NEWSER) – Look carefully into outer space and you might spot the remnants of a previous universe. So argues Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the study of black holes and one of three recipients of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. “The Big Bang was not the beginning,” he tells the Telegraph. “There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.” Penrose, 89, argues that several “warm” areas in space are really leftover black holes from an earlier universe or “aeon.” The idea is based on work by his old collaborator, Stephen Hawking, who said black holes “leak” radiation and slowly evaporate. But this seems to occur so slowly that their destruction could take longer than our universe itself.

 In a new paper, Penrose says he’s detected remnants of at least six black holes from a universe that ended in its own “Big Crunch” and created our Big Bang. “We are seeing them,” he says. “These points are about eight times the diameter of the Moon and are slightly warmed up regions.” He also tells Space.com that “information” arrived from the last universe “in the form of a shock wave” of dark matter—which should be perceptible in leftover Big Bang radiation, and some scientists say they’ve found it. There’s skepticism, of course, but the notion of universe-recycling has gained ground. “It’s classic Roger Penrose,” says a cosmologist in London. “It’s a beautiful theory and it deserves a lot of attention.” (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.)

https://www.newser.com/story/297159/warm-spots-in-space-might-blow-your-mind.html

dv said:

NEWSER) – Look carefully into outer space and you might spot the remnants of a previous universe. So argues Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the study of black holes and one of three recipients of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. “The Big Bang was not the beginning,” he tells the Telegraph. “There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.” Penrose, 89, argues that several “warm” areas in space are really leftover black holes from an earlier universe or “aeon.” The idea is based on work by his old collaborator, Stephen Hawking, who said black holes “leak” radiation and slowly evaporate. But this seems to occur so slowly that their destruction could take longer than our universe itself.

 In a new paper, Penrose says he’s detected remnants of at least six black holes from a universe that ended in its own “Big Crunch” and created our Big Bang. “We are seeing them,” he says. “These points are about eight times the diameter of the Moon and are slightly warmed up regions.” He also tells Space.com that “information” arrived from the last universe “in the form of a shock wave” of dark matter—which should be perceptible in leftover Big Bang radiation, and some scientists say they’ve found it. There’s skepticism, of course, but the notion of universe-recycling has gained ground. “It’s classic Roger Penrose,” says a cosmologist in London. “It’s a beautiful theory and it deserves a lot of attention.” (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.)

https://www.newser.com/story/297159/warm-spots-in-space-might-blow-your-mind.html

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

we prove Newton wrong every day

read that, interesting stuff, watched a few talks on the tube related similar

Tamb said:

dv said:

NEWSER) – Look carefully into outer space and you might spot the remnants of a previous universe. So argues Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the study of black holes and one of three recipients of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. “The Big Bang was not the beginning,” he tells the Telegraph. “There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.” Penrose, 89, argues that several “warm” areas in space are really leftover black holes from an earlier universe or “aeon.” The idea is based on work by his old collaborator, Stephen Hawking, who said black holes “leak” radiation and slowly evaporate. But this seems to occur so slowly that their destruction could take longer than our universe itself.

 In a new paper, Penrose says he’s detected remnants of at least six black holes from a universe that ended in its own “Big Crunch” and created our Big Bang. “We are seeing them,” he says. “These points are about eight times the diameter of the Moon and are slightly warmed up regions.” He also tells Space.com that “information” arrived from the last universe “in the form of a shock wave” of dark matter—which should be perceptible in leftover Big Bang radiation, and some scientists say they’ve found it. There’s skepticism, of course, but the notion of universe-recycling has gained ground. “It’s classic Roger Penrose,” says a cosmologist in London. “It’s a beautiful theory and it deserves a lot of attention.” (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.)

https://www.newser.com/story/297159/warm-spots-in-space-might-blow-your-mind.html

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

Supported if before there was a name for it.

SCIENCE said:

we prove Newton wrong every day

How do you do that?

And which of Newton’s many statements do you prove wrong?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we prove Newton wrong every day

How do you do that?

And which of Newton’s many statements do you prove wrong?

