Roger Penrose | The Next Universe and Before the Big Bang | Nobel Prize in Physics winner

What came before the Big Bang? What happens when our universe ends? Eminent theoretical physicist, Hawking collaborator and 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics winner, Roger Penrose, has a radical theory which proposes that another universe will follow our own. How could this be? Hear him put forward his case and review the latest evidence.
#penrose #gravity #physics #iaitv #hawking
** Subscribe to the Institute of Art and Ideas / iaitv
** Listen to our weekly podcast: / instituteofart. .
** Donate to the Institute of Art and Ideas: iai.tv/support-the-iai/donate
Roger Penrose: Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. He is author of The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a comprehensive guide to the Laws of Physics, as well his own theory on the Penrose Interpretation.
DELVE DEEPER
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@raymondfung1612]

Based on Professor Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology theory, I would like to suggest a couple of modifications. Specifically, mass turns into radiation through fusion, fission and hawking radiation. As total mass in the universe reduces, space-time expands. After the last proton decays into radiation, only electromagnetic waves are left, and the universe becomes a system of pure energy. At this point, the universe reaches maximum entropy, and with no mass, there is no more space-time. Wavelengths of electromagnetic waves become meaningless as well. Interestingly, at this point, with no space-time, what was supposed to be the state with maximum entropy and volume suddenly also becomes the state of having no volume and the lowest entropy (this is hard to understand per Professor Penrose). This condition is similar to the state described in the 10^-43 second “Planck Epoch”. At Planck Epoch, the system has a pile of energy and has the minimum entropy. As prescribed by the second law of thermodynamics and the uncertainty principle, the stochastic nature and the need to get out of the state of minimum entropy suggest that some of the energy would suddenly convert into mass on a stochastic basis (remember e=mc^2), and with the emergence of mass, space-time would suddenly re-emerge. The key here is that the expansion process isn’t continuous, as suggested by the inflation process in the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. Instead, it suddenly happens in a blink, and mass is distributed like the distribution of water droplets on a mirror after a splash, some big, some small, unevenly across the newly re-emerged space-time, with some energy not turning into mass and becoming background radiation we observe today. As mass turns into radiation through the fusion and fission processes, the total mass in the universe reduces, space-time expands, and the cycle repeats itself. This hypothesis presents a plausible alternative to the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory. The recent discovery of large galaxy systems at 400/500 million years post Big Bang supports this hypothesis. I hope this provides some food for thought and provokes further thinking. Cheers!

[@Autonova]

Brilliant info thanks a lot! Just curious, could you please expand on this - "The recent discovery of large galaxy systems at 400/500 million years post Big Bang supports this hypothesis". I recently heard about these anomalous galaxy sightings, how do they validate the CCC theory?

[@deepaktripathi4417]

This humble Nobel laureate scientist calls himself an agnostic,he believes that to ask about the meaning of life is not a stupid question. He doesn't make me depressed.

[@vorador4365]

Damn. You only get half the Penrose experience without an overhead projector. One of the greatest living minds

[@caseywebb2793]

Agreed. When I didn't see an overhead projector, I was a little disappointed

[@SergioDPerez-rm3dk]

ridiculous

[@je25ff]

It's made even worse that the camera doesn't even occasionally focus on the slide.

[@juddbiggs]

He might have a great mind, but he had a very narrow perspective in thinking there was nothing before the big bang...what a waste of time without infinity in the equation? Much more likely...William Blake was right. Often these incredible mathematicians seem to be horrible at theory. It is like they can't see the forest for the trees I would put things this way from a prophetic quote of Gibran......there is the infinitely small and the infinitely large... So....particles are containment....with containment there must be breach of containment...what goes in or down must come out or go up? The small creates the large making fields of containment...the large creates the small when the containment fields cannot hold the energy within...hence infinity. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed...it can only be contained and released. Is it a living infinity of conscious change...that is logical and defies logic at the same time? We call this God creation? Infinity appears to be illogical...how can reality exist ?...but non infinity is also not logical...how can something come from nothing? Maybe ii is 'Nothing' that has never existed and never will?? Why did God create time? So everything does not happen all at once? 😁😁😁

[@sourcecode6467]

Roger's brain is working in a higher realm to most of us

[@thebookofthesun884]

Please look up the definition of 'word salad'.

[@dbgsdc3913]

He is one of the greatest mathematician in physics I mean in real physics,

[@cosmotalk7227]

No, It is Normal for Theoretical Physicists, well, except some of the Laypeople, If you try to Focus on the Subject & type of Matter or in this case Big Bang, then it'll be easy, just needs Interest, Passion & Dedication.

[@kkandola9072]

@@thebookofthesun884 haha people love to quote Einstein “ if you can’t explain it to a 5 year old you don’t understand it”. It’s much easier to blame the speaker than blame your own lack of comprehension.

[@jararacavoadora5868]

@@thebookofthesun884 haha he just won a Nobel Prize

[@infinitel00p94]

0:42 ""Before I get to that, let me...describe the universe" delightful!

[@suvrat]

90 years old and still so curious! :)

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

87?

[@cosmotalk7227]

89, this year(2021) will be 90

[@cosmotalk7227]

@@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668 89, this year(2021) will be 90

[@starwaving8857]

Already occupied space is part of the equation that is a constant. I couldn’t give you the whole equation but at 90 you should know part of it.

[@cfluff6716]

Penrose seems so genuine and humble.

[@dencameron3450]

He is - a lovely gentle guy

[@GokuBlack-yg5kc]

When you have a 74 and 77 year old battling it out and they both lack fundamental knowledge in a lot of things. And they are both running for president. Then you have Roger Penrose, 89 years old and is one of the most fluent physics speakers, and on of the smartest and ambitious physicist and mathematician in the entire world.

[@Uubermensch]

Then there's you with too much time comparing a physicist to a politician. Good and evil exist in human culture, which is too heavy to change too quickly.

