Is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology a Viable Explanation for the Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdecelles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology Cyclic
AI Thread Summary
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), proposed by Roger Penrose, faces skepticism within the scientific community, particularly regarding its claims about information loss and the second law of thermodynamics. Initial empirical evidence supporting CCC has been largely dismissed, though some researchers, like K. Meisner et al., have noted potential evidence in WMAP data. Critics highlight significant assumptions in the theory, such as the decay of all matter to radiation, which raises questions about its viability. While CCC is one of several pre-Big Bang models, it has not garnered the same level of research interest as loop quantum cosmology or eternal inflation. Overall, CCC remains a contentious and largely unsupported idea in cosmological discussions.
tdecelles
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,

I wanted to share this new interview I found with Roger Penrose wherein he discusses his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology:

http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/roger-penrose-2013-07-12

I was wondering, are you convinced by his theory? I find it intriguing but I'm skeptical of the notion of information loss, or "transcending" the second law.
 
Space news on Phys.org
My impression is that Penrose has not convinced the community of his model.

I would hazard a guess that most will say they haven't paid any attention to it at all, those that have think its at best a neat idea but not convincing enough. Certainly the initial empirical evidence he presented was not bought by the community, it was totally shot down in fact.
However since then K Meisner et al who are bit more respected in the field I believe did have some positive things to say about CCC, even agreeing there is evidence for it in WMAP data. I don't know if they still think that after PLanck .
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2498

One of the biggest assumption in the theory is that all matter decays to radiation, but proton decay for example is ruled out for about 10^33 years. Of course with 10^100 years for black hole decay I guess Penrsoe has a lot of time to play with. But he still has to assume something like the Higgs field itself decays, However he doesn't have to assume extra dimensions or supersymmetry or even any novel quantum gravity affects.
 
I also think i should add that there many proposals for a pre big bang scenario and CCC is one of them. But in my opinion there are only two models that have attracted a significantly wider community of researchers. One is loop quantum cosmology and the other is eternal inflation. both of these have many researchers around the world publishing a lot of papers every year.
Of course that doesn't mean either of these models are correct or that CCC is wrong, but if you want to know what has attracted researchers and what has not in terms of these sorts of scenarios that's my take. I wonder if others agree?
 
tdecelles said:
Hey everyone,

I wanted to share this new interview I found with Roger Penrose wherein he discusses his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology:

http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/roger-penrose-2013-07-12

I was wondering, are you convinced by his theory? I find it intriguing but I'm skeptical of the notion of information loss, or "transcending" the second law.
This idea has been severely tainted by an exceedingly bad paper published about it a few years ago, where Penrose and Gurzadyan misunderstood the basic statistics of the CMB, and used that misunderstanding in an attempt to claim evidence for their idea.

As it stands, however, it's a pie-in-the-sky idea with no supporting evidence for it, and nearly all such ideas are wrong.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top