The Beginning of The Universe - Sir Roger Penrose on His Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Model

Our universe spawned into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. It is also widely accepted as being the beginning of space and time. However, there is one problem with this grand idea. It cannot explain the big bang itself, or the conditions that created it.
Sir Roger Penrose is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He argues that the Big Bang was "not the beginning". There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.
Cosmologists have made many presumptions and hypothesis that have looked deeply into these factors that include dark matter, dark energy, several inflationary cosmological models, and inflationary cosmology.
According to Roger Penrose however, proposals for describing the initial state of the universe hardly ever address a certain fundamental conundrum - yet this is a conundrum whose significance is, in a certain sense, obvious. The issue arises from one of the most fundamental principles of physics: the Second Law of thermodynamics.
According to the Second Law, roughly speaking, the entropy of the universe increases with time, where the term “entropy” refers to an appropriate measure of disorder.
There are many popular theories among scientists that suggest that the Big Bang was not the beginning of our universe.
The many-worlds interpretation which is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics implies that there are very many universes, perhaps infinitely many.
Roger Penrose argues that the idea of many worlds is flawed because it is based on an oversimple version of quantum mechanics that does not account for gravity. According to Penrose, "the rules must change when gravity is involved".
However criticism has been levied towards several parts of Penrose's theory. Penrose himself has admitted that his model is extremely speculative.
#penrose #universe #science
SUBSCRIBE to our channel "Science Time": / sciencetime24
SUPPORT us on Patreon: / sciencetime
BUY Science Time Merch: teespring.com/...
Sources: "File:Roger Penrose 9532.JPG" by Biswarup Ganguly is licensed under CC BY 3.0
London thinks - An intimate conversation with Roger Penrose at Connwey Hall • London Thinks: An Inti...
Gurzadyan, V. G. ; Penrose, R. On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky
ui.adsabs.harv...
Roger Penrose - Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe 23 September 2010
Newbooksnetwork - Roger Penrose Oct 19, 2021 The Cyclic Universe
newbooksnetwor...

[@AXZ1974]

There is no big crunch in CCC. The way I understand it, at the end of time the universe "forgets" its size and the energy density becomes huge and a new big bang happens. It's like traversing a fractal.

[@HypaspistOrange]

Yes you're right, I think what Penrose was referring to in the audio was his visual aid, not the universe itself.

[@cheangleng7617]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDMoIWaoJ2jrMU

[@PhoenixCrown]

Does this mean that the physical scale of the universe only continues to expand? We talk about the big bang being a tiny pinprick, right? So will our vast universe compress in any way before the next big bang, or will its size merely be considered a "pinprick" to those who come after?

[@AXZ1974]

@@PhoenixCrown My understanding is the latter, pinprick and all over again. Hence my reference to fractals.

[@PhoenixCrown]

@@AXZ1974 Thanks! I had to refresh on fractals. Awesome stuff. Seems like the way we normally think of fractals is going big to small, fracturing a shape over and over into infinite sides. The universal concept would be the opposite, though, starting... somewhere and traversing ever-larger shapes of... space?

[@gardeneden8261]

At about the 6:00 mark, the video states that CCC suggests a Big Crunch. This is inaccurate. Unlike actual Big Crunch theory, CCC predicts an eternal expansion that will be equivalent to the singularity at the beginning of a new universe. There is no contraction phase prior to the latter. There is actually no time in between those two events, as the concept of time and space becomes meaningless once all matter is gone. Yes, that's a tough one to wrap your head around. However, the theory makes sense mathematically and philosophically, in my opinion.

[@giatonpeonta8071]

damn you're fast :)

[@ljthesmartandscientiststro7741]

New universe with new planets and new galaxies and new stars and new worlds and new lifeforms

[@bobpeyser4448]

Well put Garden Eden. I think one key to appreciating Penrose's theory is learning about conformal geometry which, in turn, may help us understand how when the universe runs out of all matter there is no size to it since space/time is coextensive of matter/energy. Thus, no need for a "big crunch" in the gravitational sense. Perhaps a metaphor would be helpful. Imagine you had a map of the world with all the cities, towns, buildings, etc. clearly depicted. This map also clearly showed the spacial relationship between all these parts in miles and/or kilometers. Now imagine that all of those details disappeared over a period of time: no cities, towns, buildings etc. On this empty map there would be no distance remaining because distance is a measure between existing things (matter). An empty universe would have no distance anymore-as hard as that is for us to imagine and grasp-because there is nothing in it for space to be between. Then, perhaps, any quantum fluctuation at all could cause another universe to begin.

