Here are some thoughts by Brian Miller on cosmologist Roger Penrose’s claim that there is no absolute beginning to the universe. (conformal cyclical cosmology):
Penrose’s model requires several highly questionable assumptions. First, it must overcome the implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that proves that expanding universes must have an absolute beginning. To avoid this conclusion, Penrose must assume that the universe was infinitely large in the infinite past, which is philosophically problematic. Additional unproven assumptions include the following:
All particle masses dropping to zero.
Presence of a scalar field that becomes active at the right time to trigger crossover.
Mass of the scalar field rapidly increases after crossover.
Given the lack to supporting evidence and the ad hoc assumptions, CCC offers no serious challenge to the evidence that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, something, or more likely someone, outside of time and space must have created it.Brian Miller, “Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection” at Evolution News (January 11, 2022)
You don’t have to believe in God but that’s less complex than the typical alternatives.
7 Replies to “Why Roger Penrose’s cosmological theory doesn’t work”
well put by Brian, and that is just for starts! 🙂
for an ID and YeC cosmological model that (for all practical purposes as a 94.26 quintillion: 1 parsimony advantage) falsifies all deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses and assumptions like SCM-LCDM and NDT Darwinism see SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
Pearlman, I’d be interested to hear more about your YEC, but I can’t understand half of what you typed up there… need more layman language if you want interacted with I think. Just a kind critique.
@Zweston. I can’t fathom Pearlman either. I think his reference is to the Young Earth model.
But if that is tough, how about the Penrose summary of the critical bit, “ At each crossover, a hypothesized “phantom field” transitions from a purely mathematic entity into a physical field that rapidly acquires mass and dominates over all other fields.”
I take a purely mathematical entity like a triangle and try to picture its ‘transition’ into a simple physical triangle made of connected single atoms of hydrogen or iron, and fail.
Penrose won the Nobel Prize just a few months ago. So, I wouldn’t be quite so dismissive. He’s not the only cosmologist to question and re-examine the notion that the universe had an absolute beginning. For example, Guth has recently teamed up with Sean Carroll in revisiting the issue. Guth said in a recent interview that he would not put money on there actually being an absolute beginning of the universe if he were a betting man.
CD, Penrose ignores his present high level critics as well as ignoring the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem
Moreover, Penrose, (besides ignoring his present high level critics and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem), (and like Hawking himself did), is also living in denial of his very own theorem that he developed with Hawking, circa 1970, that showed, via General Relativity, that “time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy”,,
Moreover, the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, since it relies on special relativity instead of general relativity, turns out to be a much more robust proof that the universe must have had an absolute beginning than Penrose's and Hawking's original proof,,,
ChuckDarwin mentioned that Penrose was a recent Nobel Prize winner and therefore we ought to listen to him. Well, here are what a few other Nobel Prize winners have stated in direct contrast to Penrose, so why doesn’t ChuckyD listen to them?
Quotes and Verse:
BA77 @ 5
We’ve been down this road before. First, I don’t argue that Penrose is necessarily right, rather, I’m suggesting that Miller be a little more circumspect before he makes the grand leap to the “God hypothesis.” Second, previously, I discussed that Guth and Vilenkin don’t see eye to eye on the implications of their theorem. Buth, contra Vilenkin, is on record saying that the theorem implies that inflation had a beginning but not necessarily the universe itself. As a lay person, I don’t pretend to understand high level physics or cosmology, but this disagreement doesn’t seem that difficult to understand. Third, I don’t see any reason to conclude that Penrose’s model is simply a way to dodge “religious implications” of the Big Bang, but rather a bona fide exploration of potentially empirical alternatives. I think that someone of his stature is motivated by curiosity rather than some compulsion to avoid religion. I’ve always found that type of sophomoric psychologizing by theists truly condescending.
Yesterday I listened to a fantastic podcast where Brian Keating interviewed Paul Davies. https://briankeating.com/podcast.php. Davies, who can best be described as a deist, warned against shoehorning facts and data into pre-conceived belief systems. While this point should be obvious, IMO it is one of the cardinal sins of the intelligent design crowd–everything is driven by ID’s religious agenda.
Well ChuckyD, the evidence for a beginning of the universe is far more extensive than just the results of the Hawking, Penrose, theorem and the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. (as impressive as the results of those theorems are)
In my humble opinion, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), by itself, also provides ample evidence that the universe must have had an absolute beginning. Moreover, the CMBR also provides ‘surprising’ evidence that the earth itself was intended from the beginning of the creation of the universe, (as the Bible alone uniquely predicts).
Specifically, the chaotic inflation model, (which Guth himself was instrumental in formulating), fails to explain ‘unexpected anomalies’ that are now found in the CMBR.
More interesting still, these anomalies in the CMBR, which Guth’s chaotic inflation model is at an impasse to explain, are found to ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system:
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.
Moreover, besides the earth and solar system ‘unexpectedly’ lining up with these anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy also now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Moreover, this surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe also happens to combine with the anomalies in the CMBR data to ‘unexpectedly’ give the earth a ‘central’ position in the universe.
As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
Thus, contrary to the presumptions of atheists, far from the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of random quantum fluctuations, as Guth erroneously presupposed to be true in his chaotic inflation model, the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR, (due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being ‘flat to 1 part within 10^57), are found to correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”.
In short, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, combine with each other to reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start of the universe. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had erroneously presupposed in their chaotic inflation theory.
And again, this ‘special’ position for the earth in the universe really should not be all that surprising to discover. Besides the Bible correctly, and uniquely, predicting a beginning for the universe, as well as the Bible correctly, and uniquely, predicting that the universe would be flat, and that a circle would be inscribed on the ‘face of the deep’, (and besides the fact that modern science itself is crucially dependent on presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded within the Judeo-Christian worldview), besides all those ‘minor’ details, the Bible is also on record as to correctly, and uniquely, predicting that the Earth was specifically intended by God from the very beginning of the creation of the universe.