[@kikodekliko1209]

Luckily America isn't the only place with political leaders.

[@johnlivorness2204]

The world is not a classroom of lab, our political leaders need real world experience. That’s why Einstein refused any political position he was offered, including the president of Israel.

[@justinmadrid8712]

Yet the 89 year old man is wasting his intellect speculating about completely useless things that do not affect us in the slightest. (I suppose that is better than the 77 year old man destroying our economy on purpose)

[@mattd6200]

Believe it or not he has denounced white nationalism and is now liberal.

[@erniepomeroy2487]

this is a hell of a thing to try explaining in a 1/2 hour

[@Feelthefx]

Shouldn’t need to take long. Einstein explained the universe with 3 variables

[@eddie1975utube]

@@Feelthefx 2 variables and one constant.

[@starwaving8857]

Easier when wrong because right is a lot more complicated and simple.

[@AUniqueHandleName444]

@@Feelthefx lmao no. He explained one tiny tiny tiny facet of the behavior of the universe. e=mc^2 is not "explaining the universe".

[@threelionsonourshirt8259]

This guy needs to be listened to..Very clever man and at his age still going strong.I take my hat off to you sir Penrose

[@malcolm9994]

Sir Roger !!

[@threelionsonourshirt8259]

@Ozymandias Heliogabal Nullifidian Its a song by The Lightening seeds for The England football team in 96

[@aletheia161]

alexander roils tomorrow was the joy

[@chewyjello1]

And this year he won the Noble Prize in physics! :)

[@laszlomesz2447]

@William White He is much of a scientist as Einstein. They are kinda flat-earthers.

[@im415again]

Glad they found the biggest 32” tv they could find to help these seniors see his presentation clearly.

[@gmshadowtraders]

lol ikr! The mind boggles

[@catmandrew100]

If you increase the volume the temp. And pressure goes down if you decrease the volume or " squish the volume" the temperature and pressure goes up. That reminds me of the Ideal Gas Law. V1 P1/T1 = V2 P2/T2 . That is an elegant equation.

[@Patrick77487]

What a mind! Penrose becomes more animated / interesting / sometimes hilarious in lectures rather than sit-down discussions. "but don't worry about that right now..." lol

[@monkeytron5061]

Why have I only just discovered this man!? His stuff on consciousness is fascinating.

[@Megan-ii4gf]

Sir Roger may have just discovered a way to prove the previous universe. If his hypothesis is correct, this is simply HUGE! I'm so thankful, he truly deserves his Knighthood and Nobel Prize. Outstanding man.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

On that he is right but not how he draws it due that all systems are one circle into a bigger one.

[@briansmith3791]

Spot on. Roger Penrose is a great scientist and a humble man. His "incredibly complex geometry" 1:10^10^124, before the Big Bang, is a big step in our understanding of the Universe. As he says this is a "demonstrable fact".

[@vhawk1951kl]

Plainly you simply canot understand that any thing that attracts the epithet the universe-everything everywhere Evrywhen must be definition be unique; it is axiomatic that the re can only be *One* everything everywhere everywhen or totality. If whatever you have in mind is not everything everywhere eveywhen and unique, hen it cannot possibly be the universe everything or totality. It is axiomatic that universals are unique; even a small imbecile child will tell you that there can *only be one* Everything, the universe or totality because by definition it is* All_Embracing* and if whatever you have in mind is not everything everywhere eveywhen and unique, then what you have in mind not only is not the universe, it is axiomatic that it*could not possibly* be the universe. In babytalk: there can only be One* Everything. If you struggle with that axiom try the shallow end of this particular pool. Similiter if you cannot grasp the idea of mutual exclusivity.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

He gets a Nobel Prize on a 1965 mathematical work on black holes as being complimentary to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What he attempts to describe in this video, is not scientific or mathematical work and has several misunderstandings of astronomical proportions. Penrose was a mathematical physicist, professor and theorist, not an astronomer or astrophysicist nor an experimental physicist. He seems to cram the observed world into drawings by MC Escher. His hypothesis doesn't have any scientific evidence and is largely philosophical.

[@Zephyr-wb4vo]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus says youtube rando with tiktok logic?

[@WestOfEarth]

what I appreciate about this hypothesis is that it makes predictions about what we should see - just as Einstein's equations do. It's rare though at this level of cosmology which often times borders on philosophy rather than science.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The ideas make predictions which thus far haven't been observed nor found in the minutest details of volumous data. He conflagrates different ideas together like an MC Escher drawing, hoping someday they turn out to be reality. There is no science here when the postulates are incorrect and certainly he's performed no scientific tests to undergird his ideas. I agree he was a great thinker in the 60's and 70's regarding mathematical ideas relating to Einstein's theories and black hole formations, which Nobel Prize he recently shared between 2 other people. A 1965 recognition long overdue, if you ask me.

[@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli]

Poor Roger was asked to bring the computer monitor on his desk as part of his presentation.

[@SuperLkelley]

I was a biochem student at Oxford living with my maths friend in our rooms in the 90's. We were both interested in theories of the universe and I knew about Penrose. He was giving a lecture at the maths department way out of both of our leagues. But we decided to go. I sat in the front row. Roger had to write some text on the chalkboard - saying something like "Riemann sphere". It was illegible. He was struggling to write the simplest words. Then he needed to draw the 4 dimensional projection of an 8 dimensional complex space on a 2D blackboard - it was a work of art. The entire experience blew my mind and I have forever fascinated and studying all his work. I wish I could just drop him an email to say how he changed my life. Amazing, amazing man. He is a hero to me.

[@zero15388]

21:08 when he's talking about black holes and their eventual demise (going pop / exploding), I thought a google years sounded like a scary amount of time. But when he illustrated his point saying : the graph is not to scale and it would be towards the edge of the universe when they go boom, my head exploded too!

