Another universe existed before ours

[Kitan Etos]

[Gwaithmir]

According to Nobel Prize winner

There was an earlier universe before the Big Bang, and evidence for its existence can still be observed in black holes, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist has said.

Sir Roger Penrose made the claim after recently winning the award for breakthroughs in Einstein’s general theory of relativity and proof of the existence of black holes.

Sir Roger argues that the existence of unexplained spots of electromagnetic radiation in the sky – known as ‘Hawking Points’ – are remnants of a previous universe.

It is part of the "conformal cyclic cosmology" theory of the universe, and it is suggested that these points are the final expulsion of energy called ‘Hawking radiation’, transferred by black holes from the older universe.

Of course, creationist know-it-alls are probably already denying it because it contradicts scripture. 

[Sal]

According to Nobel Prize winner

Of course, creationist know-it-alls are probably already denying it because it contradicts scripture. 

No doubt, after much friction and resistance, it will eventually become "we knew this all along about God" and lift up some arbitrary chapter and verse to support that notion from the Bible.

[polymath257]

While this is certainly a possibility, it is very far from being proven or even to have any supporting evidence.

Penrose did some very good work a couple of decades ago, but has been getting more and more 'cranky' as time goes on.

For example, his ideas about microtubules and quantum gravity are rather, well, out there.

[Angrboda]

Penrose's CCC model depends upon unexplored physics conjectures. It's make-believe.

[Anomalocaris]

“....... and in this crazy theory of mine,......”

- sir roger

[no one]

It's possible that this universe is just another rendition in an endless cycle of universes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"To Tau Zero and beyond!!!"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Penrose's CCC model depends upon unexplored physics conjectures.  It's make-believe.

Which is probably why the Nobel Committee didn’t consider it. There’s precedent - Einstein won for optics, not relativity.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Penrose’s previous universe “theory” Now is hardly In the same class as Einstein’s relativity had been in 1921.

In 1921 relativity was a rigorously formed theory susceptible to falsification across a wide range of predictions, and  some of its predictions having already been experimentally verified and thus it was already making a big splash in the world of physics.  But the Nobel committee made the not unreasonable judgement that granting such an overarching re-write of physics recognition for success based on a small number of even strong experimental supports is premature.


Penrose’s previous universe “theory”, on the other hand, probably perturbed only those who weren’t in the field of physics but heard he got a Nobel prize.