Apparent Evidence for Hawking Points in the CMB Sky

I would be very sceptical of data analysis papers with Penrose&#x27;s name on them.<p>Penrose &amp; Gurzadyan committed this travesty:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.3706" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.3706</a><p>...and the entire CMB analysis community quickly rushed to point out the numerous basic errors done in the statistical analysis.<p>E.g. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;2041-8205&#x2F;733&#x2F;2&#x2F;L29&#x2F;meta" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;2041-8205&#x2F;733&#x2F;2&#x2F;L2...</a><p>Gurzadyan &amp; Penrose wrote the kind of paper that should never have passed basic peer review. And even when &quot;everyone&quot; pointed out Gurzadyan does not have a clue about data analysis they still stuck to it.<p>I have no idea about this paper and if Penrose has found a better data analyst to collaborate with this time. Just be aware that while Penrose may be brilliant about the things he knows something about, his name on a data analysis paper is not any guarantee about the data analysis being sound.<p>Edit: Another less polite and clearer exposition of Gurzadyan&#x27;s &quot;methods&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aanda.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;aa&#x2F;full_html&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;aa17344-11&#x2F;aa17344-11.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aanda.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;aa&#x2F;full_html&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;aa17344-...</a>

Never trust experimental evidence presented by the author of the theory that it validates.<p>However, if subsequently verified by others - wow - instant Nobel Prize for Sir Roger.

Some background, including (and kudos to the eds) a paragraph on the above-linked paper of 6 August:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conformal_cyclic_cosmology" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conformal_cyclic_cosmology</a>

I&#x27;m completely uninformed on this, but I thought that in order to evaporate completely, a black hole must first shrink until it is very small, at which point the amount of energy released by its final disappearance would be rather a small amount irrespective of the original size. Why would the original size of it make any difference?

I thoroughly enjoyed his presentation in <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cycles_of_Time" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cycles_of_Time</a> - This would indeed be a fantastic find

A recent video (with original authors) on this topic [0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s</a>

tldr; similar to <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;asimov.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Last_Question" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;asimov.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Last_Question</a> ?

Could this be evidence of Information panspermia?