[@ialrakis5173]

Never heard about his guy in my youth but man he's so worth listening to.

[@KeithRowley418]

What an honor and privilege to listen to this great scientist. He's the only one who really fills me with awe at his intellect and imagination. Wonderful.

[@johnayres2303]

It is a pity that full screen slides could not have been edited into the presentation.

[@imgayasheck595]

They are the same slides he always uses in his lectures, check out any one of them

[@Age_of_Apocalypse]

Fascinating and so interesting! 👍👍👏👏 Many, many Thanks for the video!

[@roberthill9946]

Passionately love this. Anything or anyone that provokes tantalising thought and thinking is just so profoundly wonderful.

[@Rishi123456789]

I completely agree with you.

[@woufff_]

When you listen to Roger Penrose, fasten your seat belt. World's greatest mind at the moment.

[@ggg148g]

I really wish that more scientists were like Roger Penrose. Don't misunderstand me, science rocks, quackery doesn't (I made it short). But science could rock even faster and harder.

[@davidwright8432]

Agreed! Roger's 'visualizations' (as I therm them) have a great charm of their own - I'd claim they're artworks - but can you imagine what full-bore Hollywood computer Generated Imagery could do?!

[@aliensarerealttsa6198]

Physicists: Antimatter. Sane person: You mean matter? Or a specific and unique counter particle that can cause annihilation(another illiterate word from physicists)?

[@caterinadelgalles8783]

I understood this much better with his chat with Lex Freidman, without visuals. I just recently found out about Sir Penrose due to Richard Dawkins. Thank you for this Roger! :) I agree that the inflation theory seams a bit hard to imagine.

[@someoneinmyhead]

An honor to listen to this man. It's sad he has to use that miniature screen to share such a profound vision.

[@matthewdolan5831]

His work resembles the infinity symbol itself. Marvellous stuff.

[@jeffreymartin8448]

Magnificent. Loved it!!!

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

At time 28:04 he shows 4 sets of 2 rings where one is inside the other one where he says there must to be a difference in temperature from the inside circle to the out circle. - For sure those circles are there since all systems are like that, you dont have to go that far just take a look to the 4 rocky planets inside the inner asteroid belt and this inside asteroide belt inside the outer asteroid belt after Neptune where my guess the inside should always be hotter than the out side due that is closer to the sun or the nucleous. - As a rule the inside in radius is half the out side, as well is in matter, and gravity like is you add the gravity from the inside rocky planets you get 26M/S2 while the out side is 52M/S2.

[@seabeepirate]

Sir Roger, I believe the missing bit you are looking for is a rotational symmetry instead of a linear symmetry. At the end of the universe when black holes have doled out their last quanta of hawking radiation and the photons settle into a configuration where they cease to interact, the difference between complete entropy and total lack of entropy are a matter of scale. This reminds me of a Klein bottle in that entropy has returned to its origin without circling or crossing paths.

[@johncurtis920]

Marvelous. And from the (statistically relevant) discovery of those rings, as pointed out by Penrose at the end of this discussion, I get the sense that his idea may have just nailed the whole concept of the Universe. His insight is worthy of Einstein, so now to solidify the proving of it. We exist, are emergent, out of an MC Escher print. Who knew? Heh! But regardless, to get right down to it I think it comes to this. To borrow from the Hindu....it's Turtles all the way down, and up, there Roger. BRILLIANT! John~ American Net'Zen

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The supposed "Penrose rings" are large scale "random distribution" areas of very very small ( ± 0.00003 K) temperature differences in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Best estimates are that 300,000 years had to pass before the universe experienced light and the CMB is a product of that time. There are NO rings, NO prior universe fingerprints except in Penrose aging mind.

[@PedroOnOrder-kr4fr]

Here Here!!!

[@sweemok4995]

Very interesting seminar. It would be wonderful if Professor Penrose can have a follow up seminar on how this might explain those larger than expected very early galaxies, among other things, observed by the James Webb telescope, in 2023.

[@xxxsleepingawakexxx]

Awesome talk! Never knew about this guy until youtube feed preferences. I'll be researching more of his studies. I often thought the universe was a reflection of another when I was younger, thanks to multi-universe comic books. Do super massive black holes collapse into singularities? Can multi-universes operate as a uniform collective? Or would one universe have to die before another born?

[@yendorelrae5476]

Every black hole contains a singularity/ringularity, black holes don't collapse, a dying star collapses into a singularity causing the black hole.

[@cosmotalk7227]

Well, There are two Contexts of how we can believe on CCC(Conformal Cyclic Cosmology):- (1) Open Universe (2) Closed Universe in the Open Universe theory, the Universe would have to Expand Constantly according, to the Hubble's Constant(H0), it will be a challenge, Because, it would need a force to counter-attack the Force of Dark Matter/Gravity, to stable the Universe, or else it would expand Continuously(>H0) or collapse very Quickly. In a Closed universe it remains static or constant.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou.

[@alexobed4252]

I couldn't love this man more.

[@daspacechoechechoz9028]

Penrose is a brilliant guy with a great way of communicating, clearly on a path to answer the ultimate question. The nature of the universe beginning (or however it came to be) and...whatever the heck is happening after that in this sheet of space-time. Presenting to what appears to be an audience that wandered in for a low budget planetarium at a town fair. Mommy where's the stars?? I want to see Neptune! It looks rather uncomfortable in there, especially Sly Stallone. Penrose has produced some "very technical" fascinating work on physics and consciousness worth investigating as well. Awesome.

[@williammarzano872]

All very well. I think these scientists really exercise their imaginations to create ideas to avoid the reality of a Creator.