[@universe1225]

That part really annoyed me.

[@andrejmajstorovic1437]

The fact that there is no "time" between the singularity and the expansion isnt hard to accept (imagining it is something else). What I don't get, is in the traditional BB theory, the expansion happening 1/1x10^32 seconds (or some unit of time) after the singularity....how was that possible if the expansion was the introduction of matter and thus time..right? CCC is more intuitive philosophically (to me)

[@donaldfeldhouse3726]

If one understands the first law of thermodynamics, and Einstein's matter/energy relationship, it's not impossible to understand how an infinite field of energy can cause a matter based universe to exist. Energy can be information.

[@dragossorin85]

I've always suspected that information is fundamental in origin, this leads to the fact that nothing is impossible, it's just a limitation of how much information we got at a given moment like now for example

[@MultiDman2011]

Currently reading a tutorial introduction on information theory by James Stone to understand it better. It’s remarkable how fundamental the concepts from here are to some of the most daunting questions about reality. Thanks for sharing this info also

[@francisdavis1271]

Mr Feldhouse's first phrase is one of the most wonderful things to say about human beings: "If one understands..." Imagine how we mere mortals seek to contain the universe in our own minds. As an engineer I have used "natural laws" to model the function or behavior of our machines; I write software to perform the repetitive tasks. My models are certainly approximation of physical reality... but I get answers above 90% fidelty when good data is available. Mathematics is the tool for knowing the universe... and exercises your mind with critical thinking. I wish more people would be exposed to mathematics and statistics: They form the backbone of our technological society.

[@cheangleng7617]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDMoIWaoJ2jrMU

[@FigmentHF]

Super layman here, I can follow some of it, but the part I am confused about, is after all the matter has gone, the remaining photons turn into matter? Is this what you’re getting at here ? Thx

[@jillieflynn3386]

i don’t mind admitting that I am probably not bright enough to fully understand this proposition and/or the underpinning hypothesis, but I have shared the link to this vid with my son who will put more energy into trying to make sense of it, also shared it with two friends who may or may not find this explanation enlightening. Thank you

[@ماهرمحمودعلي-ظ1ظ]

I have two questions about the Big Bang Theory and The Seven related theories in superstring theory The first question About the Seven Theories and Description of High Energy (Matrix theory and F-theory and Gravity Gauge Rotation Higher and The theory of supergravity from the eleventh dimension of spacetime and Supermembranes and AdS/CFT correspondence and dS/ CFT correspondence and parallel gravitational theory) Are these six theories able to explain the emergence of the Higgs field and( plasma and quark gluons and (Supersymmetry lower bound and upper bound))from the moment the universe was born to the age of protons?second question Do these Seven theories give universes with different laws of physics and different levels of dark energy?? Please send the two questions to researchers in theoretical and mathematical physicsPlease publish the answers to the questions in the String Theory article on Wikipedia

[@francisdavis1271]

Ms Flynn: Do not disparage your intelligence but rather your "conditioning". We look at the world around us because we live in a world with certain limits. We interprete these limits as "reality". When you liberate your mind from pre-conceived notions. When have you heard the phrase "Oh you can't know THAT!" That's the limitations I mentioned. These folks simply have no imagination and are conditioned...

[@cheangleng7617]

He is wrong

[@cheangleng7617]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDMoIWaoJ2jrMU

[@HASHHASSIN]

@Jillie Flynn: Keep your son, recycle your 2 friends.

[@m00kism]

I have no training but I love this idea. I've heard him explain it in slightly different terms; when there are no things left in the universe to be relative to one another, there is no longer a functional difference between the infinitely large and the infinitesimally small and you have your big bang condition. Words to that effect. There's something about that which makes instictive sense to me.

[@mastpg]

...no mass not no things, but yes. The crux of the biscuit is the "condition", as you say, which it would seem Penrose believes to be a massless universe and thus a space timeless universe. The first question I asked when hearing this conjecture explained to me x+n times was "How long does it take for the massless universe to 'convert' into mass and why does it do so at a point?", and the correct answer to that questions is, of course, both no and clown unicorns, because....in such a universe...."just before" the conversion....spacetime isn't a thing. So, "how long" is actually "skateboards" and where/how big is "Taylor Swift's rerecording" because there is no way of understanding this......even really through the math. The explanation makes sense if you just say, "...because of the conformal rescaling". There's no how yet.

