Will the Big Bang repeat?

This video was sponsored by Curiosity Stream. This video is about Roger Penrose’s idea  for the beginning of the universe and its end, conformal cyclic cosmology, CCC for short. It’s  a topic that a lot of you have asked for ever since Roger Penrose won the Nobel Prize in 2020. 

The reason I’ve put off talking about it is that I don’t enjoy criticizing other people’s ideas,  especially if they’re people I personally know. And also, who am I to criticize a Nobel  Prize winner. on YouTube, out of all places.

However, Penrose himself has been very  outspoken about his misgivings of string theory and contemporary cosmology, in particular  inflation, and so in the end I think it’ll be okay if I tell you what I think about conformal cyclic  cosmology. And that’s what we’ll talk about today. First thing first, what does conformal cyclic  cosmology mean.

I think we’re all good with the word cosmology, it’s a theory for the  history of the entire universe, alright. That it’s cyclic means it repeats in some sense.  Penrose calls these cycles eons.

Each starts with a big bang, but it doesn’t end with a big crunch. A big crunch would happen when the expansion of the universe changes to a contraction  and eventually all the matter is well, crunched together. A big crunch is like a big  bang in reverse.

This does not happen in Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Rather, the history of the  universe just kind of tapers out. Matter becomes more and more thinly diluted.

And then there’s  the word conformal. We need that to get from the thinly diluted end of one eon to the beginning  of the next. But what does conformal mean?

A conformal rescaling is a stretching or shrinking that maintains all relative angles. Penrose  uses that because you can use a conformal rescaling to make something that has infinite  size into something that has finite size. Here is a simple example of a conformal rescaling.

Suppose you have an infinite two-dimensional  plane. And suppose you have half of a sphere. Now from every point on the infinite plane,  you draw a line to the center of the sphere.

At the point where it pierces the sphere, you  project that down onto a disk. That way you map every point of the infinite plane into the disk  underneath the sphere. A famous example of a conformal rescaling is this image from Escher. 

Imagine that those bats are all the same size and once filled in an infinite plane. In this  image they are all squeezed into a finite area. Now in Penrose’s case, the infinite  thing that you rescale is not just space, but space-time.

You rescale them both and then you  glue the end of our universe to a new beginning. Mathematically you can totally do that. But  why would you?

And what’s with the physics? Let’s first talk about why you would want to do  that. Penrose is trying to solve a big puzzle in our current theories for the universe.

It’s the  second law of thermodynamics: entropy increases. We see it increase. But that entropy increases  means it must have been smaller in the past.

Indeed, the universe must have  started out with very small entropy, otherwise we just can’t explain what we see.  That the early universe must have had small entropy is often called the Past Hypothesis,  a term coined by the philosopher David Albert. Our current theories work perfectly fine with  the past hypothesis.

But of course it would be better if one didn’t need it. If one instead had  a theory from which one can derive it. Penrose has attacked this problem by first finding a way to  quantify the entropy in the gravitational field.

He argued already in the 1970s, that it’s  encoded in the Weyl curvature tensor. That’s loosely speaking part of the  complete curvature tensor of space-time. This Weyl curvature tensor, according to  Penrose, should be very small in the beginning of the universe.

Then the entropy would be small  and the past hypothesis would be explained. He calls this the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis. So,  instead of the rather vague past hypothesis, we now have a mathematically precise Weyl  Curvature Hypothesis.

Like the entropy, the Weyl Curvature would start initially very  small and then increase as the universe gets older. This goes along with the formation of  bigger structures like stars and galaxies. Remains the question how do you get the Weyl  Curvature to be small.

Here’s where the conformal rescaling kicks in. You take the end of a universe  where the Weyl curvature is large, you rescale it which makes it very small, and then you postulate  that this is the beginning of a new universe. Okay, so that explains why  you may want to do that, but what’s with the physics.

The reason why  this rescaling works mathematically is that in a conformally invariant universe there’s no  meaningful way to talk about time. It’s like if I show you a piece of the Koch snowflake and  ask if that’s big or small. These pieces repeat infinitely often so you can’t tell.

In CCC it’s  the same with time at the end of the universe. But the conformal rescaling and gluing only  works if the universe approaches conformal invariance towards the end of its life. This  may or may not be the case.

The universe contains massive particles, and massive  particles are not conformally invariant. That’s because particles are also waves and  massive particles are waves with a particular wavelength. That’s the Compton wave-length,  which is inversely proportional to the mass.

This is a specific scale, so if you rescale  the universe, it will not remain the same. However, the masses of the elementary  particles all come from the Higgs field, so if you can somehow get rid of the  Higgs at the end of the universe, then that would be conformally  invariant and everything would work. Or maybe you can think of some other way to  get rid of massive particles.

And since no one really knows what may happen at the end of the  universe anyway, ok, well, maybe it works somehow. But we can’t test what will  happen in a hundred billion years. So how could one test Penrose’s cyclic  cosmology?

Interestingly, this conformal rescaling doesn’t wash out all the details from  the previous eon. Gravitational waves survive because they scale differently than the  Weyl curvature. And those gravitational waves from the previous eon affect how matter  moves after the big bang of our eon, which in turn leaves patterns in the cosmic microwave  background.

