Do you guys think Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is a valid theory?

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,074
1,554
126
Only the Marklars on planet Marklar know the Marklar about the Marklar Marklar Marklar.

Sorry, in principle i understand the question, and the models, but, too many layers of abstraction, and i lost interest and cant process. So, it mostly just goes whoosh over my head and i think of nonsensical south park references.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,110
12,212
146

I wonder how many times the Universe has been reset. How many discussions of bulk beef were had...
All the knowledge about Apes vs Lions gained, only to be lost by the great reset button...
Probably not, we've seen no indication that our expansion will ever slow down, much less reverse. Multiverse with a big rip/heat death/entropy soup is far more enticing based on evidence.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,552
726
136
I think "valid" is a difficult adjective to attach to the word "theory". FWIW, I would consider a theory "valid" if it was internally consistent and isn't irretrievably contradicted by observable facts. This opens the door for there being many "valid" theories that try to explain things like dark matter, dark energy, and the evolution of our universe (in large part because we have relatively few facts to contradict them). In that sense, then I would guess that Penrose's theory is "valid".

That said, at any given time there is one theory (from among the many "valid" theories) that is the consensus choice to be the best (i.e. simplest, most likely to be true) explanation that we have. That is the "Big Bang" today. Maybe new discoveries will make it Penrose's tomorrow.