Penrose's cyclic universe - question

[hammock]

I've just watched the lecture of Penrose on his cyclic universe theory here:



I fact I understood that he claims that any kind of matter dissapears in a couple of Googol years due to Hawking radition; so there is no matter left at the end, which leads to a reduced degree of freedom in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which then "re-initializes" space (or so ... my term) and leads to another big bang.

What I do not understand is why he claims his aeons being sequential. In fact, time somehow is a product of mass movement in space and if there is no mass, there is no time.

So then, why can't these aeons exist parallel to ours?

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't think most physicists take this idea seriously. It doesn't help that he really shot himself in the foot with some incredibly shoddy statistics when he and Gurzadyan tried to show that the CMB had some evidence of of this idea (in essence, they showed that the temperatures on different places on the sky are correlated, the problem being that the existence of those correlations is well-known and part of the fundamental physics of the CMB, betraying a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of CMB science).

While it's true that it's possible to support a good idea with bad arguments, the incredibly bad arguments they've used to promote this idea put into question the rest of their reasoning.

 

[martinbn]

What I do not understand is why he claims his aeons being sequential.

They are sequential in this particular model, whether that is how the universe is, is a separate question.

So then, why can't these aeons exist parallel to ours?

May be they can, but that would be a different model.