Indeed, rather specific patterns. Roger Penrose first said one should look  for rings. These rights would come from the collisions of supermassive black holes  in the eon before ours.

This is pretty much the most violent event one can think of and so  should produce a lot of gravitational waves. However, the search for those  signals remained inconclusive. Penrose then found a better observational  signature from the earlier eon which he called Hawking points.

Supermassive black holes in the  earlier eon evaporate and leave behind a cloud of Hawking radiation which spreads out over  the whole universe. But at the end of the eon, you do the rescaling and you squeeze all that  Hawking radiation together. That carries over into the next eon and makes a localized  point with some rings around it in the CMB.

And these Hawking points are actually there.  It’s not only Penrose and his people who have found them in the CMB. The thing is though that  some cosmologists have argued they should also be there in the most popular model for the  early universe, which is inflation.

So, this prediction may not be wrong, but it’s maybe not  a good way to tell Penrose’s model from others. Penrose also says that this conformal rescaling  requires that one introduces a new field which gives rise to a new particle. He has called  this particle the “erebon”, named after erebos, the god of darkness.

The erebons might make up  dark matter. They are heavy particles with masses of about the Planck mass, so that’s much heavier  than the particles astrophysicists typically consider for dark matter. But it’s not ruled  out that dark matter particles might be so heavy and indeed other astrophysicists have considered  similar particles as candidates for dark matter.

Penrose’s erebons are ultimately unstable.  Remember you have to get rid of all the masses at the end of the eon to get to conformal  invariance. So Penrose predicts that dark matter should slowly decay.

That decay  however is so slow that it is hard to test. He has also predicted that there should be rings  around the Hawking points in the CMB B-modes which is the thing that the BICEP experiment was looking  for. But those too haven’t been seen – so far.

Okay, so that’s my brief summary of conformal  cyclic cosmology, now what do I think about it. Mostly I have questions. The obvious thing to pick  on is that actually the universe isn’t conformally invariant and that postulating all Higgs bosons  disappear or something like that is rather ad hoc.

But this actually isn’t my main problem.  Maybe I’ve spent too much time among particle physicists, but I’ve seen far  worse things. Unparticles, anybody?

One thing that gives me headaches is that it’s one  thing to do a conformal rescaling mathematically. Understanding what this physically  means is another thing entirely. You see, just because you can create an  infinite sequence of eons doesn’t mean the duration of any eon is now finite. 

You can totally glue together infinitely many infinitely large space-times if  you really want to. Saying that time becomes meaningless doesn’t really explain  to me what this rescaling physically does. Okay, but maybe that’s a rather philosophical  misgiving.

Here is a more concrete one. If the previous eon leaves information imprinted  in the next one, then it isn’t obvious that the cycles repeat in the same way. Instead, I  would think, they will generally end up with larger and larger fluctuations that will pass on  larger and larger fluctuations to the next eon because that’s a positive feedback.

If that  was so, then Penrose would have to explain why we are in a universe that’s special  for not having these huge fluctuations. Another issue is that it’s not obvious you  can extend these cosmologies back in time indefinitely. This is a problem also for “eternal  inflation.

” Eternal inflation is eternal really only into the future. It has a finite past.  You can calculate this just from the geometry.

In a recent paper Kinney and Stein showed that  this is also the case for a model of cyclic cosmology put forward by Ijjas and Steinhard  has the same problem. The cycle might go on infinitely, alright, but only into the future  not into the past. It’s not clear at the moment whether this is also the case for conformal cyclic  cosmology.

I don’t think anyone has looked at it. Finally, I am not sure that CCC actually solves  the problem it was supposed to solve. Remember we are trying to explain the past hypothesis.

But a  scientific explanation shouldn’t be more difficult than the thing you’re trying to explain. And CCC  requires some assumptions, about the conformal invariance and the erebons, that at least to me  don’t seem any better than the past hypothesis. Having said that, I think Penrose’s point  that the Weyl curvature in the early universe must have been small is really important  and it hasn’t been appreciated enough.

Maybe CCC isn’t exactly the  right conclusion to draw from it, but it’s a mathematical puzzle that in my  opinion deserves a little more attention. This video was sponsored by Curiosity  Stream. YouTube is a great place for some things.

For example, from me you get the  brief summaries on recent scientific topics. But sometimes brevity is not what you want.  Sometimes you want a professionally made full length documentary, something that will  entertain you as much as it will educate you.

If you like that too, you should really check out  Curiosity stream. Curiosity Stream has thousands of movies and shows about physics, space,  medicine, technology, history, everything really. They’re adding new ones every week.

And you can  watch them conveniently on your laptop or phone. On Curiosity Stream you can find for example a  wonderful documentary about how the James Webb telescope was built. It has interviews with some  of the key engineers and researchers and really shows the amazing complexity of this mission.

They  also have a lot of other documentaries on space, about gravitational waves and black holes  and about “The Dark Secrets of the Universe”. And of course I have a special offer so  you can try it out yourself. You can get a subscription for Curiosity Stream for  a whole year for just $14.

99 if you use our link curiositystream dot come slash  sabine or use the code sabine at checkout. Thanks for watching, see you next week.