Jump to content
ydoaPs

Echos of a bygone Aeon

Recommended Posts

Well Penrose has lots of previous in trying to do away with inflation.

2006 penrose paper

I read this 2006 paper when it appeared and thought at the time that he was reaching a bit.

If the evidence he claims to have found is confirmed it will be a remarkable finding, and make the 'axis of evil' look like an insignificant artefact of synchrotron radiation in the Galactic Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts?

 

This is outside my area of expertise. That said the initial results seem quite clear and interesting. I now await the reply from experts in cosmology and the physics of the early universe. There will be people re-examining Penrose and Gurzadyan's analysis and conclusions.

 

Anything that might shake the lambda CDM model should be fully investigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1268

A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps

I. K. Wehus, H. K. Eriksen

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305

No evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P. Zibin

 

 

 

Sean Carroll pointed these out. Looks like Penrose circles not confirmed.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/07/penroses-cyclic-cosmology/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean Carroll pointed these out. Looks like Penrose circles not confirmed.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/07/penroses-cyclic-cosmology/

That's rather interesting with the abstract of Penrose's paper saying he had indeed found the circles.

 

edit:

The first one said they DID find the circles, yet it somehow doesn't agree with Penrose. What's the deal?

 

The second paper also found the circles.

 

edit2:

What these papers seem to say, despite the title of the second one, is that the circles DO exist, but they are not evidence exclusively of a cyclic cosmology. If that is the case, then this really wouldn't be a problem with the current model considering the background radiation analysis showing large scale euclidean nature of the universe. It seems to me that the cyclic proponents need to account for why our universe is flat. Doesn't a flat universe indicate that the universe is either the last cycle or the only one?

Edited by ydoaPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's rather interesting with the abstract of Penrose's paper saying he had indeed found the circles.edit:The first one said they DID find the circles, yet it somehow doesn't agree with Penrose. What's the deal?The second paper also found the circles.edit2:What these papers seem to say, despite the title of the second one, is that the circles DO exist, but they are not evidence exclusively of a cyclic cosmology. If that is the case, then this really wouldn't be a problem with the current model considering the background radiation analysis showing large scale euclidean nature of the universe. It seems to me that the cyclic proponents need to account for why our universe is flat. Doesn't a flat universe indicate that the universe is either the last cycle or the only one?

Is it settled that the universe is now and will forever be euclidean, even considering the actions of dark energy?

In some circles it is a consistent meme that the universe will inevitably approach the parameters of a de Sitter universe. I would struggle to consider a de Sitter universe euclidean.

Edited by louis wu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have spoken more precisely. As I understand it they found that amount of patterning can occur randomly. As one paper said, to the extent that Penrose found concentric circles you could just as well find triangles or squares. There will always be randomly occurring patterns but it does not mean anything. So the papers contested the claim that the findings were significant.

 

====================================================================

 

I may be mistaken. PENROSE AND GURZADYAN posted a second paper today, answering their critics and maitaining that the observed patterning is significant.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1486

More on the low variance circles in CMB sky

V.G.Gurzadyan, R.Penrose

2 pages

(Submitted on 7 Dec 2010)

"Two groups [3,4] have confirmed the results of our paper concerning the actual existence of low variance circles in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky. They also point out that the effect does not contradict the LCDM model - a matter which is not in dispute. We point out two discrepancies between their treatment and ours, however, one technical, the other having to do with the very understanding of what constitutes a Gaussian random signal. Both groups simulate maps using the CMB power spectrum for LCDM, while we simulate a pure Gaussian sky plus the WMAP's noise, which points out the contradiction with a common statement [3] that 'CMB signal is random noise of Gaussian nature'. For as it was shown in [5], the random component is a minor one in the CMB signal, namely, about 0.2. Accordingly, the circles we saw are a real structure of the CMB sky and they are not of a random Gaussian nature. Although the structures studied certainly cannot contradict the power spectrum, which is well fitted by LCDM model, we particularly emphasize that the low variance circles occur in concentric families, and this key fact cannot be explained as a purely random effect. It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology."

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.