Cosmology Intelligent Design Naturalism Physics

How Roger Penrose proposes that the universe can be eternal

Spread the love

Lost in Math For all practical purposes. From the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, at her blog BackRe(Action)

According to Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, the universe goes through an infinite series of “aeons,” each of which starts with a phase resembling a big bang, then forming galactic structures as usual, then cooling down as stars die. In the end the only thing that’s left are evaporating black holes and thinly dispersed radiation. Penrose then conjectures a slight change to particle physics that allows him to attach the end of one aeon to the beginning of another, and everything starts anew with the next bang.

This match between one aeon’s end and another’s beginning necessitates the introduction of a new field – the “erebon” – that makes up dark matter, and that decays throughout the coming aeon. We previously met the erobons because Penrose argued their decay should create noise in gravitational wave interferometers. (Not sure what happened to that.)

If Penrose’s CCC hypothesis is correct, we should also be able to see some left-over information from the previous aeon in the cosmic microwave background around us. To that end, Penrose has previously looked for low-variance rings in the CMB, that he argued should be caused by collisions between supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. The search for that, however, turned out to be inconclusive. In a recent paper with Daniel An and Krzysztof Meissner he has now suggested to look instead for a different signal.Sabine Hossenfelder, “Roger Penrose still looks for evidence of universal rebirth” at BackRe(Action)

Hossenfelder, who describes herself in passing as “ just a cranky ex-particle-physicist with an identity crisis,” is not a fan either of inflation or of Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology.

Wethinks Hossenfelder is being too hard on herself (a quality most often associated with good traits). She is, after all, looking out on a discipline that used to be associated with figures like Einstein and Bohr and is now increasingly associated with apparent crackpots.

Not that we would consider Dr. Penrose to be such. It’s more that, when crackpots dominate, a philosophical excursus like his, on the wild side, feels riskier than when they don’t.

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Free will is compatible with physics

Sabine Hossenfelder: Particle physics now belly up. As it happens, her book is a solid string of 1’s at Amazon

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

9 Replies to “How Roger Penrose proposes that the universe can be eternal

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to

    If Penrose’s CCC hypothesis is correct, we should also be able to see some left-over information from the previous aeon in the cosmic microwave background around us. To that end, Penrose has previously looked for low-variance rings in the CMB, that he argued should be caused by collisions between supermassive black holes in the aeon prior to ours. The search for that, however, turned out to be inconclusive.

    In regards to finding patterns in the CMB, Peter Woit once quipped.

    This Week’s Hype – August 2011
    Excerpt: ‘It’s well-known that one can find Stephen Hawking’s initials, and just about any other pattern one can think of somewhere in the CMB data.,, So, the bottom line is that they see nothing, but a press release has been issued about how wonderful it is that they have looked for evidence of a Multiverse, without mentioning that they found nothing.’
    – Peter Woit PhD.
    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~.....ss/?p=3879

    On the other hand, there are interesting and unexpected anomalies found in the CMB data that are not imaginary. As the following Planck spokesman stated “Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We’ve established them (the anomalies) as fact!”.

    Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe (Disconfirms inflationary models) – video
    Quote at 2:00 minute mark: “What’s surprising in Planck’s latest findings and is inconsistent with prevailing theories, is the presence of unexpected large scale anomalies in the sky. Including a large cold region. Stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other. And less light signals than expected across the entire sky.”
    Planck spokesman: “When we look at only the large features on this (CMBR) map you find that our find that our best fitting theory (inflation) has a problem fitting the data.”
    “Planck launched in 2009,, is the 3rd mission to study the Cosmic Microwave Background to date. While these unusual features in the sky were hinted at the two previous US missions, COBE and WMAP, Planck’s ability to measure the tiniest of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background has made these so called anomalies impossible to ignore.”
    Planck spokesman: “Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We’ve established them (the anomalies) as fact!”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

    What is curious about some of these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR (that cannot be explained by the ‘simple’ inflation model of materialists), is that one of the overriding features of these ‘anomalies’, that are in the Cosmic Background Radiation, is that they strangely line up with the earth and solar system.

    What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
    When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
    Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
    (Youtube clip on site)
    In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
    The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

    At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

    “Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

    Here is a clip from the movie “The Principle” that gives a better, very well animated, insight into the “anomalies”.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – (2018) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Of supplemental note:

    Our best scientific instruments can’t detect any distortion at all between the tiny temperature variations in the microwave background and the largest scale structures of the observable universe.

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    As well, the researchers then go on to state that, “the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts over its entire 13.8 billion years of expansion.”

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    Verses:

    Genesis 1 : 1-4
    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Anything to avoid the obvious…

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    If there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing. You cannot create something out of nothing. So there must always have Been something. Penrose is trying to reconcile a transient universe with that eternal something. If Hossenfelder or Woit or BA77 or anyone else has a better suggestion then, by all means, let us hear it.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states,,

    “If there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing. You cannot create something out of nothing. So there must always have Been something. Penrose is trying to reconcile a transient universe with that eternal something. If Hossenfelder or Woit or BA77 or anyone else has a better suggestion then, by all means, let us hear it.”

    Seversky apparently falsely thinks God is equal to nothing.

    God is not equal to nothing. God is the ‘eternal something’ from which everything else comes.

    As John 1:1-4 puts it.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    In other words, that which is immaterial and eternal created that which is material and temporal.

    Moreover Seversky, since Christians never claimed that ‘something came from nothing’ perhaps your objection would be much more appropriately directed towards Krauss who disingenuously tried to redefine ‘nothing’ to mean something?

    Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser – June 2012
    Excerpt:,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing

    On the Origin of Everything – ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss
    By DAVID ALBERT – MARCH 23, 2012
    Excerpt: “Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
    “But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.”
    He goes on to sum up the situation with the following sentence:
    “But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right”
    David Albert has a doctorate in Quantum Physics and he teaches at Columbia
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03......html?_r=1

    Verse, Quote and Video

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk
    Excerpt: whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    bornagain77- Read what Seversky said again.

    If there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing. You cannot create something out of nothing. So there must always have Been something.

    For you that something is God and there has never truly been nothing.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Well ET,

    “or BA77 or anyone else has a better suggestion then, by all means, let us hear it.”

    apparently Seversky does not think God is a ‘better idea’.

    I thought I made that clear.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    OK, I misread it. I thought Seversky was saying that you three or anyone else had to come up with an idea of something from nothing.

    I was expecting your response to be- “I don’t have to come up with a something from nothing scenario, (fill in the blank).”

    My bad.

  8. 8
    Eugene S says:

    Seversky

    “You cannot create something out of nothing.”

    Absolutely right! You cannot! God can.

  9. 9
    Eugene S says:

    The beginning of our world has always been, and will always be outside of the reach of science. Naturalistic premises simple do not work here.

Leave a Reply