Sir Roger Penrose | Can Aeons Explain The Big Bang? | 2020 Nobel Prize winner

[@katenicholls5301]

His generosity explaining this without using maths, so that someone like me could understand, it is mind-blowing. What a privilege to be able to spend 20 minutes in the presence of such a mind. Thank you, Professor Penrose.

[@liloolo]

I wish I had a female friend like you!

[@opioid01]

87 years old and more coherent than me at 33. Go Penrose! You still have a lot in you!

[@saiyaniam]

what?

[@joops110]

Please rephrase

[@robocu4]

you don't at all need to rephrase, these kids are retarded if they can't make out your very legible comment

[@roryclague5876]

@@robocu4 Whoosh

[@Trey4x4]

Stay in school kids

[@Maria-ms8sr]

I want Roger to live forever ;((

[@ivocanevo]

Aeons

[@leaturk11]

In a infinite universe he does.

[@stezi5820]

He's going to merge with the singularity like Hawking

[@ionsbrewable]

if he talks i will listen. Wonderful man.

[@nathangelhaar5528]

P

[@kentinspacetime5378]

Roger, I don’t know what you’re talking but I can listen to you endlessly.

[@geoden]

Of the many science books I've read "The Road To Reality" by Roger Penrose is up there among the best ever by a genuine genius.

[@oo88oo]

The whole thing???

[@alphalunamare]

@@oo88oo that's what I thought to :-)

[@davidwright8432]

Agreed. I just wish it'd been published when I was in grad school doing this stuff! His explanations of mathematical physics are so clear.

[@zlatanonkovic2424]

Please give this man as much camera time as possible while we still have the opportunity.

[@5Marchan]

imagine if he reads the comments

[@suecondon1685]

Love this. It's not dark - it's invisible, and it's not energy either! Plus he's in a field at a fair... Absolute legend ❤

[@kameelfarag1981]

I always admired Roger Penrose, and consider him the cosmologist per excellence.

[@taunteratwill1787]

'par' excellence maybe?

[@alexbarnett7375]

This man is physic’s David Attenborough

[@jamesdashper1316]

He’s more than that. He’s not just an observer and presenter

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

@@jamesdashper1316 I see this the opposite; I see a old man with pathetic ideas!

[@katze97]

He was at Pembroke, my college. I sat in his lectures not long after The Emperor’s New Mind came out. So his interest then was machine learning and human mind which was my thesis topic then too. I got to asked him questions over a pint when he spoke at the Oxford Philosophers Club. Very nice and brilliant gentlemen

[@Battlefox64_RL]

Katze97 I have a question you might could answer.... Is it possible that if the gravitational wave from the initial bang permeated into our aeon, that would be information traveling across time without space? Given this premise, how can waves travel to our observable universe given there was no space for the wave to traverse. Also, if the wave could/would emanate from a single point, wouldn't that point be well far outside of our observable universe given the current age of our solar system.

[@katze97]

@@Battlefox64_RL they should not be any messenger particle field, whether it is gravity field or Higgs field, before there is space to contain it. I don't expect information transmitting across a field before there is space for it. However the uniformity of cosmic background radiation shows the early EMR field information is preserved throughout the universe.

[@ayanganguly4558]

He is like Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman rolled into one. Next life I would aspire to be his student.

[@robclark4626]

This is as good an answer as you're ever likely to get about where everything came from, and where it's going. Sir Roger Penrose is an absolute gem.

[@NerdyRodent]

Awesome talk. Thanks for the upload!

[@arlaban22]

Give this guy a " Nobel " prize RIGHT NOW !! He is like a God amongst men.

[@barlart]

@Roger Dodger He did discover a lot of things but they were mathematical in character. There is no Nobel prize for maths (The Fields medal is given to young mathematicians like Terry Tao)."What would you give him a Nobel Prize for? He has won just about every prize for Physics that anyone could but hasn't done anything to warrant a Nobel prize. He HAS got a Knighthood. That's pretty High in the UK. He also has the OM (Order of Merit) which is the personal gift of the Queen herself. No politician can tell the Queen who to give an OM to though many have tried. There are only a few at any given time. Sir David Attenborough also has an OM. It is the highest civilian award in Britain.

[@taunteratwill1787]

@Roger Dodger Not true, they gave me two of those.