[@SPDLand]

@@williammarzano872 Almost. The Creator has by now been found to not have created a gazillion of things that have been found explainable by science only. In 100% of all solved cases sofar. So God - Science = 0 - Gazillion and therefore a 100% score. Expressed in wisdom and ability of logical reason, how wise would someone be with this background info and no proof what so ever of the existence of a Creator, that 'yes but apart from that, all the other stuff science has not quite explained yet, comes from the Creator!' -statement will actually stand strong 'next time'?

[@Joe-ym6bw]

​@@williammarzano872 god is a delusional concept of man's mind there is no god face reality

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

​@@williammarzano872 you'll never get, will you? Scientists do all the hard work to come up with every *possible* explanation, try even harder to find ways to test their hypothesis' and are HAPPY to venture where the evidence leads (YES, even your skydaddy) And then, they come forward to claim their *hard* earn spot in recognition.

[@DavidRexGlenn]

I miss the jumbled mess of transparencies

[@everything777]

A 40 inch TV with a picture that only uses half the screen isn't any better lol

[@daquion7830]

Great lecture! I am still reading Emperors new mind.

[@walterbishop3668]

I should read it. Been on my desk for the past 5 years

[@robertdobosz9681]

It's about time the international physics community seriously consider Penrose's CCC model.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

He does not explain how they come to be or why the reazon they get in same form as one after the other.

[@jari2018]

Does the Black holes or formers stars on bygone Eon have a names? I suggest two names Penrose and Roger . But then again the black holes seen there are not from invidual stars but homongous black holes bigger? than anything now or are they shrunk to ..what size ?

[@lockeisback]

since one of the arguments for dark matter is that its needed to provide the initial variation after the big bang, who else thinks the rest of his slides are about how these previous universe fluctuations might be dark matter?

[@deanhill4874]

Of all the strange theories of what might have been Physically at The Begining & The End, this is the one which makes the most sense to me and if Sir Rog is Right I'm thinking he might be as The Maths Worx...

[@jasonwiley798]

From a purely aesthetic standpoint I prefer his hypothesis of a repeating universe. I admit I don't understand the details, but it is comforting to think that if we humans screw up this iteration, there will be more opportunities to get it right in the future. The sad thing is it we may have figured it out in a past iteration but don't remember what it was. This is all reminiscent of Hoyle's great contraction which I guess got disproved by that stinker Hubble. We all have our disappointments in life

[@secularvalue1114]

A cyclical Universe. Vedas metioned this thousands of years ago, in India.

[@siriosstar4789]

one idea about "infinity" . It's not infinite if it has a starting point as in observing the physical universe through a telescope and seeing no apparent limit or end.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

How can you compress endless or eternity.

[@onemediuminmotion]

Electrons, like atoms, and black holes, and the universe as a whole, are horn toroidal fluid vortices (hence "point-particles") in/of the single, scale-uniform 'super-fluid' medium (I call it the SUM, a.k.a. "space-time") whose self-relative motion (a.k.a. "acceleration"; "momentum"; "push") as vortices and waves, comprises the evolving (hence "time") structure of the universe and all of its content "physical objects". Therefore we can say that the "material universe" is 'pure motion' (primarily point-radial in trajectory). The Einsteinian "time dilation/ length contraction" principle applies to the SUM itself, meaning that its self-relative motion ("acceleration" as 'motion relative to itself') is the mechanism by which the otherwise absolutely homogenous SUM 'self-differentiates' into the structural diversity of the observable universe, including our own bodies. Also, therefore, not only do massive objects "curve spacetime", massive objects ARE "curved spacetime". The inflow of the SUM equals the point-radial outflow "expansion" of the SUM compression wavefront that is the surface of the mass-object (e.g. the Earth). Ergo the "gravitational (and smaller scale) field(s)". Since SUM fluid vortices, and every complex manifold thereof, including ourselves, constitute 'I/O devices' (inflow/outflow; input/output; positive/negative; "yin/yang"; etc.), we can say that the physical universe is comprised by an otherwise, absolutely continuous SUM "simulating" (by means of its self-differentiating, self-relative motion) a "discrete particle" - based "material universe" as "a universal self-organizing network of distributed I/O devices" which are manifested in terms of their inter-communication by means of the specific sequence of SUM 'vibrational acceleration waves' traveling at the "constant, finite, but asymptotic limit for all mass-objects" speed of light which they emit and absorb. We "human beings" are momentum routers ("pushers" of "things") in that network. In order for there to be a "push", there must be a "something else" to "push against". "Yin/Yang". Consider that every "sensation" - i.e. that you are "conscious" of - is comprised of a "push" (or vibrational series of "pushes") at some scale, at some amplitude, in some 'direction', as a "transfer of momentum"; a displacement of a mass object from its otherwise geodesic path. So the "material universe" is apparently a self-configuring momentum-routing circuit /network. "Consciousness" is 'a self-configuring momentum waveform' in/of the SUM. P.S. "Dark matter" is the SUM itself concentrated around its "material" vortices, and "dark energy" is its larger-scale flow. @ @/@ They are being carried along by the outwardly expanding flow of the SUM (scale-uniform medium) itself from its horn toroidal fluid vortexual architecture "output". They are not, themselves "accelerating" (undergoing "proper acceleration") by means of an 'on-board' power supply. Thus, in this case, they are not moving "through space over time", they are moving "with space over time". Light waves are the universal 'CPU clock ticks' of 'time'. They make up the 'Cartesian coordinate system' of the 'space-time epic' in which we are taking place. ... Call the Y axis "time", and the X axis "space". Let your eye be at 0 looking in the positive Y direction, and let any other detector be placed anywhere else along the X axis. The photon (or physical increment of "time") is propagating toward your eye, or other detector, as a spread-out 'shock wave' front, and collapsing point radially toward its detector, only being "detected" when the momentum (acceleration) pulse it is transferring through the SUM (scale-uniform medium, or "space-time") literally from its horn toroidal 'point' of origin is transferred to its corresponding destination point of detection. The universe might be described as a 'self-calculating quantum computer'. Let's discuss: @emediuminmotion/discussion

[@markl9808]

What date and where is this talk?

