Can somebody explain Conformal cyclic cosmology to me? My mind

File: Untitled.png (99KB, 802x1404px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 802x1404px

this is my uneducated guess

File: 1359088406802.png (991KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 900x600px

>>7636226
Basically imagine everything you said there and assign them to dots/discs and you have an idea of what happened before space collapsed into, with about 6 more steps in between that and, time and the big bang

Want me to elaborate?
:^)

>>7635800
At t=0, everything is compressed in a singularity, so there is only one single point in space, and it is impossible to reach any others. There is no way to observe any "past" events, but you can still have an effect on future points in space-time - as long as those points can draw their origin to the single point in time and space you're at right now.

At t=infinity, everything is accelerating away from everything else at the speed of light. This means that there is no way to observe or interact with any other past or present point in the universe; no information can ever pass either direction. So there is no way to observe any "past" events, and there is no way to reach any other point in space-time. However, any events that lie in your immediate future, drawing their origin to the single point that makes up the entire observable universe - those you can have a causal effect on.

In other words, in terms of causal connections, how each point in space-time effects each other (or doesn't) and is separated in space-time interval, they're exactly the same in every qualitative sense. You just have to re-scale them. The term for the maps of these causal connections is "conformal surfaces"

I think I get it now, but like, my mind does not want to accept it because the idea that our entire universe is just one instant at the start of the next universe is fucking insane.

Each successive universe is successively larger and slower than the last. Is this correct?

But like, what about the speed of light and stuff? that's a constant, so shouldn't the new infinitely larger universe be effected by the older universe's C ?

If all the photons from the old universe are so far apart that they can never interact with each other, how can they be a new big bang? Even if you re-scale the universe, the photons are still receding away from each other at the speed of light.

Am I missing something important here?

>>7636253

If you post a fancy fractal you enjoy, then you may elaborate, M. Fractals.

>>7636313
>Am I missing something important here?

Yes

>the photons are still receding away from each other at the speed of light

So what? You have literally no way to observe or interact with them, or them with you. They do not exist from your point of view, in any sense.

And that's the point of the whole re-scaling thing; because time and space lose all meaning, you can just redefine distances and times to be whatever you want in the next universe, so c is unaffected.

Of course, the other thing you're missing is that Penrose is notoriously a bit kooky.

>>7636637
So the laws of physics literally just make themselves up as they go?

>>7636226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE

File: Penrose diagram.png (20KB, 940x842px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 940x842px

>>7636637
Heh, speaking of penrose, look up Penrose Diagrams. The idea is to be able to graph the entire history of the universe in a finite space with the rule that Light Rays move at 45 degree angles

There are different types, but pic related is a basic one. Uniformly accelerated frames are repesented by Hyperbolic Sins and cosines on the graph.

And They have the weird property, each edge is an event horizon, because it takes an infinite amount of time for a light ray to get there, and an infinite amount of time for light to reach the present from the past.

Which means, you can stitch them together to create a large framework of cyclical universes, in a way.