scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Roger Penrose published in 2018"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) as discussed by the authors provides another perspective on these issues, one consequence being the necessary initial presence of a dominant scalar material that interacts only gravitationally, but which must ultimately slowly decay away in a novel but perhaps detectable way.
Abstract: The singularity theorems of the 1960s showed that Lemaitre’s initial symmetry assumptions were not essential for deriving a big-bang origin for a vast multitude of relativistic universe models. Yet the actual universe accords remarkably closely with models of Lemaitre’s type. This is a mystery closely related to the form taken by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is not explained by currently conventional inflationary cosmology. Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) provides another perspective on these issues, one consequence being the necessary initial presence of a dominant scalar material that interacts only gravitationally, but which must ultimately slowly decay away in a novel but perhaps detectable way. According to CCC, our current universe picture provides but one aeon of an unending succession of expanding aeons each having an initial big bang which is the conformal continuation of the remote exponential expansion of its previous aeon. The observational status of CCC is briefly discussed.

21 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) is used to test a gravitizing QT proposal where wavefunction collapse emerges from a unified theory as an objective process, resolving the measurement problem of QT.
Abstract: Despite almost a century's worth of study, it is still unclear how general relativity (GR) and quantum theory (QT) should be unified into a consistent theory. The conventional approach is to retain the foundational principles of QT, such as the superposition principle, and modify GR. This is referred to as `quantizing gravity', resulting in a theory of `quantum gravity'. The opposite approach is `gravitizing QT' where we attempt to keep the principles of GR, such as the equivalence principle, and consider how this leads to modifications of QT. What we are most lacking in understanding which route to take, if either, is experimental guidance. Here we consider using a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) to search for clues. In particular, we study how a single BEC in a superposition of two locations could test a gravitizing QT proposal where wavefunction collapse emerges from a unified theory as an objective process, resolving the measurement problem of QT. Such a modification to QT due to general relativistic principles is testable near the Planck mass scale, which is much closer to experiments than the Planck length scale where quantum, general relativistic effects are traditionally anticipated in quantum gravity theories. Furthermore, experimental tests of this proposal should be simpler to perform than recently suggested experiments that would test the quantizing gravity approach in the Newtonian gravity limit by searching for entanglement between two massive systems that are both in a superposition of two locations.

20 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present strong observational evidence of numerous previously unobserved anomalous circular spots, of significantly raised temperature, in the CMB sky, having angular radii between 0.03 and 0.04 radians.
Abstract: This paper presents strong observational evidence of numerous previously unobserved anomalous circular spots, of significantly raised temperature, in the CMB sky. The spots have angular radii between 0.03 and 0.04 radians (i.e. angular diameters between about 3 and 4 degrees). There is a clear cut-off at that size, indicating that each anomalous spot would have originated from a highly energetic point-like source, located at the end of inflation -- or else point-like at the conformally expanded Big Bang, if it is considered that there was no inflationary phase. The significant presence of these anomalous spots, was initially noticed in the Planck 70 GHz satellite data by comparison with 1000 standard simulations, and then confirmed by extending the comparison to 10000 simulations. Such anomalous points were then found at precisely the same locations in the WMAP data, their significance confirmed by comparison with 1000 WMAP simulations. Planck and WMAP have very different noise properties and it seems exceedingly unlikely that the observed presence of anomalous points in the same directions on both maps may come entirely from the noise. Subsequently, further confirmation was found in the Planck data by comparison with 1000 FFP8.1 MC simulations (with $l \leq 1500$). The existence of such anomalous regions, resulting from point-like sources at the conformally stretched-out big bang, is a predicted consequence of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), these sources being the Hawking points of the theory, resulting from the Hawking radiation from supermassive black holes in a cosmic aeon prior to our own.

16 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Ciufolini et al. as discussed by the authors published a test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth's gravity model, and the formal error was about 0.2% of frame-dragging, whereas the systematic error was estimated to be about 5%.
Abstract: In 2016, we published “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model. Measurement of Earth’s dragging of inertial frames [1]”, a measurement of frame-dragging, a fundamental prediction of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, using the laser-ranged satellites LARES, LAGEOS and LAGEOS 2. The formal error, or precision, of our test was about 0.2% of frame-dragging, whereas the systematic error was estimated to be about 5%. In the 2017 paper “A comment on “A test of general relativity using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites and a GRACE Earth’s gravity model by I. Ciufolini et al.”” by L. Iorio [2] (called I2017 in the following), it was incorrectly claimed that, when comparing different Earth’s gravity field models, the systematic error in our test due to the Earth’s even zonal harmonics of degree 6, 8, 10 could be as large as 15%, 6% and 36%, respectively. Furthermore, I2017 contains other, also incorrect, claims about the number of necessary significant decimal digits of the coefficients used in our test (claimed to be nine), in order to eliminate the largest uncertainties in the even zonals of degree 2 and 4, and about the non-repeatability of our test. Here we analyze and rebut those claims in I2017.

8 citations