[@taunteratwill1787]

@Roger Dodger I found out that 85% of all comments on KZbin are quite retarded and that the section 'Car Crashes' and the likes are jam packed with 'accidents' caused by these comment writers. The commission was very pleased to learn this. :-))

[@HarryNicNicholas]

only penrose is real. i just came from him chatting with william lane craig, where craig goes "so this must mean there is a higher intelligence" penrose replies, "maybe there is, but i don't see what use that is"

[@jonsonator3576]

Oh come on man. I mean he is a cool guy but he is no Penrose :D

[@patrickzhao7591]

thanks Sir Penrose for sharing the immense light in this dark time of humanity.

[@amidaleahmad1324]

When he was introduce in BBC tv at time of nobel prise that all his tools for this job was pencil and paper ! It was very promising and hope giving to me that even though I am mechanical Engineering I can be able to carry on to think for myself to understand physics so I am very thankful to him for his explanations , that courageous me .

[@tonyschofield4489]

I wish everyone was this well educated, the world's problems would be quashed. Mr Penrose is a Genius.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i just came from him talking (it wasn't anywhere near a debate, WLC tended to cede to penrose superior knowledge) talking to william lane craig, and i said as much in comments, we all have this massive super computer behind our eyes and it's such a pity only two handsful of people on the planet can use them. penrose is a great ambassador for agnosticism, and atheism, in his own, quiet, logical, knowledgeable way, he tore WLC apart, my favourite line (paraphrasing) "well there might be a superior intelligence, but i don't see where that gets us".

[@leonreynolds77]

This is a truly brilliant man. Much respect for Dr. Penrose. I am toyally onboard with what he is saying here. I don't believe there was ever a "nothing". There was and always will be something. It's ignorant also to think that the only existence is of time and space. There could be some other form of existence that we can't comprehend because it is locked away from another aeon. This idea of the dark matter he suggested is just brilliant!

[@timmbrockmann959]

Yes, it´s the paradox of creation/eternity - that the human mind can not grasp. If you can explain what started the eons, you can ask what was before and how could it come from nothing. If you assume that the eons are there forever and have always been, then the human mind wants to create a beginning again. But personally, I would rather assume that the eons are there forever and have always been, with no beginning. I think existence itself is paradox, but it´s a logical consequence of nothingness, that you have something. Or the other way round; if you have somethign, then there also has to be Nothing. Duality seems to be fundamental. A medal can not have just one side, but always has to have the opposite site in order to exist. And since I think there is nothingness (it exists, but in it´s existence it doesn´t exist per definition), which doesn´t need a "beginning", you also have to have Something, which then also has no beginning.

[@e.1220]

It's a good idea. It's an honor to have listened to this.

[@geoffreywright95]

Admirably clear explanation of complex ideas.

[@souravsahoo1582]

Sir rodger penrose is a living legend and genius

[@MarkLucasProductions]

As a lay person who has no ability with mathematics or physics and who only has his 'intuitions', I have never assumed my ideas could be anything but fanciful nonsense - like flatearthers etc. However so very much of what Penrose says seems amazingly in line with my decades of intuitive musings. Whenever he talks there are at least one or two moments when I exclaim "That's MY idea!" or "That's what I said!" It's actually a good experience.

[@verapamil07]

This man is on a totally another level

[@MatthewQuarneri]

This model is elegant and beautiful. This idea means light knots up into mass and creates time but then temporal decay undoes the knot until big=small and hot=cold and light's time knot does not exist. But that non-existence equivalence then equates all light as one light as no light and you have another singularity "Big Bang". Bosonic string theory works well with this model since a tachyon field would be required to link all those universes together without the platform of time being there. The only issue then is determining how to get the asymetric half-integer spin fermions out of the set of symmetric bosons. It might be as simple as dividing a spin1 boson by a spin2 graviton to give you a half spin fermion but we won't know that till we smash electrons at high enough energy to see if we can get a gravitation out of them. That will happen at the CLC eventually; clic-study.web.cern.ch/

[@MissionHomeowner]

At least we're in a universe with infinite pizza choices!

[@zlatkodurmis8458]

I'm glad to hear some alternative ideas to usual big bang from a great scientist.

[@akumar7366]

Humanity at its greatest in thought and expression.

[@phoule76]

For our summer fair, I think my hick town managed to book 'N Sync or some such event one year.

[@rikimitchell916]

Dr Penrose has produced many great works but I not certain this is among them

[@stephenjablonsky1941]

You have to admit that human beings trying to get their heads around the birth and death of the universe is very amusing and even silly. But seems heroic in a Quixotic sort of way.

[@J0hnC0ltrane]

Since mass and energy can't be destroyed the present eon contains all energy and mass from the previous eons. Hard to imagine. I'm thankful for people like Sir Roger Penrose.