[@Terra_Lopez]

@@mastpg That's really helpfut -- great explanation! 🥰

[@rogersommers872]

I really like this idea. It is interesting to consider what happens when the last mass particle of the universe ceases to exist (due to Hawking radiation of the last black hole). If the universe eventually contains no mass and only energy, the concept of time ceases to exist. What was a gigantic space-time volume shrinks to zero along the time axis - a singularity. All the energy (however ‘sparse' we might have measured it to be distributed previously) suddenly occupies zero spacetime, resulting in the next epoch, and the big bang cycle repeats with a new universe.

[@myles5158]

Isn’t energy mass?

[@mylescrawley1193]

The energy/mass of our universe remains because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. So time will still occur Bc it only occurs relative to mass Aka (energy). Space-time and energy are self evident and have always existed only transforming from one state to the next over infinity. And by that logic Space-time cannot exist without energy Bc both rely on each other for points of reference to measure the other. Also, energy and mass are the same E=MC^2, so, mass transforms from states of pure energy and states of physical objects which can be determined in part by the curvature of space time caused by energy, so it’s the classic chicken and egg scenario. You could interpret mass/ (energy) as causing space time to curve or the curvature of space time causing matter to exist and act in the way it does. Honestly this makes me think that our lives have a deeper meaning since we are essentially living energy that is concession of it’s existence and the universes. Like is these scientist have stated in all these theories, energy can neither be created or destroyed, it only transforms from one state to the next. It is eternal.

[@mastpg]

@@myles5158 Bruh, in a universe of only photons, there is no spacetime. Spacetime is a geometry created by mass. No mass....no spacetime. The photons don't experience time and who knows what happens to the space part...you know, since spacetime isn't actually two things.

[@siddarthshah1773]

This is what hindu cosmology says

[@rogersommers872]

@@mastpg This is precisely my point (no mass...no spacetime). But there is still energy in the form of photons. What happens to that energy, it has no spacetime to occupy? A: big bang

[@gaemlinsidoharthi]

I see several commenters have mentioned this but, if I understand it correctly, there is no “crunch” in this theory, only a shift in scale. The barely perceptible remaining variations in our old existence become significant variations at the new scale. After we reach a near uniform distribution of energy, we scale both our time an distance measurements by some very large, but finite amount - perhaps 10^200, for example - and we find our 10^100 old years happened in 1/10^100 new years but the speed of light/causality is still the same as it was because our 10^100 old metres/miles is now 1/10^100 new metres/miles.

[@sterhax]

Yeah whoever made this video seriously misunderstands what penrose said

[@mastpg]

No, proton and electron decay would have to be a thing, but an em radiation only universe would not have space or time, and by some yet unknown process that eternal and instantaneous universe of energy would convert into a commensurate amount of matter and the universe would be rescaled by the blipping of spacetime back into existence.

[@kellymantei7465]

The early inflationary period was time dilated due to extreme gravity.

[@bozo5632]

I'd like to assume that's been accounted for, but I've never heard it addressed so I wonder.

[@oldmech619]

With in infinite universe, the mass at the beginning would be infinite gravity. Time dilation would push back the beginning and Infinitely long time ago. It is hard for us humans to fathom Infinite.

[@kellymantei7465]

@@oldmech619 carbon dating would move slower at the early universe.

[@kellymantei7465]

@Eastern fence Lizard sure there was no carbon in the early universe but every lepton and quark to make all the carbon in the universe was present.

[@GimmieTheGaff]

Bless you for reminding the mass of us the requirements of testing theories no matter what.

[@Crispin90]

I can’t believe this video just said CCC has a Big Crunch in it, it doesn’t

[@NikkiTrudelle]

I had this thought when I was like 11 that the universe might have been here over and over. Everything coming together into one big black hole until another Big Bang happens. Ive always found this topic so interesting. Thanks for posting

[@vintologi]

That's pretty much the big rip big crunch cyclic model, it currently lacks supporting evidence (the expansion instead seems to be accelerating).

[@danielgarofaloo]

That's also my idea about the universe. It all starts from a singularity, crunches back down to one when all black holes meerge, critical mass is achieved, bang, another universe.

