The Aeon Before Ours · study CCC-S001
The quantitative record of CCC signature claims and searches
What quantitative signature claims exist in the CCC literature — circles and Hawking points, with what abundance, amplitude, angular scale, and significance — what did each search or critique actually test, and in each case, who supplied the signal model, CCC or the searchers themselves?
Frozen criteriafrozen 2026-08-26 · hash 906a0e73ef3c
Fixed before data collection; any later edit fails the site build. A correction would be a new study superseding this one.
include
- Papers from 2010-2026 that claim, predict, or test an observational CCC signature (concentric low-variance circles, Hawking points, or another stated CCC imprint) with quantitative content — a reported significance, abundance, amplitude, angular scale, or derived relation.
- Refereed publications enter as full rows; arXiv-only preprints enter flagged as unrefereed, never silently mixed — the 2025 Meissner-Penrose mass-temperature fragment is the live example.
- Both sides enter under identical rules — proponent claims and critique reanalyses are rows of the same table, tagged.
exclude
- Purely theoretical CCC papers with no observational-signature quantity (context, not rows).
- Popular accounts, talks, and commentary without new quantitative content.
- General CMB-anomaly literature that does not engage CCC signatures specifically.
search protocol (re-runnable)
Multi-searcher discovery, run only after this freeze, protocol verbatim per searcher: (1) OpenAI deep research (o4-mini-deep-research, background mode; documented substitute if unavailable, deviation recorded in the limitations); (2) Gemini deep research (background mode, store enabled); (3) the executing agent's own web search. Literal queries, each run in all three: [Gurzadyan Penrose concentric circles CMB]; [conformal cyclic cosmology observational signature search]; [Hawking points CMB An Meissner Nurowski Penrose]; [concentric circles CMB reanalysis significance]; [CCC circles critique Wehus Eriksen Moss Scott Zibin Hajian]; [Jow Scott Hawking points re-evaluation]. Per-candidate follow-up: arXiv identifier and DOI resolution to the primary document, plus the paper title with "significance" and "simulations". Sources searched: arXiv, MNRAS, JCAP, ApJ, EPJ and IJMPD via DOI resolution. Deep-research output is a brief; it proposes candidates and is never cited; every cell is verified natively against the primary document before entering the table.
candidates known at freeze time — dispositions pre-committed
| candidate | disposition | reason |
|---|---|---|
| Gurzadyan & Penrose 2010 (concentric circles claim) | include | the founding observational claim; refereed status recorded on the row at collection |
| Wehus & Eriksen 2011 (circles reanalysis) | include | independent reanalysis with simulations |
| Moss, Scott & Zibin 2011 (circles critique) | include | independent critique showing comparable structures in simulated skies |
| Hajian 2011 (circles reanalysis) | include | independent statistical test of the circles claim |
| An, Meissner, Nurowski & Penrose 2020 (Hawking points; anisotropic ring-center distribution) | include | the load-bearing Hawking-points significance claim (CCC-C004) and the anisotropy report (CCC-C504) |
| Jow & Scott 2020 (Hawking points re-evaluation) | include | the direct critique re-testing the Hawking-points claim |
| Bodnia et al. (signal-model gap analysis named by CCC-R005) | include | names the qualitative-prediction gap this study tabulates |
| Meissner & Penrose 2025 preprint (mass-temperature relation fragment) | include | enters flagged as unrefereed per the frozen rule |
Method
Discovery per the frozen protocol; one row per paper, each cell citing the primary document with the standard verification label. The decisive column is signal-model provenance — for every search, who supplied the expected abundance, amplitude, profile, and sky distribution: a derivation from CCC, or a choice by the searchers. That column is what CCC-C011 asserts and what CCC-R005 needs made precise, and it is recorded from each paper's own methods section, never inferred. Quantitative claims are quoted with their stated significances and their stated null models; proponent and critique rows are graded by identical rules, and disagreements between them are recorded as the papers state them, not adjudicated by this table. Failed searches are reported, and the searcher-overlap coverage indicator is given. Either outcome publishes.
The table13 rows
| paper | side | signature | dataset | quantitative claim (with stated significance) | null model | signal-model provenance | status in the literature | source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gurzadyan & Penrose 2010, 'Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity' (arXiv:1011.3706) | proponent | concentric low-variance circles | WMAP 7-year temperature maps; BOOMERanG98 as instrument check | concentric circles 'of up to 6σ significance'; BOOMERanG confirmation 'eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause' | ΛCDM simulations as implemented by the authors | the searchers' operationalization: CCC predicts low-variance rings qualitatively; ring radii, variance statistic, and center-search procedure are the authors' choices — no CCC-derived abundance or amplitude distribution existed to bind to | reproduced but judged non-anomalous by three independent reanalyses (rows below); the authors maintained the claim in follow-ups | arXiv:1011.3706 (abstract read at native verification 2026-08-26); ledger source SRC-GURZADYAN-PENROSE-2010 (verified 2026-08-22 batch) AI-verified citation |
| Wehus & Eriksen 2011, 'A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps' (ApJL 733:L29) | critique | concentric low-variance circles | WMAP 7-year | the claimed ring structures reproduce, 'thereby verifying their computational procedures,' but simulations show 'a substantially larger variance... to the extent that the observed WMAP sky maps are fully consistent with the ΛCDM model as measured by these statistics' | ΛCDM simulations with instrument noise, χ² statistics and matched filters | searchers' choice, matched to Gurzadyan-Penrose's procedure for comparability — the critique's central finding is that the proponents' simulations, not their data processing, were at fault | one of three converging independent nulls on the circles | ApJL 733:L29 (2011), doi 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/l29 (abstract and findings read at native verification); ledger source SRC-WEHUS-ERIKSEN-2011 AI-verified citation |
| Moss, Scott & Zibin 2011, 'No evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky' (JCAP04(2011)033) | critique | concentric low-variance circles | WMAP 7-year | 'this variation is entirely expected in a sky which contains the usual CMB anisotropies... properly simulated Gaussian CMB data contain just the sorts of variations claimed' | Gaussian CMB simulations with standard anisotropy structure | searchers' choice, replicating the proponents' statistic; the paper's conclusion is that the proponents 'have simply re-discovered that the CMB contains structure' | converging null | JCAP04(2011)033, doi 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/04/033 (read at native verification); ledger source SRC-MOSS-SCOTT-ZIBIN-2011 AI-verified citation |
| Hajian 2011, 'Are there echoes from the pre-Big Bang universe? A search for low-variance circles in the CMB sky' (ApJ 740:52) | critique | concentric low-variance circles | WMAP 7-year, with realistic anisotropic-noise modeling | 'the circles are not anomalous and... all three groups are consistent at 3sigma level with a Gaussian CMB sky as predicted by inflationary cosmology' | Monte Carlo CMB simulations with anisotropic WMAP noise | searchers' choice — and the paper states the structural point this study tabulates: 'The CCC model at its present stage lacks quantitative predictions of the actual observables needed for testing the model' | converging null; the explicit statement of the signal-model gap | ApJ 740:52 (2011), doi 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/52 (read at native verification); ledger source SRC-HAJIAN-2011 AI-verified citation |
| Gurzadyan & Penrose 2013, 'On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky' (Eur. Phys. J. Plus) | proponent | concentric low-variance circles (sky-twist test; center anisotropy) | WMAP, analyzed directly 'without appeal to simulations' | prevalence of concentric sets 'depends on the rings being circular, rather than even slightly elliptical, numbers dropping off dramatically with increasing ellipticity'; ring-center distribution reported as strongly anisotropic (CCC-C504 carries the 1134-center figure) | none — the sky-twist procedure replaces simulation comparison, which is itself the methodological dispute | the searchers' new statistic (sky-twist), introduced by the proponents after the simulation-based critiques — the signal model moved rather than being derived | contested; DeAbreu et al. 2015 responds | Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128(2):22 (2013), doi 10.1140/epjp/i2013-13022-4, arXiv:1302.5162 — ledger source SRC-GURZADYAN-PENROSE-2013 (DOI via Crossref, abstract via arXiv API); quantitative content per ledger evidence CCC-E006 AI-verified citation |
| Meissner, Nurowski & Ruszczycki 2013, 'Structures in the microwave background radiation' (Proc. R. Soc. A) | proponent | ring-type structures | WMAP versus artificial statistical maps of the same harmonic content | 'there are, with confidence level 99.7%, ring-type structures in the observed cosmic microwave background' | artificial purely-statistical maps matching harmonic content | the searchers' statistic; the paper tests for structure generically rather than binding to a CCC-derived signal | cited by the later Hawking-points program | Proc. R. Soc. A 469(2155):20130116 (2013), doi 10.1098/rspa.2013.0116, arXiv:1207.2498 — ledger source SRC-MEISSNER-NUROWSKI-RUSZCZYCKI-2013; quantitative content per ledger evidence CCC-E007 AI-verified citation |
| DeAbreu, Contreras & Scott 2015, 'Searching for concentric low variance circles in the cosmic microwave background' (JCAP) | critique | concentric low-variance circles | WMAP and Planck | reproduces the 'apparently special directions' in Planck data, but 'these features are present at the same level of abundance in simulated Gaussian CMB skies' | simulated Gaussian CMB skies | searchers' choice, replicating the proponents' procedure on newer data | answered by An, Meissner, Nurowski & Penrose 2020, who argue the sky-twist analysis was not repeated (ledger evidence CCC-E013) | JCAP 2015(12):031, doi 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/031, arXiv:1508.05158 — ledger source SRC-DEABREU-2015; quantitative content per ledger evidence CCC-E008 AI-verified citation |
| An, Meissner & Nurowski 2017, 'Ring-type structures in the Planck map of the CMB' (MNRAS) | proponent | ring-type structures | Planck | ring-type structures at 99.4% confidence (as characterized in the 2020 paper by the same program) | simulations per the program's method | the program's own statistic, carried forward from the 2013 papers | precursor to the Hawking-points claim | MNRAS 473(3):3251-3255, doi 10.1093/mnras/stx2299 — ledger source SRC-AN-MEISSNER-NUROWSKI-2017 (DOI and bibliography via Crossref; result characterized via the 2020 paper, as the ledger's verification note records) AI-verified citation |
| An, Meissner, Nurowski & Penrose 2020, 'Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB sky' (MNRAS 495(3):3403-3408) | proponent | Hawking points | Planck 70 GHz versus 1,000 then 10,000 simulations; same locations checked in WMAP | 'anomalous circular spots, of significantly raised temperature,' angular radii 0.03-0.04 rad with 'a clear cut-off at that size,' at a 99.98% confidence level | standard simulations (1,000, extended to 10,000); WMAP cross-check against 1,000 WMAP simulations | CCC motivates hot point-like sources qualitatively; the spot statistic, size window, and thresholds are the searchers' — the derived mass-temperature relation arrives only in the 2025 preprint (row below) | directly re-tested by Jow & Scott 2020 (next row) | MNRAS 495(3):3403-3408 (2020), doi 10.1093/mnras/staa1343, arXiv:1808.01740 (abstract and details read at native verification); ledger source SRC-AN-MEISSNER-NUROWSKI-PENROSE-2020 AI-verified citation |
| Jow & Scott 2020, 'Re-evaluating evidence for Hawking points in the CMB' (JCAP03(2020)021) | critique | Hawking points | Planck 2018 SMICA full- and half-mission maps | 'after marginalization over the size of the rings, an excess is detected in Planck satellite maps at only an 87% confidence level (i.e., little more than 1σ)' — the 99.98% figure does not survive the look-elsewhere correction | Gaussian simulations from the best-fit Planck spectrum | searchers' choice, following the proponents' method 'as closely as possible' and then marginalizing over the free parameter the proponents fixed | the standing quantitative rebuttal to the 99.98% claim | JCAP03(2020)021, doi 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/021, arXiv:1909.09672 (full text saved and read at native verification); ledger source SRC-JOW-SCOTT-2020 AI-verified citation |
| Lopez et al. 2022, 'Searching for ring-like structures in the cosmic microwave background' (refereed; ledger-verified) | critique | Hawking points (ring-like structures) | Planck, with a detection method validated on artificial CCC-constructed Hawking points ('we were able to retrieve 95% of ring-like anomalies') | 'no significant ring-like structures were observed'; reports the largest excess of Hawking-point candidates found, without significance | ΛCDM simulations | a validated artificial-signal pipeline — the closest any search has come to a bound signal model, built by the searchers from CCC's qualitative description | independent null with explicit signal-injection validation | MNRAS 519(1):922-930, doi 10.1093/mnras/stac3485, arXiv:2105.03990 — ledger source SRC-LOPEZ-2022; quantitative content per ledger evidence CCC-E011 AI-verified citation |
| Bodnia et al. 2024, 'The quest for CMB signatures of conformal cyclic cosmology' (refereed; ledger-verified full text) | critique | concentric circles and Hawking points (maximum-resolution search) | Planck and WMAP at maximum resolution | isolated bright or dark pixels 'erroneously lead to regions with many low-variance circles, and consequently sets of near-concentric low-variance circles, when applying the search criteria used in previous work' | ΛCDM plus the pixel-artifact mechanism identified | the paper names the structural problem this study tabulates: CCC's signatures are under-specified, so every search invents its own pipeline — the signal-model gap CCC-R005 quotes | the current methodological synthesis on both signatures | JCAP 2024(05):009, doi 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/009, arXiv:2208.06021 — ledger source SRC-BODNIA-2024 (published full text read in the 2026-08-22 verification batch); quantitative content per ledger evidence CCC-E012 AI-verified citation |
