fixed problem with previous post

People were getting an error message when they tried to read the previous post:

Comparing Religions V: Historical Accounts

I've fixed the issue now, so if you weren't able to read this post before, you can do so now!  (Although some people were probably able to read it before since it was correctly displayed on the main page of the blog)

It is also now possible to leave comments on that post, so feel free to write in complaining that I unfairly dismissed the historical evidence for Frodo, or whatever else you'd like to say.

About Aron Wall

I am a Lecturer in Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Before that, I read Great Books at St. John's College (Santa Fe), got my physics Ph.D. from U Maryland, and did my postdocs at UC Santa Barbara, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and Stanford. The views expressed on this blog are my own, and should not be attributed to any of these fine institutions.
This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to fixed problem with previous post

  1. Justin Echevarria says:

    Hi Mr.Wall, Do you know if Roger Penrose’s model the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is probable? Some say it disproves a beginning and might prove an eternal universe.

  2. Aron Wall says:

    Penrose has lots of nutty ideas, and nobody I know takes this particular idea seriously. There are some obvious problems with it---e.g. Nature seems to have only 2 massless fields (the photon and graviton) which are important at late time in de Sitter, whereas in inflationary cosmology all of the fields in the Standard Model are accessible, so the field data at late times can't actually be mapped to the field data at earlier times.

    (This seems like a necessary result, since there is a number called "c" which depends on the energy scale and which roughly speaking counts the number of kinds of fields accessible at that energy scale (but c doesn't have to be an integer in all theories). The "c theorem" states that in any QFT, this number "c" is always higher at high energies than at small energies).

    Even if it is somehow possible to overcome this problem, wild speculations unsupported by data do not and cannot "disprove" anything. In order for X to disprove Y, you first need to show that X is true...

    And of course, from a metaphysical point of view, saying that the universe came from an earlier universe just like ours doesn't explain why universes like ours exist in the first place...

    I also found a blog post by Sean Carroll where he said (in 2010) that there wasn't actually any precise description of Penrose's CCC idea online... yet that hasn't prevented it being hyped in various ways online.

  3. Justin Echevarria says:

    Thank you Mr wall. Here is my next question has there been any new evidence to support Penrose’s claim?

  4. Anne K says:

    And what about the historical evidence for Samwise?
    P.S. thanks for fixing the commenting on the other post.

  5. Hi MR. Wall have you seen this? IT has something to do with the CCC Model.

    [Corrected your link. There is no reason to link to a facebook link to the arxiv when you can link directly to the arxiv!--AW]

  6. Aron Wall says:

    I originally wrote "None that I know of", but then I saw you linked to a paper...

    Here's a rule of thumb: always ignore a paper that has more media/blog links than citations from real scientific articles. I'm not an expert in this sort of data analysis but the top comment here is very skeptical.

    If you read St. Tolkein's appendices, it turns out that the hobbits were actually called Ban and Froda. Tolkein anglicized their names to make them more accessible to an English speaking audience. Something to bear in mind when poring through other historical documents looking for records of them :-)

  7. Mark Strange says:

    Penrose gave an updated version, that should clarify any misunderstandings that some have,in a talk/debate with William Lane craig in the summer. I think that the event will be posted on the internet sometime in September.

  8. Mike says:

    The Penrose/Craig discussion is on YouTube now. Penrose makes reference to a group of Polish cosmologists that found evidence supportive of his CCC model. Curious whether you've taken a glance at that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

My comment policy, including help with leaving LaTeX equations. Place these between double dollar signs, for example: $$\hbar = 1.05 \times 10^{-34} \text{J s}$$. Avoid using > or < since these may be misinterpreted as html tags.
If your comment fails to appear do NOT submit it again.  Instead, email me so I can rescue it from the spam filter.  You can find my email by clicking on "webpage".