[@joeroganjosh9333]

“........you can understand this by looking at the picture and thinking a lot about it........” We’ll try sir, we will try.

[@alexanderealley9992]

A bit off topic but concerning the quantum physics of black holes (to include the beginning of the universe as we know it), why are black holes not considered as a collapsed neutron star that has unfolded a multi-dimensional area of space to a singularly-dimensional area of space? As the three+ dimensional collapses it unfolds to a two dimensional space (the black hole as a 2-dimensional sphere) to a singularly-dimensional are of space (the singularity as a 1-dimensional sphere). Why is this not talked about more and why aren’t we talking about the inverse of unfolding multi-dimensional space (folding an area of space)? Your thoughts?

[@kirillvourlakidis6796]

Roger Penrose is a powerhouse of geometry and physics, past and present (time invariant, of course)!

[@butterchuggins5409]

Man I wish I wasn't dumb

[@panosvrionis8548]

You just don't know astronomy etc😊 Not a big thing! You can play it smart if you follow science 😉😉

[@randomTVSWE]

you can raise your iq by atleast 10 points my friend.

[@panosvrionis8548]

@@randomTVSWE I smell an irony 🧐 It doesn't work that way!! I think Smart people 'miss' information to explain things that's why this fellow watch the video. Try to find how the universe works😉

[@randomTVSWE]

@@panosvrionis8548 Well he might not be as dumb as he thinks.

[@NicholasAlexander1]

this makes a lot of sense, much more sense than a big bang

[@benp9793]

Err, you realize this cyclic process involves the big bang? IE, the big bang is simply the rebirth phase of a cyclic universe? christians, man..

[@nicolaimanev]

To my understanding Penrose doesn't contradict the Big Bang, he extends it with new details that help us make sense of what could lie beyond the horizons of direct observation.

[@Danskadreng]

@@nicolaimanev Indeed.

[@BOOGY110011]

Is that 32 inch screen? That's a argument killer.

[@pavelholub4206]

Clocks that beats once per eon- maybe you don´t need to wait them to break...

[@colinwright5157]

there are time frames and strings are what binds the time frames together. x = R*cosA R = xy y = R*sineA x = xy*cosA y = 1/cosA x = 1/sineA z = R = xy xyz = (1/sineA)^2 * (1/cosA)^2 Velocity. V = c(xyz) String. f = 1/2L * Sqrt(Tension / string density) f = 1/2L * xyz*c E = hf First string vibration. f = 6.4*10^8Hz M = 4.44*10^-42kg

[@ticktack6822]

I think we often forget that the big bang theory is only a theory. It‘s refreshing to hear what other smart people have to say about it. I wish we would hear something like this more often instead of just sticking with only one theory.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The Rapid Expansion theory has scientific astronomic evidence that Penrose's idea of CCC doesn't have. Penrose's idea, born of EC Escher drawings, substitutes scientific verified facts with his fancy that other AstroPhysicists have called him out for. We pursue a theory that matches the observable evidence and that implies future discoveries we may look for, the Standard Model of Physics does the same and everything has been added to or changed completely when the facts speak. Case in point: The Universe steady state theory. Gone!

[@hg6996]

Roger Penrose always reminds me of Carl Friedrich Gauss. They resemble each other physically but also in the topics they studied.

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

What a genius, to put it mildly.

[@mrandersong1]

Well spoken man..

[@HTen-gl5di]

I have been a fan of Sir Roger, from the time I was introduced to his connecting shapes. I never supported string theory or the big bang or dark matter. I like his train of thought here, but would substitute a torus a representational model.

[@berttheace]

Roger is really an excellent genius and the NobelPrize for his work was overdue 👍🏾🌏 Black Macro- and Micro- Holes are as well as Big- Bangs SINGULARITIES: Already defined by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 mathematically and as a physical reality as well. Within the CENTER of Black- Holes are SINGULARITIES as we now since 1916. And we 'suppose', that there was ONE Big- Bang out of a SINGULARITY, where Time and Space were created 14 Billion Years ago. Roger Penrose is really a great Genius and his recent awarding with the Nobel Prize was overdue. HE is able to separate between the 'Beauty' of the Imagination of 'deep' Mathematics and the Existance of 'deep' Physical 'Reality'.... Respect ! And he concedes, that INFINITY exists within Mathematics - which is the most beautiful type of Philosophy - as well as in Physical REALITY. This gives me hope, that my Theory of an INFINITE Universe, which I call the INFINIVERSE really exists: ''Our INFINIVERSE is an INFINITE OVERALLPROCESS of an infinite simultaneous VARIATION of infinite many SINGULARITIES like Big- Bangs and like Black- Holes within an INFINITE CHAOTIC STRUCTURE of an INFINITE DIMENSIONAL MATRIX .'' Hard to understand, but that's our Physical Reality. I'm BertTheAce and I'm sure Roger Penrose can understand, what I mean. And this NEW Standard Model of Physics finally solves the inconsistency of 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' within the classical Standard Model of Physics. I did propose my INFINIVERSE- Theory to the scientific Springer magazine 'Nature' some months ago and may be it will be published soon.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

I surprised at how much I agree with this. I had the cones together so they were square.

[@EugeneGaufman]

The problem lies in the nature of Time as a physical, material attribute and therefore what Reality, in itself, means

[@mcsquared4319]

If all matter and black holes decay, we are left with photons. For photons, there is no time. So at that point, space-like and time-like intervals could potentially swap. The entire universe could potentially collapse into a Schwarzschild black hole. In my opinion, such a non rotating black hole can only be made of the entire universe due to its symmetry, that's why you may have only one in the universe. At the event horizon of a black hole, time-like and space-like intervals swap. This leads to a pure singularity unless you still have a residual asymmetry (maybe both space and time intervals have a bottom limit which is not null). This would potentially cause a big bang. But no circles in the CMB are to be observed...