[@nutsbutdum]

8:45 That's when it gets very interesting.

[@fredb2022]

Really appreciate Sir Roger: he follows Rule No. 1: have something to say and say it. And, he thinks beyond known physics. It shows that he does not bind himself to what is known and proven.

[@schmetterling4477]

Neither did J.K Rowling when she wrote Harry Potter.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Professor Penrose has done a "bang up" job of explaining the empirical evidence from the Universal wave-package properties, in terms of standing waves, to which he has applied conventional nomenclature.., judgement of actual causes left suspended (?). I do not make comments that may be misinterpreted as criticism, so all I can add to this is that continuous creation connection is the temporal wording of CCC theory, ie both sides of the Spacetime penny, incomplete and needing new eyes and minds. My words are constantly changing to get the best approach to integration with "known physics", but everyone has to think about the mechanism of QM-TIMESPACE from their own metastable perch on the singularity navigation platform. (It's fun to imagine and headache material, simultaneously, of course)

[@GregBierly]

Penrose himself is evidence of the theory. A singularity of wisom from a different aeon, now forming his own new universe of thought; now existing in a new aeon after the galaxy of stars that opposed him have all been swallowed by the gravity of his mental prowess and his singular belief in himself.

[@flashkraft]

The big bang was just the last time the infinity stones were brought together.

[@MikeGlanfield]

This explanation begs the question how many aeons were there before we came into existence.

[@peterbrent1345]

Did you really ask that question? The answer is very obvious.

[@jekomac]

time is frequency of light. We do not need to use literally 0-1 (empty full) meanings, cause they are just our "handles" for concepts. Let's play with concepts, but remembering what it means to loose sight. Energy/mass is not created or destroyed, just pushed or pulled from the horizons of scale.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i don't understand a word of that, and not being able to spell lose doesn't help me to try to bother. loosely speaking. did you lose your dictionary?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i've watched this a couple of times and i cite it often, it is ineed a tidy way to avoid infinity is cosmology, but it just occurred to me - where does all the mass in the universe go? and at the start of the next aeon, where does the heat come from if there is no mass? i love this aeons idea, and that photons experience no time and therefore no distance and that means however "big" the univesre might be, to a photon it has neither size nor time, but it just struck me, where does the mass go? when "stuff" gets swallowed by black holes they increase in mass, if they are evaporating have they turned mass into photons? have to go google, back in a mo (lol).

[@BorisFrank242995]

I think that during evaporation, the mass turns into energy (e=mc2) . What I really don't get, and I am trying to find an answer in 5th Penrose's video, is how all the energy turns back into some mass in the beginning of the next eon. What forces the mass creation?

[@bloodyorphan]

Maybe I should add Sir Roger to this one ... The super giant temperature force crystal we call the Big Bang is still there, because temperature time-dilation ... Universe Expansion As for expansion itself, there is a temperature based 2 directional tensor on every particle we have ever observed from plasma photons, up to any atomic weight we have encountered so far. If you consider a deeper weight particle lives at an interference point and is constantly being fed expressed heat from it's immediately (doubled depth and distance) deeper particle, or from ambient temperature at its' depth in the weight space. The deepest particle interferes a new weight and goes the summed interfered temperature C^3 or degree Celsius deeper in its' weight space, the internal "Cavendish" tensors from the particle depth SR monodimensional BB space, pulls the particle back "up" the temperature scale. The particle will shed two "half temperature" photons back up the atomic pipe causing interference in the half distance position of the atomic pipe and the same thing happens at that temperature scale, all the way back to the aperture of the atom and being expressed as a zero degree Celsius photon particle (No velocity at all). If you consider the temperature over distance equation, and add in the redshift of the exhibited photons you realise that the redshift of a "stable" atom by definition on the C^3 scale has to achieve a temperature of zero degrees Celsius as it finds its' position in the "visible space". So instead of the stacked atom we observe, we actually have a redshifted temperature pipet from the Big Bang , too our visible space, which is expressing a Big Bang instantaneous explosive energy at Zero Degrees Celsius and Zero Velocity! This is our visible aperture of space, and it (the Universe) simply started growing when the expression of the BB in its' GR'd observable frame of reference (i.e. expanding at C) , a C velocity time dilated by its' temperature and redshifted by the decreasing to zero degrees aperture space allowing zero degree Celsius photons to "simply appear" in our space, expanding our Universe one photon at a time multiplied the the "Skin Depth Aperture" of our observed universe. Atomic particle formation, is the other side of the BB energy cycle through our space, which means the atoms are slowly in comparison "swallowing" photons that are too hot for the zero degree space and their journey back to the Big Bang has started. When you consider the amount of matter that we observed versus the amount of empty space, it's easy to see why we are still expanding, and likely will continue to do so forever. I have read Stephen Hawkings' paper "Properties of an Expanding Universe" and everything he postulates and describes fits in to the above theory. (C) M.B.Eringa; S Hawking; G Dalton; Sir Roger Penrose 1989

