Roger Penrose has shared in the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contribution with models of Black Holes.
Penrose has used the renewed attention to push his 30-year old concept of Hawking Points and cyclic universes. This theory challenges the theory of cosmic inflation.
Above – CMB sky, marking 6 most prominent raised-temperature circular spots, found both in Planck and WMAP data; argued to be results of Hawking radiation from supermassive black holes in a previous aeon
Cosmic inflation is the forty-year-old theory that the universe expanded at a much higher rate than the speed of light in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Penrose proposed a counter-concept of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) by which Inflation is moved to before the Big Bang and which introduces the idea of preceding aeons. There were universes before our universe.
Analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by Roger Penrose, Daniel An, Krzysztof Meissner and Pawel Nurowski has revealed, both in the Planck and WMAP satellite data (at 99.98% confidence), a powerful signal that had never been noticed previously. there are circular spots ∼8 times the diameter of the full moon. The brightest six are ∼30 times the average CMB temperature variations seen at precisely the same locations in the Planck and WMAP data.
The inflationary phase of standard cosmology should have obliterated any such features.
In CCC, there is an infinite succession of aeons, each having a big-bang origin which is the conformal continuation or the exponentially expanding remote future of the preceding aeon.
Conformal geometry allows for stretching or squashing of the metric structure, and is the geometry respected by a physics without mass (such as Maxwell’s electromagnetism). This applies both to the remote future and big bang of each aeon, so the matching of aeon to aeon makes geometrical sense – and also physical sense because the conformal squashing of the cold low-density remote future matches the conformal stretching of the hot dense big bang of the subsequent aeon.
The exceptions to this smooth conformal matching are the supermassive black holes in an aeon’s remote future. The Super blackholes eventually evaporating away entirely into Hawking radiation (after perhaps 10^106 years). The radiated energy from the superblackholes comes through into the next universe at a single ‘Hawking point.’ The emerging photons scatter within an expanding region, but appear until ∼380000 years later. They then show up in the cosmic microwave background. This spread-out region would look to us like a disc ∼ 4° across, i.e. ∼8 times the diameter of our full moon, an effect that we appear to be actually seeing in our own CMB sky.
Penrose’s theory is disputed by the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists who support the inflation theory. The inflation theory scientists say that the evidence of the circular regions is not statistically significant.
The inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted.
A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflaton field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve can be changed to match almost any observed data. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them. Bad inflation is more likely than good inflation and no inflation is more likely than either.
Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation, other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10^100. Penrose, Anna Ijjas and Abraham Loeb wrote articles claiming that the inflationary paradigm is in trouble in view of the data from the Planck satellite. Counter-arguments were presented by Alan Guth, David Kaiser, and Yasunori Nomura and by Andrei Linde saying that cosmic inflation is on a stronger footing than ever before.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society – Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB Sky
This paper presents strong observational evidence of numerous previously unobserved anomalous circular spots, of significantly raised temperature, in the cosmic microwave background sky. The spots have angular radii between 0.03 and 0.04 rad (i.e. angular diameters between about 3° and 4°). There is a clear cut-off at that size, indicating that each anomalous spot would have originated from a highly energetic point-like source, located at the end of inflation – or else point-like at the conformally expanded Big Bang, if it is considered that there was no inflationary phase. The significant presence of these anomalous spots, was initially noticed in the Planck 70 GHz satellite data by comparison with 1000 standard simulations, and then confirmed by extending the comparison to 10 000 simulations. Such anomalous points were then found at precisely the same locations in the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) data, their significance was confirmed by comparison with 1000 WMAP simulations. Planck and WMAP have very different noise properties and it seems exceedingly unlikely that the observed presence of anomalous points in the same directions on both maps may come entirely from the noise. Subsequently, further confirmation was found in the Planck data by comparison with 1000 FFP8.1 MC simulations (with l ≤ 1500). The existence of such anomalous regions, resulting from point-like sources at the conformally stretched-out big bang, is a predicted consequence of conformal cyclic cosmology, these sources being the Hawking points of the theory, resulting from the Hawking radiation from supermassive black holes in a cosmic aeon prior to our own.
