No evidence for circles in the CMB; contrary to claims by Penrose and Gurzadyan

In summary, these papers seem to provide evidence that the circles found by Penrose and Gurzadyan in the WMAP data, which were presented as evidence of pre-big bang activity, are entirely consistent with what we would expect the CMB to look like from LCDM simulations.
  • #1
nicksauce
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,271
7
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305

These papers seem to claim that the circles found by Penrose and Gurzadyan in the WMAP data, which were presented as evidence of pre-big bang activity, are entirely consistent with what we would expect the CMB to look like from LCDM simulations.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
These analyses are quite good. I particularly liked this toss-off toward the end of the first paper:
Indeed, it is straightforward to repeat the above analysis, but searching for low-variance features of shapes other than circular annuli. As an example, we performed the analysis looking for low-variance 'triangular annuli', i.e., the regions between concentric equilatural triangles of different sizes... there are directions around which there are similarly low-variance triangles to the low-variance circles found above. Therefore there is nothing special about the presence of low-variance circles on the sky.

---

Something I cannot help but find interesting: Penrose initially proposes his theory, and suggests a search for circles in the sky. There was no response to this plea as far as I am aware. Then Penrose publishes an apparently faulty claim of having found circles in the sky, and the physics community produces two high quality searches for said circles in short order. I am reminded of a method I discovered years ago for getting help on Linux IRC channels. If you walk in and say, "how do I get a blu-ray player working on my Linux machine?", people will probably not help, because people are busy and they expect you could do the work yourself. But if you walk in and say, "Linux sucks, you can't watch blu-rays!" people will be falling over themselves to prove you wrong...
 
  • #3
Coin said:
These analyses are quite good. I particularly liked this toss-off toward the end of the first paper:


---

Something I cannot help but find interesting: Penrose initially proposes his theory, and suggests a search for circles in the sky. There was no response to this plea as far as I am aware. Then Penrose publishes an apparently faulty claim of having found circles in the sky, and the physics community produces two high quality searches for said circles in short order. I am reminded of a method I discovered years ago for getting help on Linux IRC channels. If you walk in and say, "how do I get a blu-ray player working on my Linux machine?", people will probably not help, because people are busy and they expect you could do the work yourself. But if you walk in and say, "Linux sucks, you can't watch blu-rays!" people will be falling over themselves to prove you wrong...

That was cool, Coin :D

Here's what Sean Carroll had to say on this http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/07/penroses-cyclic-cosmology/
 
  • #4
Coin said:
Something I cannot help but find interesting: Penrose initially proposes his theory, and suggests a search for circles in the sky. There was no response to this plea as far as I am aware. Then Penrose publishes an apparently faulty claim of having found circles in the sky, and the physics community produces two high quality searches for said circles in short order.

Usually what happens is that people have already done the analysis but aren't publishing because there is no point. I've established that there isn't a Bengal Tiger outside my bedroom, but there is no point in mentioning that unless someone argues that there is.

Also this sort of statistical analysis is used a lot by hedge funds in Wall Street. One big problem (with obvious financial consequences) is when to know that you *haven't* got a pattern.
 
  • #5
One implication of those other papers is seems to be that if you point your telescope at the right patch of sky, you will see a pattern that spells out "GOD".
 

1. Why is the discovery of no evidence for circles in the CMB significant?

The discovery of no evidence for circles in the CMB is significant because it refutes the claims made by Penrose and Gurzadyan in 2010 that they had found evidence for a cyclical universe. This finding has important implications for our understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe.

2. How was the search for circles in the CMB conducted?

The search for circles in the CMB was conducted using data from the WMAP satellite, which measures the cosmic microwave background radiation. The researchers analyzed the data using statistical methods to look for patterns that would indicate the presence of circles.

3. What did the researchers find instead of circles in the CMB?

The researchers found no evidence for circles in the CMB. They did, however, find several circular patterns that were statistically insignificant and could be attributed to chance. Additionally, the researchers found that the presence of these circular patterns did not support Penrose and Gurzadyan's claims of a cyclical universe.

4. How does this study impact our understanding of the universe?

This study challenges the idea of a cyclical universe and supports the widely accepted theory of the Big Bang, which states that the universe began with a single, massive explosion. It also highlights the importance of critical analysis and further research in the scientific community to verify and question existing theories.

5. What are the next steps for research in this area?

Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to better understand the structure and origin of the universe. This could involve using data from other satellites and telescopes, as well as developing new methods for analyzing the CMB. Additionally, researchers may continue to investigate other aspects of the CMB in order to gain a deeper understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
43
Views
11K
Back
Top