When he said we, I don’t think he meant he.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

NEWSER) – Look carefully into outer space and you might spot the remnants of a previous universe. So argues Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the study of black holes and one of three recipients of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. “The Big Bang was not the beginning,” he tells the Telegraph. “There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.” Penrose, 89, argues that several “warm” areas in space are really leftover black holes from an earlier universe or “aeon.” The idea is based on work by his old collaborator, Stephen Hawking, who said black holes “leak” radiation and slowly evaporate. But this seems to occur so slowly that their destruction could take longer than our universe itself.

 In a new paper, Penrose says he’s detected remnants of at least six black holes from a universe that ended in its own “Big Crunch” and created our Big Bang. “We are seeing them,” he says. “These points are about eight times the diameter of the Moon and are slightly warmed up regions.” He also tells Space.com that “information” arrived from the last universe “in the form of a shock wave” of dark matter—which should be perceptible in leftover Big Bang radiation, and some scientists say they’ve found it. There’s skepticism, of course, but the notion of universe-recycling has gained ground. “It’s classic Roger Penrose,” says a cosmologist in London. “It’s a beautiful theory and it deserves a lot of attention.” (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.)

https://www.newser.com/story/297159/warm-spots-in-space-might-blow-your-mind.html

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

Supported if before there was a name for it.

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

Supported if before there was a name for it.

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

Yes.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we prove Newton wrong every day

How do you do that?

And which of Newton’s many statements do you prove wrong?

When he said we, I don’t think he meant he.

I presume he includes himself in “we”, no matter who else is included.

Surely that is what “we” means: all of the people included under “I” + possibly some others.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How do you do that?

And which of Newton’s many statements do you prove wrong?

When he said we, I don’t think he meant he.

I presume he includes himself in “we”, no matter who else is included.

Surely that is what “we” means: all of the people included under “I” + possibly some others.

I would thhink so yes.

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

Supported if before there was a name for it.

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

I don’t know why anyone would imagine that observations of what the little bit of the Universe that we can see does, give reliable information about what the Universe as a whole might do in the distant future.

sorry we were referring to (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.) and the context freedom of arbitrary throw aways

SCIENCE said:

sorry we were referring to (After all, Penrose proved Albert Einstein wrong.) and the context freedom of arbitrary throw aways

OK.

I suppose you could say we prove Newton wrong every time we use Google Maps to find out where we are.

Although I’d prefer to say that this merely proves that his approximations are not accurate under all circumstances.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

Supported if before there was a name for it.

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

I don’t know why anyone would imagine that observations of what the little bit of the Universe that we can see does, give reliable information about what the Universe as a whole might do in the distant future.

that’s because you aren’t a cosmologist i guess and seem to conflate The Universe with The Observable Universe. Observations of The Observable Universe doesn’t support a Big Crunch, currently.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

I don’t know why anyone would imagine that observations of what the little bit of the Universe that we can see does, give reliable information about what the Universe as a whole might do in the distant future.

that’s because you aren’t a cosmologist i guess and seem to conflate The Universe with The Observable Universe. Observations of The Observable Universe doesn’t support a Big Crunch, currently.

It may well be because I’m not a cosmologist, but conflating The Universe with The Observable Universe is the exact opposite of what I am doing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why anyone would imagine that observations of what the little bit of the Universe that we can see does, give reliable information about what the Universe as a whole might do in the distant future.

that’s because you aren’t a cosmologist i guess and seem to conflate The Universe with The Observable Universe. Observations of The Observable Universe doesn’t support a Big Crunch, currently.

It may well be because I’m not a cosmologist, but conflating The Universe with The Observable Universe is the exact opposite of what I am doing.

From what you write it doesn’t appear that way. Maybe try to be more precise in your wording to avoid confusion.

JudgeMental said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

I have long been a supporter of the Big Crunch theory.

Supported if before there was a name for it.

current observations don’t support the Big Crunch scenario in this Universe. The paper by Penrose is about other Universes where the Big Crunch might have been possible.

Yep. Big Crunch in our universe was already looking unlikely when Peebles published his book in 1993. The final nail in the coffin of Big Crunch was the discovery of dark energy in 1998.

Although big crunch is ruled out, little crunches are going on the the time, we call them “black holes”.

And so although a Big Crunch in the universe before ours seems unlikely to the point of being almost impossible, the possibility that our universe began as a little crunch in a pre-existing universe can’t be ruled out.

A thought.