[@cheangleng7617]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDMoIWaoJ2jrMU

[@ya7771]

There is no proof to it...it is just a theory....how dit matter became "MATTER"? what,who is keeping the universe expanding?.... a bouncy universe can not explain the order in the universe, can not explain why there is a complex structure in life, in space, can not explain the mathematical behaviour of all things.... that proves only that there is a creator, the science discovered by the most eloquent people existed before human kind and was not created by them. The spin of an electron, the movements of quarks, every single thing is created and given it's characteristics. It can not come te be from nothing, without architectural plan! Seek the truth and use common logics a house can not build itself in a desert without plan,materials building blocks and work.

[@992turbos]

@@ya7771 As soon as you introduce a supernatural explanans, you’ve stopped doing science. Theists argue from the armchair, scientists argue from the data.

[@blackbke]

There isn't actually a big crunch, it's that the meaning of distance disappears when there is no more matter left in the universe (to be exact: no matter -> no clocks -> no time -> no distance). When that happens there is no difference between it and a very tiny brand new universe: both large and tiny universe are exactly the same, i.e. they are conformal. And out of that empty universe a new one appears. Penrose explains this in detail in one of his talks and I felt it was missing in this explanation as it is pretty fundamental to this model.

[@CodCats]

i'm very grateful people like roger penrose exist, and all the experts in all the other fields of life

[@phsal5182]

always a pleasure to listen to dr. Penrose. thank you.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Especially today. Happy day.

[@peytonquinn3095]

Is it just curious that so many religioms, Hinduism in paticular, have this same philosopy at their core and yet they are thousands of years years old?

[@ray6759]

All religions worship the same divinity just different ways. We are the universe experiencing itself.

[@waynedarronwalls6468]

Religion is dust on the poor

[@Kenny-tl7ir]

Before logic and knowledge, humans only meditated in order to reach a state of being one with the universe.

[@JasonWalsh-b4n]

I BELIEVE C.C.C. IS AN EXCELLENT THEORY, AND COULD BE OUR UNIVERSE.✌️

[@kori228]

as people have commented, there is no Crunch, we just zoom out our scaling so it _looks_ tiny again

[@knightatdawndonbynight8432]

If all matter is destroyed into Photons (through Hawking radiation of black holes), how is matter created and condensed at the infinite boundary for another big bang?

[@matthewtopping2061]

I have this on in the background and it's some of the most bullshit gobbledy-gook I've ever heard.

[@DavidFerguson68]

What the fuck? Conformal Cyclic Cosmology has nothing to do with a big crunch.

[@ivankirkpatrick5884]

Most of the entropy in the universe ends up in black holes. Then the last and final black hole evaporates, the entropy falls to zero, just like in the beginning of our universe.

[@tonylittle2744]

Isn't this a rework of the Steady State Theory? Something that has always made more sense to me than the Big Bang.

[@Paine137]

Somewhat, yes. Penrose mentions your point elsewhere.

[@Mr_Jombles]

In many ways the most beautiful conjecture about the nature of the universe that there is. Regardless of how it may be experimentally backed or refuted in the future, the elegance of his picture of endless expansion and continual passing of new aeons seems intuitively far more deserving of being 'the nature of all that there is' than (to intentionally put it crudely) 'there was a big explosion of stuff, out of... maybe nothing and nowhere and no when, which wasn't that long ago (in a cosmological sense)... and then (after the interesting bit in the middle) nothing important or different will ever happen again'. If I could choose which was true, I love for it to be Sir Roger's hypothesis. It is worthy conceptually as a highest-level perspective on the character of existence in terms of its profound, awe-inspiring grandure. If nothing more it speaks to the beauty of Professor Penrose's mind and inspired creativity.

[@lennartwidlund5520]

Thanks for a nice film. But please correct the picture at 9' or so. Star formations will end about 10¹⁴ years from now, not 10¹⁴ billion years from now.

[@waferion474]

There's no "big crunch" in CCC.