[@christophercoulter7782]

I think Dr Penrose has opened up some very interesting points about cosmology. However, as we have very little understanding about why and how there are extra dimensions and the full role of time, gravity, constants and an infinite amount of variables that are encompassed throughout the passage of everything. Then it would still be a little bit early to know everything about everything. Maybe we could invent Quantum nets without anchor points or summarise any given system without boundaries and be absolutely sure it's correct every time without taking into account the unknown. But as it is the unknown doesn't exist anymore if we have fully understood the ultimate foundations of Mathematics and Physics forever. I don't think it matters at all if God played dice or not we need to be 100% sure about everything before moving onto the next big step. I put it to everyone: What is the next big step? Never ending discovery perhaps??? Hahaha ... Now this is mind blowing.

[@afifakimih8823]

He is 87.and yet how smoothly he is talking about the universe.He is actually very unique kind of scientist...he has alwz new idea.he Doesn't bother about the conventional way of thinking.he has alwz unique thinking,new idea,crazy idea.!!

[@ailblentyn]

Is it possible to interpret Penrose's idea as meaning that the death and birth of the universe can't be distinguished, rather than that there is a sequence of aeons?

[@azulo6]

Thats how i interpret it; reading Cycles of Time these days, and thats the core idea he is explaining, i think :)

[@oo88oo]

Yes. It seems very "reincarnation"-y to me. Aeons die, give birth to new aeons, which die, and bear new aeons, forever and ever.

[@SahilP2648]

I think he is talking about how black holes create a new universe inside and it's an endless cycle thereafter so no beginning and no end

[@ailblentyn]

Sahil P I don't understand his theory in the mathematical details, but actually I'm pretty sure his isn't saying that.

[@dj_OVI_J_TIMIS]

Absolutely fascinating ideas!

[@mingonmongo1]

Have seen several of his explanations of CCC, and this is the best and clearest yet... thx for posting! Though still kinda unclear how we get from the end of an 'aeon' when all mass has virtually disappeared, to the next 'Big Bang', when it would seem the universe, and all matter is 'expanding' again (in other words, where's the next 'matter' come from, if it's all been dissipated in the previous aeon)?

[@Tessali666]

Yeah, if You find his explanation on this, hit me up! He clearly states that all the matter is turned into radiation and that dark matter decays as well. Then the photons dispersed on unimaginably huge areas of space inflated into the next big bang. Naturally, the Standard Model suggests no 'matter' existed at the beginning, so it seems that answering this problem is obsolete. In both CCC (Penrose) and the SM (mainstream) the quarks could have emerged in the same way, from energy I suppose.

[@mingonmongo1]

@@Tessali666 Can't recall, but yes, have seen some vague referral to 'branes' creating 'reversing' Dark Energy'.So basically what I'm understanding is the next universe eventually starts expanding again, spontaneously creating new matter and energy, with the old one becoming the new 'baseline' for time and space.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the nature of time as a physical process of energy exchange. In such a theory the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual.

[@SelcraigClimbs]

@FACE GALLON well I'd say consciousness in this sense would be something that collapses probability distribution of events. Something that interfaces with randomness to pull order from it. So yeah, I guess in some sense it would be a transient stabilizer of entropy.

[@ahabkapitany]

holy shit this was an amazing explanation

[@oo88oo]

I always hated the ideas of "dark energy" and "inflation." Thanks, Roger. I prefer yours!

[@svendtang5432]

Remember that Just because it's sounds nice it's not just true.. Not that I doubt Penrose have a good theory here..

[@LarsRyeJeppesen]

You also believe in Santa just because you like it? Feeling cozy?

[@Nogill0]

Conformal geometry can work both ways, "mapping" the very large into the very small and vice-versa. A way for scale and dimension to be lost would be for some arbitrary region of a larger universe to be sufficiently isolated, or to reach a particular initial condition in the universe at large equivalent to such isolation. Exponential expansion could produce that for the universe at large but also for any number of small regions. Once you have that isolation "small" loses its meaning, and a "cold void" might be regarded as infinitely hot and energetic. See, I'd like for CCC to give us not just one cyclic universe, but an unbounded number. If that's the case then the hawking points are either statistical flukes or evidence of some other phenomenon, like collisions of bubble universes embarking on their own course of cyclic life.