[@brian-kt1rc]

The laws of physics as we observe them only apply to our universe, they do not apply to anything besides our universe. Therefore no hypothesis within our universe can be formed to hypothesisze where our universe comes from.

[@PopulationBirthCtrl]

@@brian-kt1rc hell yeah brian Godel knew whats up

[@davidwright8432]

Surely if you have only photons, there are neither spacelike nor timelike intervals, but only lightlike ones? You need some mass to regain the other two kinds of interval.

[@mcsquared4319]

Where the universe comes from is not a valid question in the first place... I don't see the link to what I wrote. You think of a multiverse, I think of the Universe (the possibility of a multiverse is still there though). You can make a hypothesis but you can't prove it... The multiverse is just a hypothesis. I supposed the universe as a whole with just one big bang, no leftovers...

[@RogueElement.]

@@mcsquared4319 u were on to something bruh💯👌🏾

[@bubbathelonepotato2208]

The idea of the the universe being perpetual could be part of our problem understanding the whole issue. What if their is no beginning or ending to the universe? The Universe just transitions between stages? If we do detect evidence of supermassive black hold decay from before the so-called Big Bang then how are we going to explain it? Interesting physics.

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

I can calculate Hawking point In A Road Where in Breakeven Point Cracks line Due to Positive pressure of Gravitational force

[@johndelong5574]

One can hear the universe put-putting across eternity like a cosmic motor boat.

[@leastmostly]

In an idealized far future hypothetical state of the universe in which there is nothing but photons, so no mass, no time, no space-time, no space, does Penrose suggest that all the photons in the universe would effectively be superimposed into a single entity, and that this absolute idealized final state is not a precondition for being indistinguishable from the big bang, that the state is close enough to initiate expansion before this idealized state is reached, thus introducing anisotropies from whatever mass remains? To what degree do the CMB anisotropies reflect seed universe matter versus seed universe photon distribution? Would it make sense to say this superimposition of photons is NOT like a collapse where all the photons end up in one spot, but more like "one spot" by not having dimensions simply "encompasses" all the photons that would otherwise have continued on their merry way if there were still some evaporating blackholes around? I have been afflicted with the idea there could be a superimposed time frame in which time is speeding up over time universally, over and above effects of mass and relative velocities on space-time. In other words, like the "rate" of time is always increasing but it is hard to detect because all clocks change right along with it. It would however manifest as increasing redshift with distance due to apparent lengthening in wavelength as measured with our "faster" present clocks, similarly to how expansion manifests as increasing redshift with distance. Some preliminary thought experiments make me think this superimposed increasing time rate would also tend towards fitting lensing and galactic rotation data which can also be explained in terms of dark matter and dark energy. Penrose's theory that an eventual universe with nothing but photons in it would at some point be indistinguishable from the big bang makes me wonder if said superimposed time compression, if a thing, could be tied to the mass/radiation ratio of the universe, so over time as time speeds up and the ratio shifts more and more to photons, a limit is reached where the direction and "rate" of the arrow of time concurrently cease to have any meaning, as the superimposed time quanta get smaller and smaller, but don't see the horizon, like Escher's angels and devils. I'm not smart enough to know if this superimposed universal time rate concept would be deemed preposterous nonsense or intriguing brainstorming by the average cosmologist. I'm hoping someone sciency will eventually read this and give me a clue.

[@anaphaxeton]

Mind blowing, indeed. I've heard of it before now I got the chance to see it. But... if someone one could answer me. How about black energy, the apparent expansion and the fate of matter becoming photons, without counting for that black energy that we cannot describe yet?

[@davidwright8432]

Fascinating and provocative! Also, I've always loved his - diagrams is too clinical a term; visualizations, of what he's describing. You can find them in his books,too, unfortunately not in color. So according to this model, it's not turtles all the way down (and up), but conformal transformations! Much easier on the turtles.

[@chrisgibson5267]

Ah! So it's Turtles. All the way down?

[@briansmith3791]

haha. Or..."incredibly complex geometry" all the way down!

[@johncostello3174]

" Hi dear, what was the lecture like ? " " Well I'm not entirely sure. It was something about Angels and devils......Cones......Ten numbers......a CMB Power Spectrum.....oscillating balloons and fake skys " " Oh ....that's nice.....was it about Harry Potter ? " I think Roger Penrose is a very intelligent guy but almost presents it as though we're all scientists. Some people don't know the first thing about cosmology. He also needs a bigger screen.

[@briansmith3791]

Haha, yeah, it's over my head. I much prefer hearing Penrose and others in an interview. They speak more to the layman then and explain their theory in terms non-scientists like me can grasp.

[@Davemmmason]

No beginning no end only change

[@Yourefreekinbrilliant]

Finally getting to the point where I’ll actually listen. I always figured that big bang stuff was a load of hooey. I see no beginning or end.

[@austinpittman1599]

2:54 I think this largely has to do with the fact that we can conceptualize gravitational waves as 4th dimensional. When we have a 2-dimensional plane of length and width, like a rigid sheet, influencing that plane with gravitational force, say by dropping a baseball on it, would allow for depth to occur. Gravitational waves on a 3-dimensional plane could send influence to the dimension above by the same principle. We may just be seeing 3-dimensional slivers of those 4-dimensional waves from black hole formations and collisions from other aeons, portions that are effectively "in frequency" with the 3 dimensional plane at that particular moment in time.

