But to talk about them, you have to read the paper first. “
Despite Losib’s own skepticism about the CCC, this opinion seemed to resonate.
“My problem with Penrose’s theory is that it has not been fully worked out and there is no statistically irrevocable evidence to support the pattern he claims to have identified in the microwave background of the universe, but we have new ideas on the next idea. The Big Bang, “Loeb explained. “This is the story of where we came from from our cosmic origins. The simple picture we now have is clearly incomplete and needs more scientific work. No more bullying of any new idea.”
