Evidence of previous universes discovered?

[Kyng]

https://www.iflscience.com/space/dead-bl...-universe/

Scientists have claimed that evidence for past universes may exist in the night sky – namely the remnants of black holes from another universe.

As reported by New Scientist, the idea is based around something called conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). This is the theory that our universe goes through constant cycles of Big Bangs and compressions, rather than having started from a single Big Bang.

While most of the universe would be destroyed from one cycle to the next, these scientists claim that some electromagnetic radiation could survive the recycling process. Their findings are reported on arXiv.

“What we claim we’re seeing is the final remnant after a black hole has evaporated away in the previous aeon,” University of Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, co-author on the study and co-creator of CCC theory, told New Scientist.

The evidence comes in the form of “Hawking points”, named after the late Stephen Hawking. He theorized that black holes would emit radiation known as Hawking radiation, and it’s this that Penrose and his colleagues suggest may pass from one universe to the next.

 

---

Wow, this is freaky . What I don't get is, how exactly do they attribute this to a previous universe ? 

(Also, if the universe is in a cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches', then why is the current universe expanding at an ever-increasing rate? Something would have to slow down the expansion, and then eventually cause the universe to collapse back in on itself!)

[Detective Osprey]

Omg. That’s scary. I can’t imagine what this alternative universe is, where it came from and such.

Too much for my tiny mind.

[GrieferLord]

I still believe that there are a number of parallel universes coupled to our own. to which this one may never actually "end" but may somehow expand to a point that another begins anew. so much we still do not understand.

[Pyrite]

The article goes on to say that "We've also yet to find any evidence of Hawking radiation, let alone Hawking points. So while this is an interesting theory, there's plenty more work to do just yet before anyone goes about claiming the definitive existence of a previous universe."

I had a look at the article as well, and the majority of this seems to come from simulations, which I've always tended to distrust when conducted on such a large scale, knowing how much simulations vary from reality in even small molecules.

Postulating so much with little to no evidence? Seems unlikely.