Undergrad Is Penrose's Cyclic Cosmology Model Only Applicable on a Local Scale?

Click For Summary
Penrose's cyclic cosmology model has sparked discussions regarding its applicability on different scales, particularly in relation to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) concentric rings. The original publication on this topic is largely inaccessible, leading to challenges in sourcing credible information. Previous threads have touched on conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) but lacked in-depth exploration. There is curiosity about whether the CCC model could be valid locally while failing on a universal scale, suggesting that the CMB patterns might have simpler explanations. Overall, the conversation remains open for further exploration of the CCC model's implications and its relationship to observed cosmic phenomena.
PAllen
Science Advisor
Messages
9,422
Reaction score
2,616
TL;DR
While I am skeptical of this, it is a serious proposal that has not been discussed recently on PF.
A recent thread asked about Penrose's proposal on cyclic cosmology. It was closed due to lack of any remotely acceptable sourcing, even after prompting. Much of the original professional publication on this is not available on arxiv. However the following includes a summary of conformal cyclic cosmology and earlier references (that are not readily available online):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01740

On this basis, if anyone wants to discuss the current plausibility of this model, this thread can be a suitable basis.
 
Space news on Phys.org
I am new to Physics forum and am interested in the CCC model. I am particularly interested in the concentric rings visible in the CMB. Has anyone proposed a mechanism for the generation of these rings?
 
Hi again guys. Has anyone proposed that the CCC model may be correct in application by wrong in scale? What I mean is that the CCC model is true for the local volume of space time but not true for the entire universe? The concentric circles in the CMB may have a more mundane origin?
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
14K
Replies
35
Views
20K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
127
Views
27K