[@ivocanevo]

Hey Rick, you sound like someone who might entertain a curiosity I have, which is inspired by Penrose's CCC proposal. Penrose puts the aeons in succession, so the start of the third aeon would be a whole aeon away from the end of the first, like segments on a bamboo. (I'm numbering them just for illustration.) My provocation is that it's not like a bamboo, but like a higher dimensional toroid: the end of an aeon loops back to the beginning. It seems self sustaining and elegant, and I wonder if it could be as mathematically valid as Penrose's bamboo version. I've spent time wondering about the relationship between successive iterations, and a sort of "thickening" or "deepening" of reality along the resulting degree of freedom, which is a sort of hypertime.

[@skalosz8]

11:10 "Space Odyssey 2001" Jupiter and beyond the infinite. Mind blowing.

[@melgross]

It’s interesting that after more than a century, there was just one man that really changed everything. Responsible for relativity and the basis of quantum mechanics, Einstein still towers above all those who have come after.

[@kostar500]

Of course Einstein was that great

[@lanatrzczka]

I'm letting my imagination run with what I think he said... If given long enough, the universe will decay into photons... or if given long enough, perhaps a single photon remaining.... The part I don't understand is what would ignite a photon into creating the next aeon?

[@alphalunamare]

Any theory that needs not Inflation is a good theory!. I must admit though I didn't quite get how the transition between Aeons manifested itself geometrically.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i didn't quite follow either, that's why i wanted to see this video (haven't started yet, still trolling comments :)) but i do like the idea that the universe has started and infinity of times, but each time was the first time...

[@ivocanevo]

Ditto. I keep watching Penrose interviews, waiting for him to somehow clarify in a way that *I can understand* how exactly that transition works. (I'd be glad to take it really slowly.)

[@YogiMcCaw]

It's a provocative hypothesis, but it's long way from being proven. In other lectures on the internet, Penrose himself admits that. It's a beautiful idea, but as the saying goes, many beautiful ideas are shot down by ugly facts. So we'll just have to see if ways to test this hypothesis emerge, and whether the hypothesis can weather those challenges.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he also says that although a lot of people disagree with it, and that he's not entirely happy with it either, it works pretty well until someone comes up with something more concrete.

[@akumar7366]

I wouldn't bet agaisnt the idea being right, time will tell.

[@LarsRyeJeppesen]

@@HarryNicNicholas it is not backed by observations

[@eodico]

It's just theory, there's no facts to back it up. It is mathematically sound so it's possible but not factual

[@myles5158]

@@eodico theory in science are supported by facts. You do believe you get sick from germs right. Germ theory. Theory of evolution, another OBSERVED fact. Theories in science are the highest accolade of knowledge. This isn’t the colloquial use of the word theory.

[@reaganwiles_art]

I knew all of this and explained it to people years and years ago, but of course no one knew what I was talking about, sitting in Pizza Hut in King North Carolina explaining all of this stuff, no one at my University was interested either, I guess they thought it was just the ravings of the madman but they knew that I believed what I was saying. I had no math prove what I was saying only insights and verbal explanations which to me were not theories but observations. I am an artist and I don't try to make my artwork conform with all observations but ever since the understanding there has been a new order and all the artwork that I've made and this has been the case for the last two and a half decades

[@ukidding]

How did the first aeon get started?

[@therick363]

I believe in this model that question is a nonsensical question. (Not being rude towards you mate, saying nonsensical in the world of physics and such)

[@parkamark]

I'm so disappointed - during the next aeon, we'll have to figure out this stuff all over again.

[@captainhd9741]

The Iguana They will have to learn how to interpret the symbols (letters) and people would get divided between whether it was intelligent design or just accident and then those who say it was accident would develop a theory to explain it which sounds plausible and so history kind of repeats. I mean if we are debating whether DNA or the recent discovery of the intricacies in the flagellum of a bacterium or the fine-tuned constants is intelligent design or not today then obviously the next generation who will see black holes arranged in a specific way will do the same as it is less complex than a nano-sized rotary system.

[@ivocanevo]

@The Iguana yours might be my favourite comment on KZbin 🏅

[@oo88oo]

Escher made an unimaginably large contribution to science.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

we artists like to help visualise hard to grasp stuff. i've built the solar system more times than i can remember (i get a credit in four out of the six "the planets" series shown ooh, twenty years ago.