If angular momentum is conserved from a big crunch to a big bang then our universe ought to be rotating.

Searches for rotation of our universe have drawn a blank. Or have they? How would you look to see if our universe is rotating? Through polarisation of the CMB? Through overdensity in the direction of the rotation axis? Through quadupole moment in the CMB? By imbalance between clockwise and anticlockwise spinning galaxy clusters?

A bit above my pay grade but very interesting none the less.

Rotating universes all the way down and all the way up.

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Rotating universes all the way down and all the way up.

:)

No body mention spin gravity

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Rotating universes all the way down and all the way up.

:)

No body mention spin gravity

Glares at dv.

(swallows hard)

well, here goes:

Ever since I first heard of Black Holes
and the nature of getting sucked into some
while further study shows stuff being spewed out
from what I’d assumed was the other end of black holes

I came to accept that that’s our primitive perception of “CREATION”

and moved on, leaving someone better equipped than myself to prove it.

iow: Rather than “A BIG BANG” or “A SUPER CRUNCH”
imagine massive gravitational feasts followed by dramatic regurgitation cycles,
…if you’ll excuse the expression; “ad nauseam” <-:

if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory
I’d be only to glad to share in any forthcoming cash award.

Ogmog said:

(swallows hard)

well, here goes:

Ever since I first heard of Black Holes
and the nature of getting sucked into some
while further study shows stuff being spewed out
from what I’d assumed was the other end of black holes

I came to accept that that’s our primitive perception of “CREATION”

and moved on, leaving someone better equipped than myself to prove it.

iow: Rather than “A BIG BANG” or “A SUPER CRUNCH”
imagine massive gravitational feasts followed by dramatic regurgitation cycles,
…if you’ll excuse the expression; “ad nauseam” <-:

if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory
I’d be only to glad to share in any forthcoming cash award.

> (swallows hard)

I can see why. :-)

> if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory

You’re a bit late. It’s already been proposed some … well, it was a pretty obvious option back in 1960 (with Kruskal), or perhaps 1963 (with Kerr).

mollwollfumble said:

Ogmog said:

(swallows hard)

well, here goes:

Ever since I first heard of Black Holes
and the nature of getting sucked into some
while further study shows stuff being spewed out
from what I’d assumed was the other end of black holes

I came to accept that that’s our primitive perception of “CREATION”

and moved on, leaving someone better equipped than myself to prove it.

iow: Rather than “A BIG BANG” or “A SUPER CRUNCH”
imagine massive gravitational feasts followed by dramatic regurgitation cycles,
…if you’ll excuse the expression; “ad nauseam” <-:

if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory
I’d be only to glad to share in any forthcoming cash award.

> (swallows hard)

I can see why. :-)

> if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory

You’re a bit late. It’s already been proposed some … well, it was a pretty obvious option back in 1960 (with Kruskal), or perhaps 1963 (with Kerr).

Missed it by that much…

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ogmog said:

(swallows hard)

well, here goes:

Ever since I first heard of Black Holes
and the nature of getting sucked into some
while further study shows stuff being spewed out
from what I’d assumed was the other end of black holes

I came to accept that that’s our primitive perception of “CREATION”

and moved on, leaving someone better equipped than myself to prove it.

iow: Rather than “A BIG BANG” or “A SUPER CRUNCH”
imagine massive gravitational feasts followed by dramatic regurgitation cycles,
…if you’ll excuse the expression; “ad nauseam” <-:

if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory
I’d be only to glad to share in any forthcoming cash award.

> (swallows hard)

I can see why. :-)

> if anyone wins a Nobel Prize for presenting my personal theory

You’re a bit late. It’s already been proposed some … well, it was a pretty obvious option back in 1960 (with Kruskal), or perhaps 1963 (with Kerr).

Missed it by that much…

Oh… are you saying ‘the check is in the mail’…? :-D
(sorry, it begged saying) ;-)

Yes, it seemed so obvious
that I never followed up
or checked to see that
other people saw it too.

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Rotating universes all the way down and all the way up.

:)

No body mention spin gravity

TOO LATE

Zarkov said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Rotating universes all the way down and all the way up.

:)

No body mention spin gravity

TOO LATE

Oh, skyrmions. They’re spin gravity.