[@karldittersdorf4508]

Yes, he made it sound like the infinite expansion of the universe somehow generates another big bang to occur. I am not quite sure how to interpret that.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

EINSTEIN INCH equation 😃 g = Me G / r^2 ( 1e -/+ Ef/Eo ) r =c all mass-energy has an Event Horizon to curve by line, 1905 to 1915 Child is mechanical. Immovable Frame of Reference, Math. We have manufactured the Sir Isaac Newton Machine in America 🇺🇸

[@alant9113]

Our "Universe" is only one of an infinite number of Universes, all of them "Sons of Necessity," because links in the great Cosmic chain of Universes, each one standing in the relation of an effect as regards its predecessor, and being a cause as regards its successor. The Secret Doctrine Volume I (1888)

[@sonarbangla8711]

CCC repeating itself kind of reminds us of Lee Smolin's 'landscape', where the parameter space fine tunes its values, over cycles. At the big bang singularity of our cycle the parameter space finally got the values that ensures quantum coherence, ensuring the evolution of life and consciousness, that we observe.

[@santyclause8034]

I like that it at least has enough robustness for a baseline standing wave when you add cyclical infinity.

[@siddarthshah1773]

its hinduism.. they are following vedanta

[@fraser_mr2009]

What started the first universe at the beginning of the chain? He wants there to be an afterlife.

[@steafanmaciarfhlatha8497]

Great video but slightly spoilt by too many adds

[@kencrotty3984]

The idea, that the universe is cyclic, seems to be more in accord with what we see around us, on Earth, and the movements of the heavens; it chimes with what the sages of India affirm, in Hinduism, and the Upanishads, that the universe is cyclic and eternal. There are references to this in the mystical tradition and the Psychiatrist, Richard Maurice Bucke's book, Cosmic Consciousness, e.g. HB and CMC, also in some near death experiences. My personal conviction is, that life and death in the universe, are 'two sides of the one coin.'

[@mattwerdell7151]

I find the idea of CCC or something like it extraordinarily intuitive based on our current understanding of physics.. The end of our universe is supposed to be everything flying apart exponentially until the speed of light is exceeded... If there were a "previous universe" that period of expansion would look like "inflation"... And if ours flies apart as predicted, it would look like the "inflation" of the next.. I had the idea on my own before I ever heard of this with no education in physics whatsoever... Seems rather intuitive to me... Remove scales and time becomes irrelevant.

[@abelincoln8885]

The Function & Machine Categories ... identifies anything that must be UNNATURALLY made & made to function. Only an intelligence can impart a function or purpose to ... energy, matter, time & space. There is not, and never will be ... any scientific Evidence proving the Universe & Life .... were NATURALLY made & made to function.

[@myles5158]

@@abelincoln8885 what are you saying? A god isn’t needed so…

[@abelincoln8885]

@@myles5158 The Theory of Universal Functions ... is the science behind Sir Issac Newton's OBSERVATION that the Universe is like a Watch ... and needs a watchmaker to exist & to function. Newton was essentially say way back in late 1600's ... that the Universe is a FUNCTION composed entirely of Functions. This means matter energy, space, time and the laws of physics are all Functions. Nature & naturally processes over any period of time ... can never make & operate a simple physical function like a wheel, lever, hammer, nail. A machine is a physical function composed of functions ... and machines are normally mechanical, electrical or .... molecular(Life). Again. All Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence.. An intelligence makes a more complex Function. The Bible simply identifies the likely intelligence that made the Universe & Life Functions.

[@mattlm64]

The thing that confuses me is how the idea apparently relies on there being no matter at the end of the universe. I can imagine a single particle of matter that finally decays. Why should that single particle dictate the transition of the universe into a new big bang? I support it has something to do with this occurring only on an infinite time-scale and matter only experiences time finitely. But then, that's a very odd thing to conceptualise, that the universe moves to the next aeon only after an infinite time-horizon.

[@antred11]

My (layman) understanding of it is that space and time itself do not exist without mass, and the moment the last particle is gone, space and time itself ceases to exist. This would essentially be identical to the conditions at the Big Bang.

[@jasonvaughan5128]

No one knows what’s going on. No one. Anyone who says they know is deluded.

[@Paine137]

Cosmology and astronomy are based on evidence, with doubts remaining. That isn't the same as knowing nothing. But ok.

[@TheWeepingCorpse]

This video does not explain CCC very well at all and only uses a few words spoken by Penrose. The TLDR is... At the very end of time, the Universe will be mind blowingly huge due to expansion. However, after all the black holes have evaporated, the only particles left in the entire Universe are photons. Now this is the kicker, Photons do not experience time. Only particles with mass experience time. At the very final tick of the Universe's clock all that is left are Photons. But without time the Universe cannot know its own size. Size = distance. To measure distance you need time (T in some equation) but only Photons remain, so after that final tick, the entire Universe has a size of 0.

