Early this month, Oxford University mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose won the Nobel Prize in a lifetime in the study of black holes, features from which not even light can escape. However, he also stands behind the provocative and controversial theory of the formation of the universe – namely, that the Big Bang did not mark the beginning of the universe as we know it, but only began the next iteration of our universe. In his theory, known as conformal cyclic cosmology, our modern conception of the universe is just one of a series of infinite universes that came to it and will also come after it.
Of course, cosmology is replete with theories of varying degrees of incontinence, and many of the most famous, such as string theory, lack observations. But Penrose̵7;s prediction is different, as there is some evidence of observations of cosmic background radiation – meaning the average background temperature of the entire night sky, where you can see the residual heat from the Big Bang and distinguish bright spots in the sky. As pictured in this story, some of these “bright spots” may be, according to Penrose, radiation from the ancient black holes that preceded this universe.
Roger’s “idea of conformal cyclic cosmology.” [CCC], is based on three facts “, – explained Salon by e-mail Pavel Nurovsky, a scientist at the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
“The idea of conformal cyclic cosmology” by Roger [CCC], based on three facts “, – said Salon by e-mail a scientist from the Center for Theoretical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences Pavel Nurovsky. (meaning the mysterious, constant force of repulsion that repulses everything in the universe that is not gravitationally connected to everything else), as well as a universe that would look similar at its end, as was the case with the Observation of our universe. that it will end in a disordered, empty state, with all matter turning into wandering photons that never interact with each other.
Nurovsky concluded, “We believe that every possible universe will have all three of these features,” that “we have an infinite sequence of universes (eons),” and that “Penrose views this sequence of conformally glued eons as a complete physical universe.”
“In this picture, our standard cosmological universe is just one of the eons,” Nurovsky added. “Thus, the main difference between” conformal cyclical cosmology “and standard cosmology is that our universe is only part of the Penrose Universe,” while proponents of the traditional Big Bang idea believe that this particular event ushered in our modern universe.
This brings us to a recent discovery that may support Penrose’s CCC hypothesis. According to a document co-authored by Penrose, Nurovsky and two other scientists, unexpected hotspots discovered in the cosmic microwave background of the universe suggest that there are “anomalous regions”, perhaps huge black holes left over from previous universes. declined. These regions are known as “Hawking Points”, according to Stephen Hawking, who first put forward the theory that black holes decay very slowly over unimaginably large time scales, emitting Hawking radiation in his honor. The discovery of these Hawking points suggests that Penrose’s cosmological model is accurate.
“The existence of such anomalous regions, which is the result of point sources on a conformally stretched Big Bang, is a predictable consequence of conformal cyclic cosmology,” the publication explains, adding that these so-called Hawking points will be caused by radiation from “supermassive black holes in space.” eons to ours “.
It should be emphasized that the Penrose Nobel Prize was not awarded because of his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology. Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb explained in an e-mail to the Salon: “In 1939, Albert Einstein wrote an article in the Annals of Mathematics doubting that black holes existed in nature. Roger Penrose demonstrated that black holes are a reliable prediction of general theory. Einstein and doing so, invented a new mathematical tool for depicting space times, called the Penrose diagrams.
Loeb added: “He also showed that you can extract energy from a rotating black hole as if it were a flywheel, using the so-called Penrose process.”
Loeb says Penrose’s belief that hotspots prove that these black holes originated in previous universes is contradictory.
“The specific theory advocated by Penrose, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, states that the expansion of the Big Bang repeats successive cycles of expansion, implying that through our present Big Bang we can observe past Big Bang, generating patterns in the cosmic microwave.” explained. “Penrose made a contradictory statement that such patterns are seen in the data, but others have shown that the samples he found are not statistically significant … and therefore his statement is contradictory.”
There are skeptics in the astrophysicist community. Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist who writes a scientific blog published in Forbes magazine, was very critical of Penrose’s theory. Last week, he wrote an article called “No, Roger Penrose, we see no evidence of a ‘universe before the Big Bang.’
“Forecasts that [Penrose] the data are refuted, and his claims of seeing these effects are reproduced only if the data are analyzed in a scientifically unfounded and illegitimate way, “Dr. Siegel wrote.” Hundreds of scientists have repeatedly pointed this out to Penrose. consistently for more than 10 years field and plow forward with their disputes. “
Nurowski and Leb retreated against Siegel’s demands.
“The person who wrote this article never seems to have read our recent monthly paper,” Nurovsky wrote to Salona, citing an article in which he and Penrose demonstrate evidence for Hawking’s point. “[Siegel] also doesn’t seem to read our other three articles. He quotes a picture from an old newspaper with Penrose and Gurzadyan. He has no argument against our latest MNRAS [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] article …. I emphasize that the statistical analysis in our work meets the highest astronomical standards. “
He added: “I am happy to respond to any critics, provided I hear a single argument against what we have written, rather than a repetition of what standard cosmology says. Either we are talking about facts or beliefs. Our article is about facts. But to talk about them, you first need to read the article. “
Loeb seems to have repeated this view, despite his own skepticism about the CCC.
“My problem with Penrose’s theory is that it has not been fully worked out and that there is no statistically conclusive evidence to support the patterns he claims to have identified in the cosmic microwave background, but we must remain open to new ideas about which preceded the Big Bang, “Loeb explained. “This is the story of where we came from, our cosmic roots. The simple idea we have now is clearly incomplete and requires more scientific work. No more mockery of any new idea.”