Why Roger Penrose’s cosmological theory doesn’t work

Here are some thoughts by Brian Miller on cosmologist Roger Penrose’s claim that there is no absolute beginning to the universe. (conformal cyclical cosmology):

Penrose’s model requires several highly questionable assumptions. First, it must overcome the implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that proves that expanding universes must have an absolute beginning. To avoid this conclusion, Penrose must assume that the universe was infinitely large in the infinite past, which is philosophically problematic. Additional unproven assumptions include the following:

All particle masses dropping to zero.

Presence of a scalar field that becomes active at the right time to trigger crossover.

Mass of the scalar field rapidly increases after crossover.

Given the lack to supporting evidence and the ad hoc assumptions, CCC offers no serious challenge to the evidence that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, something, or more likely someone, outside of time and space must have created it.

Brian Miller, “Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection” at Evolution News (January 11, 2022)

You don’t have to believe in God but that’s less complex than the typical alternatives.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana