Never trust experimental evidence presented by the author of the theory that it validates.
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:
I'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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time - This would indeed be a fantastic find
A recent video (with original authors) on this topic [0].
tldr; similar to http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/The_Last_Question ?
Could this be evidence of Information panspermia?
I would be very sceptical of data analysis papers with Penrose's name on them.
Penrose & Gurzadyan committed this travesty:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706
...and the entire CMB analysis community quickly rushed to point out the numerous basic errors done in the statistical analysis.
E.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L2...
Gurzadyan & Penrose wrote the kind of paper that should never have passed basic peer review. And even when "everyone" pointed out Gurzadyan does not have a clue about data analysis they still stuck to it.
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.
Edit: Another less polite and clearer exposition of Gurzadyan's "methods" https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2012/02/aa17344-...