The more recent paradigm called the string theory or the theory of everything that has enthralled physicists

for
the past many decades tries to explain all the forces of the nature by introduction of a single compelling theory. It
puts forward among other things the idea that the constituents of the universe are not particles, but minuscule
strings that vibrate in multiple dimensions. When these strings vibrate they generate other forms of particles that
exist in the universe each with its individual characteristics and behavior patterns. But, not everybody is
impressed by this notion that string theory will usher in, the theory of everything. One of the most prominent
skeptics with regard to this grand project is Sir Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and physicist.
Penrose’s dismissal originates from the observation that he finds string theory is not nearly as tied with specific
observations in the empirical realm as well as any testable hypotheses which defines science. So, let’s look
deeper into his arguments and try to shed some light on this galactic controversy.

Why Penrose Rejects String Theory

As you will see in the upcoming book by Penrose, “Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the
Universe”, he accentuates the essence of his discussion focusing on the point that string theory rather resembles
more a mathematical fiction than physics. He also notes that almost the entire theory has been postulated out of
supersymmetry which is an imaginary concept that postulates the existence of particles that have not yet been
observed. Besides, Penrose argues that the theory’s compactifications, which were developed to address the
nonappearance of supersymmetry, are problematic and remain ambiguous and mathematically challenging.
Indeed, there is one of Penrose’s most absolute criticisms towards string theory – the absence of empirical proof.
He further says that the virtue of the theory is lacking testable predictions hence lacks scientific credibility. He
notes that for any theory to be scientific it must be able to make scientific predictions that can be tested, and yet
this theory cannot do this. Penrose also claims that to be a valid theory, there must exist a version that can be
decisively refuted by experimentation and observation and Penrose continued to argue that string theory cannot
be refuted in this way. However, is lack of testable predictions the death knell to string theory, or a problem that
string theorists must address?

However, Penrose’s considerations are not only methodological, or related to the absence of empirical evidence.
He also expressed his opinion that string theory has grown too complicated and is no longer as relevant to the
physical world. He points out that the problem with string theory is that string theory has become similar to chess
and both of them are played very well with extremely complex rules and complex pieces but they are not real.

What has followed and what Penrose has said has stirred up quite a controversy and physicists have been
equally divided on this one. Michio Kaku, the American theoretical physicist who supports the string theory, has
argued that the theory is actually helpful in expanding our knowledge of the universe. Kaku also claims that string
theory has affected mathematics immensely and has been instrumental in improving the particle physics
standard model. Nevertheless, there are even some string theorists who admit that Penrose’s objections are
justified. Leonard Susskind, one of the key players in the area, confessed that the theory’s biggest problem is the
absence of physical predictions. Susskind also mentions that the main value of the theory is in the fact that it may
offer a way of defining space, time, and gravity.

Alternative to String Theory

If string theory is not the answer to the questions posed above about the universe, then what could be? Thus,
Penrose presents his own conception that he refers to as ‘conformal cyclic cosmology’ or CCC for short, which he
regards as a worthy contender to the string theory framework. CCC proposes that the universe goes through an
infinite number of cycles: Big Bang followed by Big Crunch.

According to Penrose, the universe is not a single occurrence but a recurrent phenomenon of continual creation
and destruction. Each cycle, he argues, is identical to the last, with the exception of a single parameter: the
cosmological constant which defines the ratio of the expansion of the universe.

Nevertheless, the criticism of Penrose’s theory is not devoid of its own problems either. Haters of this model say
that CCC does not possess the rigour and successful anticipation of mathematical formalism of string theory.
They also argued that some of the assumptions that were employed in development of the theory have never
been tested and as such include the conformal structure of the early universe.

But Penrose remains undaunted. According to him CCC is much easier to understand and provides a more down
to earth explanation for observed properties of the universe. Explaining this point, he says, “The great advantage
of conformal cyclic cosmology is that it is such an elementary conception, An idea that is quite easy to grasp
without a lot of mathematics.”

Another string theory that Penrose advocated when he stated that he found more promising direction to the
ultimate theory of everything is loop quantum gravity that Penrose believes can get around some of the string
theory’s drawbacks.
Loop quantum gravity was developed on the principles that both space and time are discrete or granular rather
than continuous, they are made up of a small and indivisible unit called “loops.” These loops interconnect with
each other in a network and this leads to the formation of the structure of the universe. In contrast to string
theory, loop quantum gravity does not involve the need for additional dimensions or the curling of these
dimensions.

Penrose also states that LQG is more falsifiable than string theory because the latter offers concrete predictions
about the structure of space and time at the smallest scale. He thinks that future experiments, for example, those
that probe the black hole or cosmic microwave background radiation, could confirm or rule out loop quantum
gravity.

The Ongoing Debate

As we have noted, Penrose’s dismissal of string theory and his suggestion of CCC has elicited a lot of
controversy in the scientific circles. On one side, we have the string theorists who believe that their theory is the
only way to go in the search for the ultimate theory of everything. On the other side, we have Penrose and his
allies who have claimed that string theory is a dead end and that CCC is a better way forward. Thus, who will
triumph in this epic battle of the gods? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain: the result will be a revolution in
the way we view the universe and our position in it. If Penrose is right, and string theory is indeed a dead end, it
will take a revolution in our thinking and our most basic theories.

But maybe that is what we should have. Indeed, Penrose himself has stated that “The great thing about science
is that it is never set in stone, and we should never be afraid to question the things that we think are most
obvious, no matter how obvious they may seem.”

Therefore, let us keep an open mind as we proceed to unravel the remaining secrets of the cosmos.

Dark matter doesn’t exist

Earlier we saw how Sir Roger Penrose has dismissed string theory and proposed conformal cyclic cosmology
(CCC). However, Penrose’s iconoclastic views do not end here. He also has some controversial opinions on
another widely accepted concept in modern cosmology: dark matter.