[@ivocanevo]

Hyperbolically large, by some accounts 🥁

[@ivocanevo]

@@HarryNicNicholas you might enjoy, or already know about, the famously intuitive math visualizations of 3blue1brown, also here on KZbin.

[@ScoriacTears]

Are you saying "Universes are inverted black holes." (?).

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i think it's a bit more complicated than that.

[@ivocanevo]

No, but Sean Carroll and Leonard Susskind are on the record hinting at something like that. In their case it has to do with the event horizon created at the place which is exactly far enough away (edge of the observable universe) that cosmic expansion is moving away from us at the speed of light. That creates a boundary mathematically like a black hole horizon, except we are on the inside. With potentially some similar consequences. For example, I believe Carroll once said during a Q&A that due to ER=EPR and current ideas about Hawking radiation, in some sense that boundary may act as a sort of entanglement mirror, where multiple versions of the universe are held in superposition inside it. I suppose a mechanism in support of the Many Worlds interpretation.

[@ScoriacTears]

​@@ivocanevo Just smears against the event horizon. . . damn it! I Knew timespace felt funny.

[@diwitdharpatitripathi2282]

What really exists when nothing existed. And why it existed. From where it came and how.

[@N3G4T1V3_]

Infinity cannot be squashed down and made finite. Much of this "science" requires one to ignore reality in favor of "crazy ideas".

[@trijezdci4588]

Penrose is a mathematician, and a very good one at that. He didn't just come up with crazy ideas, he did the math and the math tells the story. If there is one thing we have learned in scientific history it is that one should trust the math (unless there are evident errors in the math itself). The math he is using is conformal geometry, and there infinity does indeed have a finite boundary.

[@jockeb2651]

Penrose is my hero

[@richjmb5522]

He's trying to simplify it way down so we can understand, must be a hel of a job but he's doing it very well!

[@jockeb2651]

@@richjmb5522 and he's fucking 88 years old

[@seligseligabc123]

Was there a first Aeon? Will there be a last Aeon? Or is the concept of beginning & end even relevant to the Cosmos.

[@ivocanevo]

I like to think that the aeons loop back on one another, so they aren't in series but connect like a multidimensional toroid; a snake eating its tail. Then each aeon is the same as the next, and there is no first. Though maybe there is evolution - or variety - between the iterations, and one could speak of a starting point, somewhat like the center of a spiral. (I.e. it took many iterations to get to the current complexity, even though all the iterations coexist. Metaphor of a Russian doll.) Anyway, just musing. I find the elegance appealing.

[@lrvogt1257]

I still don't get how the extremely low density becomes extremely high density that suddenly drives expansion again.

[@schmetterling4477]

It's a rescaling. The idea is that nature does not care about absolute numerical values. The problem is that if nature does not care about absolute numerical values, at all, then there is no reason for anything to happen at _some_ value. That's the problem with all of these models: they are currently still too abstract to predict why things are happening, at all, in the universe. Penrose is ill-equipped to answer that question. He is a relativist, i.e. he knows next to nothing about concrete properties of matter and radiation. General relativity reduces all those details to a trivial stress-energy tensor in which all details are lost. In reality, however, it's the detailed properties of matter that drive the evolution of the universe at the early/late stages.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

I think in a sense its a fractal dimension. The previous is a singularity and the next is infinitely bigger. Entirely new matter and the relativity of spacetime size (irrelevant to photons perspective). And by new matter does he mean a kind of new form of it or just a scaling up i dont know. (Presume if it follows the same rules, and is fractally similar then its the same, or at least mostly the same with a little twist) What he has explained is not a crunch or collapse.

[@andersborum9267]

If the universe, in a state without scale (as a result of having no clocks, again a result of having no mass, ie. being comprised entirely of photons), the conformal principle theoretically allows scaling back to a singularity. But I agree, have been trying to find an answer to the same question. What causes the scaling. What if the fabric of the universe is always the same, across aeons, but it’s the energy density that undergoes through the phases? (what I’m after here is a follow up to RPs statement of not finding inflation a part of his scheme).

[@lrvogt1257]

@@andersborum9267 : Indeed, with no clocks or mass, and therefore no events, therefore no time... nothing happens. I would think photons as hawking Radiation would survive protons but they don't experience time either since they move at the speed of light. When the last black hole has evaporated there will be no where to be and nowhere to go.

[@tunnelsloth5948]

Really interesting ideas. I wonder what his thoughts are on how the very first aeon may have began, in this theory.

