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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tdecelles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology Cyclic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Roger Penrose's theory of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) and its viability as an explanation for the Big Bang. Participants express skepticism regarding the theory, particularly concerning the notion of information loss and its alignment with the second law of thermodynamics. While some researchers, such as K. Meisner et al., have acknowledged potential evidence for CCC in WMAP data, the overall consensus remains that the theory lacks empirical support and is overshadowed by more widely accepted models like loop quantum cosmology and eternal inflation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC)
  • Familiarity with the second law of thermodynamics
  • Knowledge of cosmic microwave background (CMB) statistics
  • Awareness of alternative cosmological models such as loop quantum cosmology and eternal inflation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the second law of thermodynamics on cosmological theories
  • Explore the findings of K. Meisner et al. regarding CCC and WMAP data
  • Investigate loop quantum cosmology and its community of researchers
  • Examine the concept of eternal inflation and its supporting evidence
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and theoretical physicists interested in alternative cosmological models and the ongoing debates surrounding the Big Bang theory.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
21K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
14K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
15K