SOURCES – Oxford, Penrose
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
22 thoughts on “Roger Penrose Shares Nobel Prize in Physics and Pushes His Cyclic Universes Theory”
What lobby group did that? From what I've read, scientists came up with the theory of evolution all on their own.
What is it with evolution deniers? Is it your ego? It can't handle the notion that you're not special? You not being created by some all powerful being just is something your ego can't deal with?
Or is it fear? You can't handle that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no resurrection?
Or is it the "meaning of life" thing? "Gods plan", a "divine mission", etc. Is it that you just can find a meaning in life without a god to make sense of it for you?
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Rather than deny it, you'd be better off doing some deep introspective thinking as to why you can't accept it.
Just to be clear … islam is just as moronic as christianity, moronism, hinduism, judaism, scientology, etc.
No, I was talking about Morons … err Mormons.
Agreed. Lobby groups have been forcing scientists to come up with crackpot theories like the Earth being many millions of years old, and evolution rather than God's creation.
Neat explanation on PBS spacetime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0
This makes me think of "The Matrix"
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it." – The Architect.
He's clearly talking about Islam.
Real science does not. Modern science rotten by lobby groups does.
2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for demonstrating that black holes were indeed a solid prediction of the theory of general relativity. And the Nobel Prize in Physics 2021 is awarded to Claudius Ptolemy, for demonstrating that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Congratulations, Claudius!
Science doesn't pretend. It simply observes cause and effect. It has no basis in anything except that.
Actually no. Christianity doesn't hold that the Universe is 6,000 yrs old thats a group of dudes that just believed that the bible had all the names of the people who lived in a uninterrupted line.
The difference is that one admits it's a religion with no basis in science. The other pretends it's a science with no basis in religion.
love the profound phraseology:
"…located at the end of inflation…"
"…at the conformally stretched-out big bang…"
"…in a cosmic aeon prior to our own…"
… as with most theories of near (or before) big bang and places beyond our galaxy, it's a competitive: my 0.5% – 50% possible theory is better than your 0.5% – 50% possible theory. It is the passage of research time/ conjecture and the accumulation of data/ phenomena matching, which may slowly move the 3D needle (imagine a gyroscope ball with a line normal to it's surface) toward one or the other or the many likely of very different or subtly different theories for such. Just hope that the scifi authors are keeping up with these as meat for their work (sending a solar sail to a Hawking Point.. c'mon, scifi Gold!)
The cyclic nature of these expansions and contractions suggest the universe is getting a good Rogering.
Another believes that it was created less than 10,000 years ago.
Penrose is a genius, and an outstanding mathematician and physicist, but his claims on the cyclic conformal cosmology have been disputed because the data do not indicate that it is true.
–A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky map (Wehus & Eriksen 2010)
–No evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky (Scott & Zibin 2010)
–Are There Echoes From The Pre-Big Bang Universe? A Search for Low Variance Circles in the CMB Sky (Hajian 2011)
–Searching for concentric low variance circles in the cosmic microwave background (DeAbreu 2015)
And more recently
–Re-evaluating evidence for Hawking points in the CMB (Low & Scott 2020).
The claimed significance of 99.98% is simply not there and the last evaluations (Low and Scott 2020) indicate a 87% confidence level which is 1 sigma, so not very significant after all.
Unique exactly as picking one lottery ticket in an infinite succession of lottery tickets
One religion believes that the universe is recreated every 15 billion years.
So, would all of the Physical 'fundamental' constants which define this Universe be confirmed as being unique since we can see 'evidence' of Other Universes?
Well, why am I not surprised that the theory that invokes majic is the overall fav?
Comments are closed.