[@caseywebb7818]

You should check out Skydivephil's Before the big bang documentary It's an 8 part doc. All highly respected physicists, Hawking, Penrose, Guth, rovelli, to name a few. If you have an interest in cosmology it's worth your while. It's b

[@poondawg3244]

Where does infinity begin?

[@reaganwiles_art]

the important point is these things don't need analysis or mathematics to explain, first they can be observed even by someone who has no mathematics observed first explained later but they can be observed extemporaneously

[@excaliburhead]

“Photons are very difficult to bore” Roger Penrose

[@zachmcclure8814]

So the cosmic microwave background could be explained by the time when in the previous aeon all remaining particles decayed away into pure energy, existing through the radiation in the cmb of our universe?

[@MichaelDurdenpants]

The audio quality is unfortunate

[@KevTheImpaler]

He is very good at explaining difficult concepts to mere mortals.

[@Esch_atton]

I needed this to come up in my feed. Been feeling like the universe is out to get me lately and this helps put things into perspective.

[@camberwellcarrot420]

Fascinating, even if I only grasped a fraction of it. I love that humans are so curious that our thinkers will spend a lifetime trying to add to our knowledge, knowing full well that in matters like space, they can only add to the collective knowledge, but never see the completed puzzle.

[@Eric06410]

Beast Mode. Ripples on the pond of our universe.

[@thomastmc]

He keeps saying that aeons are a "crazy idea", but it seems to be less crazy than the idea that previously there was simply nothing with no time, or the ideas that rely on non-linear time.

[@ivocanevo]

Apparently his wife asked him to keep it humble, so he does this.

[@ladienarra9410]

Basicly existence is a transition between E and mc^2. At E= (big banginfinite boundary, no time, no dimenions). At mc^2 = expansinding univers as we know it, matter, black holes etc. BUT still what is that “Thing” that drives this transition??

[@ivocanevo]

Clever, your E=mc² illustration!

[@derekwillstard6567]

Truly amazing mind

[@badroulbadour1]

Flemming Sørensen When this Universe eventually, finally becomes an indistinguishable 'soup' of indifference, will it forget about matter, size and time? And what will be the the entropy of this entity?

[@SkyRiver1]

How do you know that the universe is expanding rather than everything in it shrinking because it is accelerating into a hidden dimension of anti-spacetime?

[@jon-boi]

I‘m trying to understand the CCC model. Maybe someone can help me out. If in the distant future black holes will suck up all matter, and then start to evaporate over an incredibly long period of time, will the universe at the end of the respective aeon be filled merely with photons, which can be seen as equivalent to the incredibly hot and dense matter at the beginning of the next aeon? How does space fit into this model? Is it ever expanding irrespective of the aeons, or does it collapse before every new big bang?

[@micc6462]

I was thinking exactly that yesterday sitting on the toilet crazy

[@matthewdolan5831]

He has a lot of it nailed down.. splendid stuff - giving me some spiritual reflections - rebirth for e.g... Druids always said we come straight back!

[@Yuyup7334]

Listening to Sir Roger Penrose explains his view, a question comes to my mind, that is, "Is photon eternal?" I ask this question because it is obvious to me that, in order for his view to work, photon then must be (or he must assume it to be) an eternal entity, otherwise his view will not work. Am I correct here in seeing it that way?

[@YogiMcCaw]

The short answer is yes. The next to shortest answer is: photons have no mass, so they have no time. They are timeless in that sense. The real answer has math I can't do, so I'll have to settle for that, I suppose.

[@richardfeynman7491]

Ultimately nature is what nature is, whether we think it's the most 'common sense' explanation or not. The question is not whether or not part of (or all of) the current inflationary big bang model is wrong (elements of it most probably are at the least), but what to replace it with. If Penrose's model turns out to offer a seemingly identical explanation, there is no scientific way to determine which is the 'correct' model (however Occam's Razor suggests we should prefer the most falsifiable model). If however, when examined in great detail, one model offers a prediction that is different to the other, and that difference can be observed/tested, then it is possible to eliminate one of the models.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

So, is a previous universe infinitessimal in size and the next one bigger by an infinity, as such that to observe the past as singularity from outside?

[@luvr381]

I need more LSD to understand this.

[@ivocanevo]

Funny, it's giving some of us flashbacks. Commenting for a friend.

[@quantumbyte-studios]

Cosmic cycles are an old idea, philosophically -See Empedocles Cosmic Cycles (5th century BC) So it's nice to see a more scientific explanation of such an idea

[@oo88oo]

When he talks of "little points in the sky," "8 times the diameter of the Moon," is he talking about ANGULAR size? Size to an eye or camera looking at it? (16:46)

[@stevescarface]

Yes.