[@lvuyk2408]

Q.fff. model says, entropy must turn around halfway during expansion , to become the new big bang cycle.

[@alant9113]

It has been well known for Millenia that the universe is cyclical, science is catching up to spiritual knowledge and soon spiritual teachings will become fact. Study of Indian Vedas, the teachings of Helena Blavatsky and the Hindu Cosmology concepts of Pralaya and Manvantara.

[@عبدالعزيزيونس-ذ9ظ]

If we assume that antimatter is a spacetime background and matter is a spacetime foreground, could that explain quantum gravity?

[@AlexandreMaerten]

South Pole and North Pole. Negative and positive. Too much(100%) is like not enough(0%). When there will be nothing left everything will be there. It makes sense

[@antoniomaccora593]

according to my personal intuition the universe is neither finite nor infinite. Finite and infinite are limited terms equivalent and dependent on each other. Not cyclical because the cycle presupposes a temporality and a spatiality that I find absurd to apply to the universe (which we don't really know even beyond our limits). Rather I think it is aspatial and atemporal which does not mean static. "An eternal present of events that manifest themselves".

[@jayman7101]

IVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR 20 YEARS!!! AN EXPLOSION IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE! At least I can’t be called a crank anymore. I was on the cutting edge

[@Paine137]

If I say it will rain next Wednesday, and then it rains, it doesn't mean I actually knew it would rain.

[@jayfarris9752]

Infinite universes / multi-verse theory / infinitely cycling big bangs (CCC) are not an explanation for singularities…. It just creates infinite singularities. I’m more on board with Causal Set Theory because it completely gets rid of singularities / they don’t exist in that model.

[@iamBlackGambit]

So an infinite chain of causes?

[@Nitephall]

You kind of jump all over the place with the points you're making. You don't explain why the Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. There is no explanation of how an expanding universe suddenly becomes the singularity of a new universe. And the bit about gravity being equivalent to acceleration wasn't related to the point of the video. Too much hodgepodge here, not enough logical argument.

[@julien5053]

Your explanation of the theory of Roger Penrose is abysmal. You obviously don't undestand it, that's why you are unable to explain it properly. There are beautiful images, but it's hollow in real content. So if you (viewer) stuble upon this video and don't understand it, it's absolutely normal. It's not you, it's the video ! The conformal cycle theory of Penrose is a bit difficult to understand but there a ways to convey it quite clearly.

[@robynkulage4581]

Could it be that this universe began as a singularity was forced through first black hole tp bang it (excuse expression) into this first universe that expands until it's apex then reduces back to singularity to be forced through next black hole to create next universe which proceeds to expand and reduce to singularity then forced through next black hole in a perpetual universe where if nothing interferes could go into infinity ...

[@1kenodave1]

I watched another video where the theory explained that trillions of years in the future, after all the energy has been expended by our sun and other energy sources throughout the universe, the universe will go dark with no return. All dead matter will be absorbed by black holes, which in turn will disintergrate over time, leaving just a vast, endless sea of nothingness and darkeness.

[@Vazhaspa]

Distortion of Penrose theory in the worst way of vulgarization! He never talks about the final contraction or Big Crunch, and he never talks about a final (universal) black hole! But rather a universe of photons ... And since these particles do not recognize time and space, then it is as if there is no diffidence between infinity and infinitesimal small ...

[@johns1625]

This video is terribly inaccurate and barely talked about CCC at all. Not the evidence for it, not even the entirety of the concept. Only that there was a universe before ours and another one after. Left out the most interesting parts. Barely made it over 10 mins long to get that mid-roll ad $$ too I see.

[@crehenge2386]

Basically penrose theory doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It's at least as problematic as inflation models, and penroses testable arguments has disproved his ideas... but now that he's popularized everyones and expert and knows that he's the new savior

[@alexandrekassiantchouk1632]

Sir and Co, the post-office explanation of Universe without math: If 14B years ago you were mailing packages to yourself, 1 package a day; And now, when day is twice shorter than it used to be, you start receiving them, then you receive only a package every other day! Redshift is neither about light, nor space. It is about time change.

[@danielgrzybowski75]

nice touch showing warsaw at the end of this video since this theory is being developed in collaboration with polish physicists.

[@PhillipYewTree]

The Universe is flat. How is it that the ‘big bang” formed a flat universe, and not a 3D one? Explosions are normally fully expansive.