[@noprivacyleft]

In an idealized far future hypothetical state of the universe in which there is nothing but photons, so no mass, and no space-time, does Penrose's theory imply that all the photons in the universe would effectively be superimposed into a single entity, and that this absolute idealized state is not a necessary precondition for being indistinguishable from the big bang, and the state gets close enough to initiate expansion before this idealized state is reached, thus introducing anisotropies from the remaining matter and/or photon distribution? If yes, it seems this superimposition of photons is not a collapse of space-time, but the rug getting pulled out from under the photons as space-time ceases to exist or have any arrows. I have been afflicted with the idea that there could be a universal superimposed time frame in which time is speeding up over time universally, over and above the effects of mass and relative velocity on space-time, in other words, like the "rate" of time is always increasing but it is hard to detect because all clocks change right along with it. It would however manifest as increasing redshift with distance due to apparent lengthening in wavelength as measured with our faster present clocks, similarly to how expansion manifests as increasing redshift with distance. Some preliminary thought experiments make me think this superimposed increasing time rate would also tend towards fitting lensing and galactic rotation data which can also be explained in terms of dark matter and dark energy. Penrose's theory that an eventual universe with nothing but photons in it would at some point be indistinguishable from the big bang makes me wonder if said superimposed time compression, if a thing, could be tied to the mass/radiation ratio of the universe, so as time speeds up over time, and the balance shifts more and more to photons, a limit is reached where the direction and "rate" of the arrow of time concurrently cease to have any meaning, as the superimposed time quanta get smaller and smaller but don't see the horizon, like Escher's angels and devils. I'm not smart enough to know if this superimposed universal time rate concept would be deemed preposterous nonsense or intriguing brainstorming by the average cosmologist, so I'm hoping somebody sciency will read this and give me a clue.

[@PauloAndreAzevedoQuirino]

I believe that the previous and the next universes are the same as this one. 😁 In my view, a limited geometry that "wraps" for space-time is infinitely more plausible than an unlimited one. I'm a programmer so I see it in terms of memory and processing time. In effect, this is space outside of space and time outside of time, but either way, less of it would be nice, right? I believe reality is like computer code, in that it relies on logic in the same way, so why would spacial and temporal coordinates not "overflow"? In other logical systems they usually would, and for space-time coordinates, an unlimited data-type would be unpractical (and inefficient). I understand that my views are limited, based on empiricism.

[@davidwilkie9551]

CCC, e-Pi-i sync-duration, reciprocation-recirculation i-reflection reference-framing, containment positioning by temporal Superposition-point logic, log-antilog interference->probability, wave-particle positioning-location condensation, and so on, projection-drawing log-antilog 2-ness in 3-ness perspectives etc.., are all aspect-version POV of holographic prime-cofactor frequency-amplitude density-intensity alignment, in WYSIWYG quantization => Math-Phys-Chem and Geometry.., ie this Universe. Many points to argue with, not against, Professor Penrose.

[@StaindByJuice]

When we pass we are gone for all of time. Billions of years go by until ultimately the next big bang. We return again when everything,including us, is reconstituted. Our future will be our past.

[@Unavalivle]

Can someone please help me understand 1. Looking for evidence that the universe has been here before 2. Cosmic background radiation is a sign 3. They needed to do tests to show confidence ( for what? Lost here) 4. Final note of the results, what was the 99% confidence showing ? Thanks!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

1. Scientific evidence that the universe has been here before - NONE. 2. Cosmic background radiation is a sign - IT IS. It's a sign of miniscule temperature variations from the opaque plasma(?) at a point approximately 300,000 years after the Universe's rapid expansion when light was finally able to stably form and function. 3. A confidence level represents the degree of uncertainty associated with a confidence interval, usually based on 95%. The higher the confidence level, the less uncertainty is associated with the confidence interval's estimation. Testing and repeated testing helps place the confidence level at a particular value. 4. The 99%+ confidence comes from a co-authored paper, titled "Apparent evidence for Hawking points in the CMB Sky", by Daniel An, Krzysztof A Meissner, Paweł Nurowski, Roger Penrose. In that paper, Penrose refers to Table 1 (which for unknown reason he changes the title of), which should read "Table 1. Number of artificial maps outperforming the real Planck 70 GHz map." Calculations were performed both for the real maps as measured by WMAP and Planck (70 GHz, SMICA, SEVEM...) and, initially, for 1000 (then 9000) artificial maps generated with the observed CMB power spectrum. To oversimplify a complex comparison paper, Are there identifiable presences of anomalous energetic small circular regions in the CMB sky map or is it just noise or pattern seeking? A table of observed Planck and WMAP values (5 tables of values are in the paper, Penrose only shows one) are compared with an artifically generated map generated from observed CMB power spectrum. Penrose supported paper is saying the artifically generated map makes identifications of these tiny regions greater than the 99 percentile range of confidence. So they do seem to exist both by Penrose and Planck data, although the interpretation as to the meaning is left in the readers mind.

[@robynkulage4581]

My theory is the first singularity was forced through first black hole to expand and then reach ultimum expansion which then recedes back into a singularity to be forced out of the black hole at the center to become the next universe .thus a perpetual universe.

[@acajoom]

Look for "Cosmological natural selection" by Lee Smolin which has a much more interesting hypothesis, similar to yours.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

What forced the first black hole to expand. A Black hole by natural observations, does not self expand. Logically, you are saying the first black hole expanded and reached ultimate expansion then receded again into a singularity, so where in this mess, do we live? Inside a black hole?

[@robynkulage4581]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus if you read it. I texted the singularity itself travels through the black hole which gives it the momentum the singularity needs to be released at the other end to become the universe...the singularity expands after it has been released from the black hole..

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@robynkulage4581 As far as I can tell, a singularity (if it truly exists) is the single point to which time/space can be condensed, which itself is the definition of a black hole. With that in mind, a singularity cannot travel through a black hole, because it IS the black hole. It's like sticking your head up your bum and coming out a new person.

[@robynkulage4581]

@@SpaceCadet4JesusI disagree that a singularity and black hole are the same just my opinion..

[@robclark4626]

woman, man, tv, dog - I mean, how can Roger ever compete with that! That takes a stable genius! Seriously, Roger Penrose is absolutely brilliant!