[@juergendengel1087]

i like to see free spirits among scientists who let their thoughts flow without some kind of obligation of “scientific correctness “ Me also have some scetchy thoughts about the universe- first I begin with the mind and try to understand its structure of thought and limits- than I just find things that are falling in place when I see the time thing with photons and black holes that seem to hold a key for further understandings- as well as space curvature and the lense effect- now if there was a big bang it means, everywhere we look there is the same direction to a smallest point which is infinite and timeless- now the expansion of the universe could be also a falling into a black hole that curves in toward itself- the big bang is the boundary of space curvature so to say..hard to imagine this in geometrical terms - the lense effect of a space curvature could also have a deeper meaning in that thought.

[@trijezdci4588]

I think you are gravely mistaken if you assume that Roger Penrose does not feel an obligation to scientific correctness. I think you have it exactly upside down and Penrose takes this obligation more serious than most other scientists do. And that is why he started to think out of the box. He noticed that conventional models aren't scientifically correct, so he tried to come up with one that is.

[@rikimitchell916]

Re: 3:00 ..."mass attracts" ==Newton.."mass tell space how to curve" ==Einstein so which is it you can't have both ??

[@Lerian_V]

2:46 "It's not really energy". Yes it is, Mr Penrose. But as you said, and rightly so, it's "a strange kind of energy." This "strange kind of energy" is called 'Actus Purus' (pure actuality, or pure act, or pure energy, or actuality unmixed with potentiality) This 'Actus Purus' is what classical Christianity - courtesy of medieval scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas - call "God". Time doesn't affect photons in our universe because our universe was designed with the exact amount of [rationed] energy to make the speed of light (C)= 3x10^8m/s in our universe. If there's another universe with more energy, the speed of light could be for example (C)= 5x10^6 m/s or (C)= 2x10^3 m/s if less energy is rationed to that universe. Whatever amount of energy "Pure Energy" decides to ration to a new universe determines the speed of light (C) of that universe. 😎 Most atheist scientists seem to find it difficult separating energy from matter. Their predicament is understandable - it's also difficult to separate mind and body - because all we know about energy in our universe is through matter. Energy activates matter; it gives matter life, so to speak. This is why learning philosophy is key to a better understanding of the sciences. As a great philosopher once said, "Philosophy is the art of making distinctions." "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." 😂 - Robert Jastrow, NASA Astrophysicist (God And The Astronomers)

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thank you.

[@nauj8316]

I'm trying to understand the idea.

[@diwitdharpatitripathi2282]

And the reason behind the all the reasons.

[@jdrosborough]

The inflation theory has always been a fudge. Penrose has absolutely nailed it. This is The Truth.

[@karthikeyanak9460]

I think this guy nailed it!

[@yqwpl]

las skjaldmö aparecen también en ¨los godos¨, y las tribus de los cimbrios y marcomanos. wikPD: inspiración para las valquirias y J. R. R. Tolkien personaje Éowyn,: «shieldmaiden of Rohan» (expresión en la que shieldmaiden equivale a skjaldmö en inglés).2.​

[@lesalabs]

“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die” H.P. Lovecraft

[@phillynott2459]

Yea I know that Metallica song too. Lol

[@HouseJawn]

What festival is this?

[@flatisland]

what about Baryon asymmetry?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

While universe expands into future with gravity increasing entropy, the expansion of space into past decreases entropy? At edge / horizon of universe where space expands into past, the decreasing entropy with increasing dominance of dark energy indicates that space is becoming smaller, hotter and denser at the edge / horizon of universe? These small, hot, dense states at the edge / horizon of universe could start big bangs of new universes, with inflation or the like?

[@smotpoker81]

Interesting theory, and I've heard him talk about it before, but he's wrong about inflationary theory (3:12). Inflationary theory does not posit that inflation occurred after the big bang; quite the contrary really. Inflationary theory posits that inflation actually "caused" the big bang, in a very real sense (assuming it's proven to be true, which we can't assume until we have verifiable evidence). The inflaton field "fell over the cliff," as it were, creating a massive conversion of potential energy into matter and expanding space, and it is that which we perceive to be our big bang. So it wasn't "big bang and then inflation," but instead the other way around. Alan Guth used to say that the big bang never says what banged or how it banged; inflation fills that gap, and Roger is simply misguided when he says that inflationary theory says otherwise.