[@kimsahl8555]

Before BB we have a before BB potential. After BB we have an after BB potential.

[@Ucbmiller]

CCC is theoretically what we with limited perceptions can make sense of. I wish it explained why these elements are all here in the first place. It's not the how for me anymore, it's the why. This theory gives us a temporary insight as to how the big bang came from nothing, but it does need further testing. I do hope they experiment with this idea. I'm a fan, but it's also still very uncertain like most brilliant thoughts. Good job Penrose, way to think outside the box.

[@Paine137]

There is no why. Ta da.

[@Ucbmiller]

@@Paine137 Agree to disagree. The entire fundamental premise of physics is to understand "why." There is always a why.

[@Paine137]

@@Ucbmiller There's a how, not a why. Why derives from our own desires.

[@99.99]

...and then there was the inflation.... ~Jerome Powell 👁️👄👁️

[@kevinhaynes9091]

With all due respect to the great minds involved, for as long as we need to use words like infinity and nothing, we clearly have no idea! If we could move past the spacetime orthodoxy, which compels us to use words like infinity and nothing, a new science perhaps, then we could possibly come to a greater understanding...

[@AMC2283]

I suspect reality itself is actually infinite.

[@JohnRocks7193]

@@AMC2283 perhaps indeterminable by our current models of measurement, but probably not infinite

[@AMC2283]

@@JohnRocks7193 I figure whatever is is reality even if it’s nothing or next to nothing

[@kwazar6725]

I prefer penroses ccc because i dont swallow inflation.

[@henrysantiago5997]

What if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong?

[@ElwoodAndersonNV]

Has anyone examined how the recent Webb telescope discovery of fully developed galaxies observed at times too early in the universe impacts the acceptance of the CCC theory? Are such galaxies consistent with CCC theory by interpreting them as artifacts of a previous universe, or can this be ruled out?

[@خورشیدشاه]

هر دو در یک زمان دقیقا کنار هم اما حال ما چنین و حال او چنان است ، ودر آخر هفت شهر عشق را عطار گشت ما هنوز اندر خم پیچ یک پس کوچه ایم

[@dirktim9297]

i'm sold on it. inventing magic tricks is not science.

[@rabokarabekian409]

"CAMELOT!" "It's only a model." Very pretty vid, but Roger's own CCC tome began with something rather less clear than this Cambridge summary (I suspect at times he forgets we aren't all mental athletes.): With increasing temperature we see a succession of phase transitions for water in which its properties change dramatically: the solid phase - ice - melts to the liquid phase - water - and then eventually boils to the gaseous phase - steam. You should notice that steam is 'more symmetric' than water, which is in turn more symmetric than ice. And so it is with matter in our Universe; it begins in a unified or 'symmetric' phase (as we will explain below) and then passes through a succession of phase transitions until, at lower temperatures, we finally obtain the matter particles with which physicists are familiar today: electrons, protons, neutrons, photons etc..

[@royalmason1539]

"the universe expands until it is crunched down..." "infinite is squashed down into a finite boundary..." What does the crunching and squashing? Or as in the comment below, "how does the universe "forget" and why would forgetting result in density?" Are we talking about the physical universe here, or about the limitations of human thought?

[@lwizzard8742]

Big crunch and CCC are different. You make them seem as if they are the same theory

[@TOKAYASSHOP-hl2gw]

So what causes the big crunch?

[@ianc8054]

The rescaling (in the absence of anything but timeless photons in the far future) may have something to say about the miniscule size of the Planck length compared to everything we know about in the universe - about as small compared to an atom as the atom is to the universe. Maybe not... But it is odd that should a preceding universe have started a Plank length wide it could have grown and converted all its mass to photons and only have reached the size of an atom of the subsequent universe (from the perspective of that later universe, the big bang might look to have started with something atom sized)

[@nickknowles8402]

No idea if it's right but cool as hell

[@harpoontang681]

Do you challenge Wendy?

[@xetrius3671]

[1:42] Nice infographic Seems like the anti gravity is misrepresented, it's the same as gravity but on a different scale of observation. I am also convinced that the galaxies will not break apart, instead I would expect those systems to redistribute their energy via their core connection to all levels of it's total existence to maintain a stable dynamic super-structure.