Dark matter, a type of matter that cannot be observed directly, has become the new paradigm of the modern
science. It is believed to make up the majority of the mass of the universe and its force is thought to be
responsible for galaxy and large scale structure formation.

However, Penrose is not convinced. He says that dark matter is a fictitious parameter that is used to justify the
existing cosmological models and that it does not exist. But what is it about dark matter that has Penrose so
skeptical? Let’s go and find that out.

Penrose's Critique of Dark Matter

One primary criticism that Penrose has for dark matter is that it is a theoretical concept that has not been
detected in any form. Although astronomers have observed the gravitational effects that dark matter is said to
produce such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the lensing of light by galaxy clusters, Penrose argues that
these effects can be accounted for in other ways.

Dark matter, according to Penrose, is ‘a fudge factor to make current cosmological models work. ’

In addition, Penrose also points out that dark matter does not respond to electromagnetic waves and appears to
be more massive than normal matter which is quite peculiar and unnatural. He points out that as with other
unanswered questions in astronomy it is a far simpler hypothesis to suppose that our present ideas about the
force of gravity and the character of space-time are only partially right, than it is to believe in the existence of this
weird form of matter, which is beyond the power of even the most powerful telescopes to detect.

Alternative Explanations for Galactic Rotation Curves

Dark matter is still a mystery to scientists, and one of the evidences that pointed to the existence of the dark
matter is the rotation curves of galaxies. These curves depict the velocity of stars and gas as a function of their
distance from the galactic center and in general, they are a flat or rising curve at large distances, contrary to the
Keplerian behavior.

Scientists have concluded this to mean that there exists a large quantity of dark matter surrounding the galaxies
to exert the required force of gravity that will keep the stars and the gaseous material at the periphery of the
galaxy in a circular motion. But Penrose disagrees with this and that for various reasons the rotation curves can
be explained in other ways.

So, according to Penrose, the observed rotation curves do not need the presence of dark matter but might be
due to new theories on gravity or space time. He notes that the flattening or near flatness of the rotation curves
may be due to the curvature of space-time around galaxies; a case that may not be explained by general
relativity theories.

Other physicists have also proposed this idea called ‘modified gravity’ which is an explanation different from the
dark matter hypothesis. Modified theories of gravity can help to explain the observed nature of galaxies and
galaxy clusters without invoking dark matter.

Similar to the case with his opinions regarding the string theory, Penrose’s dismissal of the dark matter concept
has been met with controversy and criticism from members of the academic community. However, today many
astronomers and cosmologists insisted on the fact that dark matter is a part of the interstellar space and the
proofs of it existence are still irrefutable.

In its defence, the critics refer to the fact that Lambda-CDM model does a good job at explaining the mainly
observed attributes of the universe; they also underline the evidence in favour of existents of the dark matter,
including the effect of lensing of light by galaxy clusters and specific characteristics of the cosmic microwave
background radiation.

Critics of Penrose’s outlook have claimed that his opposed theories such as modified gravity are not as viable as
dark matter with regards to the criteria of predictability and general applicability. They think that Penrose’s ideas
are entertaining, but far from compelling, and that generic questions regarding the issue at hand require further
research for the construction of a theory that is falsifiable and that opposes the dark matter hypothesis. However,
I would like to turn the discussion to the more general level and ask the following questions: What are the
consequences of Penrose’s ideas? and How has the scientific community meet those ideas? Well, let’s just wait
and see will be the answer to that question.

Implications for Cosmology and Particle Physics

As Penrose puts it, if the string theory and dark matter are wrong, which he tends to believe, the thinking or rather
understanding of the cosmos and sub-atomic particles will be entirely overthrown. Correcting it would entail
rejecting these concepts and both these fields are almost entirely based on them, which gives one an idea of the
implications of such a process.

For cosmology, the dismissal of dark matter would mean that the stipulated Lambda-CDM model is unfit for use,
hence the need for new theories that can explain the attributes that make up the universe. Penrose himself
suggested an alternative CCC model, but it is not unique to him and other physicists have their own theories such
as modified gravity, and other variations of Lambda-CDM.

Likewise, the dismissal of string theory would force particle physicists to reconsider their efforts to locate the
theory of everything that would explain all the fundamental forces of nature. Consequently, the end of string
theory would indeed create a void that would require the introduction of new concepts and theories. As for more
specific ideas on what this search might involve, Penrose’s own ideas about the nature of space-time and the
implications of quantum effects for cosmology represent one direction though there are many others.

THE CALL FOR REFUTING POPULAR BELIEFS

In whatever way one cares to define this work of Penrose, it reveals great strength from engaging the science
community and provoking people to think in ways contrary to the status quo. Of all the sources of some great
progress in science, there is nothing like a man who dares to think differently than he is expected to, who is
willing to challenge conventional science at a given time.

In the future discussions of the prospects of researches in fundamental physics, the debates on Penrose’ s ideas
will persist. Thanks to the new observational opportunities and newly created methods of observation,
researchers will be able to check the hypotheses of string theory, dark matter, as well as CCC and other
modifications to gravity. Well, that puts us in somewhat of a predicament. Is string theory as well as the existence
of dark matter erroneous as per the definition given by Penrose? Or are they still the best theories of explaining
the relative happening in the universe today? But, more specifically, what place did Penrose’s ideas have in the
constitution of future developments of fundamental physics?

These are questions that will remain open and when asked in the future the physicists and cosmologists will be
trying to provide suitable answers.

But for the meantime, do you have any idea? Have you found this critique of Penrose to string theory and dark
matter persuasive? Or are you of the opinion that such theories are still the most accurate that exist up to date?
Feel free to drop your opinions in the comments section below.