[@alanzom1503]

This makes much more sense to me than the multiverse-inflation theory.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

Mass isn't removed from the universe by black holes, the mass is in the black hole, which is in the universe. I also don't understand how the photons are supposed to have escaped the black holes when they've swallowed everything else, they gobble up light almost as easily as matter. I love Roger Penrose, and I've always believed in an oscillating universe since I was about ten years old tbh, but I'm not super convinced about the details here. Dark matter as a sort of echo of the previous universe is a fun idea though!

[@Lincoln_Bio]

The future.

[@TheChroniclesOfTheEclipse]

Love this guy

[@gtsguitartuitionservices2878]

Non scientific observation: great to see Sly Stallone attending at 0:09

[@jgeorge2465]

I thought so.

[@xxxsleepingawakexxx]

I knew that was him lol jk

[@panosvrionis8548]

True!!!!!i thought i was the only one 😂😂

[@tidakada7357]

How dare you ... that's Nicolas Cage

[@panosvrionis8548]

@@tidakada7357 😂😂

[@JorcobusMaximos]

Everything that can happen, will happen, will continue to happen, forever.

[@BurningSovereign]

That is an appeal to probability fallacy.

[@cosmicsoccer4370]

The stretching of univers is necessity..because space time is like stretched rubber band due to this gravity comes along.

[@derekpoulin2482]

The largest amount of energy that enters our system is at the equator at some point it has to leave the stars are quantumly entangled to here on earth and explains why every electron has the same mass when you stand on the equator being the largest amount of entering energy into our system and look up the stars move in a clockwise counterclockwise rotation due to this effects as gravity rolls out of the planet as the sun continues to shine into the system year after year. Please Roger please do dive more into entropy while trying to explain the cosmos It just may help you while applying the micro to the macro. What if it's not expanding it's just the angle of entry as we wobble changes into our system linking more points throughout space under our feet and increasing the chances of fission. These ley lines fulcrum at some point above our head and kick photons back into our system for us to observe with gravitational lensing across its travels. Twinkles are an illusion of mass. It's energy tied to the past across space time. Dark matter is the amount of quantumly entangled matter left over to the present time in the evolutionary law of the twinkles movement. The dark energy is the amount of energy that is being passed from the quantumly entangled electrons to a point of zero energy to be illuminated in the now as actually something... And then you have your visible matter spectrum. At some point in the CMB the energy is leaving and at some points in the CMB the energy is returning towards the planet to come in as the sun again... What goes up must come down what goes in must come out and all the meteors formed in space or from right here on earth like a hail in the sky... When you stand on the equator you have more gravitational waves leaving at that point in an upward angle rolling out of the air through entropy as new energy comes into the system changing angles with the wobble...

[@derekpoulin2482]

Oops I thought it was centrifugal force from spinning It's just gravity being a localized effect through nature mathematically equated for and the stars come after it pins you to the ground go figure It's never created nor destroyed just like Al said.

[@lizbmusic11]

Wish camera would zoom to his drawings

[@ConnorMurdock]

Are we certain clocks don’t keep a universal time? Unedited are clocks not a measure of position?

[@epajarjestys9981]

My clock keeps a universal time. Others do not.

[@kingwillie206]

Yes, we are certain. Gravity, speed, and location over vast distances impact time, therefore, no clock, no matter how accurate, can ever be universal. In addition, cause and effect is limited by the speed of light, and as long as there is a cosmic speed limit time itself cannot be universal. So, it stands to reason that if time cannot be universal, clocks that tell time cannot be universal. Does that make sense?

[@Jman21UK]

I like the block universe theory better although both are fascinating.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone...

[@joehelmick1057]

Reminds me of Georg Cantor's infinite sets...

[@robinsarchiz]

On that thing about E=hf=mc^2, since light has frequency and will exist in the distant future, doesn't that count as a scale of time?

[@vhawk1951kl]

Being very much both old and a duffer, I cannot grasp how or why the energy of X might be a a function of the speed of something that has absolutely nothing to do with X and little different from asserting that the Energy of X is its mass multiplied by the number of times penguins consider suicide, which for all I know it may indeed be E==mc^2 appearing to be the lords prayer of the religion scientism

[@CMVMic]

Is CCC different from a casual loop? Because an actual infinite that is past eternal is subject to the Grim Messenger paradox which is basically a philosophical argument against casual infinitism. Therefore, Im asking for more clarity on the meaning of cyclical in this hypothesis? Anyone care to explain.

[@hkjeldsen]

It's in his book, Cycles of Time; he says CCC's infinite string of connected aeons is equivalent to a single aeon looping around to itself. He prefers the former solution, because of potential time-travel paradoxes in the looped version. There are however self-consistent versions without paradox, so Occam's razor probably cuts the other way..

[@CMVMic]

@@hkjeldsen what former solution? What versions are self consistent? Causality can be a loop but time doesnt have to be. The GM paradox is against linear causality which is why I believe a causal loop is the only logical solution.

[@hkjeldsen]

@@CMVMic Penrose prefers his infinite string solution over the equivalent loop, I meant. Self-consistent loop solutions follow Novikov's self-consistency principle; Deutsch has a version of self-consistent closed time-like loops in quantum computing, and Lloyd has a probably better post-selected version, and there are other approaches with self-consistent open time-like curves. Aaronson has shown that with access to a closed time-like curve, a Turing machine is as powerful as a quantum computer with access to same. I agree a loop is the best solution, and it solves a lot of other deep problems, as long as paradox can avoided by some self-consistency condition.

[@chessdominos]

How is that publishing video was 2019 but the Nobel prise is 2020? KZbin is messing with us!

[@ronforth3519]

Does anyone know how to contact Roger Penrose, by email ideally?

[@johnweir1217]

Cannot see the pictures on his screen.