| Meissner & Penrose 2025 preprint (UNREFEREED — flagged per the frozen rule) | proponent | Hawking points: a derived mass-temperature relation | theoretical derivation; argues the temperature rise in observed spots should be determined by the total mass of the prior-aeon source | a mass-energy conservation law across the crossover, from which a Hawking-spot temperature scale follows — the first CCC-derived fragment of a signal model, as CCC-R005 records | not applicable — a prediction-supplying paper, not a search | CCC-derived, for the first time in this table: exactly the missing ingredient every prior row's search had to invent | unrefereed; not yet bound to a preregistered search (that is CCC-R001's work) | arXiv:2503.24263 (gr-qc, submitted 2025-03-31) — ledger source SRC-MEISSNER-PENROSE-2025; content per ledger evidence CCC-E022 (direction qualifies) AI-verified citation |
Findings
- The signal-model-provenance column comes back unanimous across twelve search rows: in every published search, on both sides, the operative signal model — statistic, size window, thresholds, expected abundance — was supplied by the searchers, not derived from CCC. Hajian 2011 states it outright ('the CCC model at its present stage lacks quantitative predictions of the actual observables'), Bodnia et al. make it the center of the current methodological synthesis, and the one CCC-derived fragment (a mass-temperature relation) appears only in a 2025 unrefereed preprint that no search has yet used. CCC-C011's assertion is not an opinion about the literature; it is the literature's own record.→ ledger record CCC-E023
- The quantitative trajectory is symmetric and unresolved by assertion: the proponents' significances (up to 6\u03c3 circles; 99.7% rings; 99.4% rings; 99.98% Hawking points) each met an independent reanalysis that reproduced the features and dissolved the significance (fully consistent with \u039bCDM; entirely expected; not anomalous; 87% after marginalizing the free parameter). The recurring mechanism is identical in every cycle: a free choice the claim fixed, which the critique varied — ring radii, ellipticity procedure, spot size. That is what an under-specified signal model does, and it is why the preregistered search this case proposes (CCC-R001) needs the derived predictions this study finds only one unrefereed fragment of.→ ledger record CCC-E023
- Interpretive discipline note, both directions: this table does not adjudicate whether circles or Hawking points exist; it records that no claim on either side was produced under a protocol whose signal model, null model, and statistics were fixed before the data were examined. Every row's numbers are quoted from the papers' own abstracts and stated methods, and the disagreements between rows are recorded as the papers state them.
Limitations
- Searcher coverage, reported bluntly: the OpenAI substitute run fabricated its table — wrong arXiv identifiers, invented verbatim quotes (including spot amplitudes and radii contradicting the verified record), and invented methods-section provenance language — and was discarded entirely, contributing nothing. The Gemini deep-research run corroborated the table — including the Bodnia author list, the Lopez refereed venue, and the pixel-artifact mechanism verbatim — and surfaced no search paper beyond the thirteen rows; its interpretive glosses ('decisive blow,' a '2026 critical consensus') were not adopted. Every cell above was verified natively against the primary document or anchored to a ledger source verified in the case's 2026-08-22 batch, with the anchor stated per row.
- Two rows (Gurzadyan-Penrose 2013; An-Meissner-Nurowski 2017) rest on ledger verification notes that characterize results partly through later papers of the same program, as those notes themselves record; their cells are correspondingly coarser.
- The Meissner-Penrose 2025 row is unrefereed (arXiv only) and enters flagged, as the frozen criteria require; it is in the table because it is the only CCC-derived signal fragment in the literature, and its content cell carries only what the ledger's verified evidence record (CCC-E022) states.
- Stage provenance: the freeze stamp (runId 2026-08-26-study-ccc-s001-freeze, promptVersion aletheia-study-freeze-v1) is preserved in the freeze PR and the header comment; criteria hash 906a0e73ef3c re-verifies unchanged at collection.
provenance
AI-authored project work (Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), via Cursor), run 2026-08-26-study-ccc-s001-collect on 2026-08-26, prompt aletheia-study-collect-v1 — not human-reviewed. A study is secondary synthesis of published material under criteria frozen in advance; it never grades a claim. Whatever it shows enters the case only as ordinary evidence records, judged by the independent model panel like everything else.
Executes research item: CCC-R005 (Quantitative CCC signature predictions for preregistration)