[@PhoenixCrown]

When you say stable dynamic super-structure, do you mean a giant lump of iron? Oversimplified of course, but won't all the stars run out of fuel at some point, or do they get new fuel from elsewhere?

[@xetrius3671]

​@@PhoenixCrown Stable - Relational structure that maintains shape Dynamic - Changing structure, system that is in flux. Super-[ ] - representing an extreme of [ ] [Structure] - Shape produced by components. There are many different ways in which you can create a system that sums to zero or i.e. a balance of internal and external forces. Matter, skin, event horizons they are just different names and/or scales of operation. They are linked by the concept of internal balance.

[@abelincoln8885]

The Universe is a closed system with finite matter & energy, fixed laws of physics, and composed of open & closed systems. Eventually everything will break down, including energy. But there will be no Universe in 1300 years time. The Function & Machine Categories, Close Natural System expanding in an open UNNATURAL system and the Big Bang beginning ... confirms the Universe & Life were unnaturally made & made to function. Genesis identifies God as the UNNATURAL make of the Universe & Life. Revelations says man with reign over the Earth for 6000 years and then Jesus Christ will return and reign for 1000 years then Judgement Day. The Jews with the State of Israel believe their Messiah will be coming soon. And the Jews currently have the Universe & Earth at 5780 years old. Hmmmmm?

[@PhoenixCrown]

@@abelincoln8885 Finally I found someone who has all the answers of the universe. Thank you, thank you Sam I am.

[@janelubenskyi1177]

I believe the universe oscillates between expansion and contraction phases and that it replicates and recycles…black holes and white holes being it’s foundation.

[@ckjamn]

Eternal +-+-

[@abroadway4133]

Friction causes vibrations.. the vibrational waves is pressured forces due to first causing action .. the creation of @tom comes afterwards.. By...? Hmm The Temperature and pressure... The Mood swings both ways..

[@_XY_]

Nietzsche

[@harpoontang681]

God's voice hitting the singularity after physics were burnt into the nothing

[@johnburke568]

He does indeed give an explanation for the asymmetry. Also his postulate is not a big crunch because there is no “big” to the crunch, just conformally equalivent states

[@davidlloyd3116]

The finance space time of the galactibanks isn’t actually curved, but completely bent.

[@fourmula4812]

maybe when it iz cold cuz there are no stars things shrink that change physics of a black hole to then evaporate i mean you made all matter in heat thus matter in cold doeznt understand

[@your_being_led_by_your_nose]

I don’t think it happened. I don’t think there was one. I don’t think it ends, either. It’s easier for me to swallow that way. Always with the beginnings and endings..we have to personify everything!! We’re nothing. Enjoy it!

[@GK-qc5ry]

If a new big bang happens as our universe expands indefinitely, where does the energy come from for a new big bang?

[@jordanrobinson9064]

From the universe that originated from the previous big bang! Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, simply changed from one form to another! Atoms which makes up everything that exist in universe just gets recycled over and over again!

[@eeesti216]

universe-wide energy fields that hold the energy of all matter that ever existed

[@princeindrajitlawlaha7027]

! 💝 💯 👏 🎉 🙏 🚀 👍 🤖 🌝!

[@Harvey077]

What was before the big bang! How does something start from nothing?

[@BigCroca]

maybe the big bang is the universe rapidly shrinking into a single point and then flipping inside out and expanding again?

[@yubz1496]

The universe had a beginning therefore it had a cause. Chance isn't a cause. Only an intentional cause could of created a universe that is perfect for life. The laws of the universe are written mathematically and must of had a designer fro them to exist in the first place as they are binded to the universe itself. Just like the laws of the land they must of had a designer to write them they didnt come about by chance because again chance isnt a cause only an intentional cause can explain it

[@Ironmanxp]

Finally, someone else that thinks the, solve all Big Bang concept is horseshit!

[@alexanderhawk2659]

At this point, it is more likely that Big JoJo up the mountain created it all.

[@kostaskrikos4153]

Why did it all start from a singular super-dense and super-heated material point and not be created from the space itself, which started as a geometrically infinitesimal point and developed through a self-similar process?

[@dr.jamesolack8504]

It is not actually “known” how it started. It’s all just theory. I believe we are alone in the universe. And it can’t be ruled out. Improbable, yes. But not impossible. We can theorize until the cows come home. But here we are, back at square one.

[@butterchuggins5409]

It wasn't a big bang. It was a medium bloop.

[@evalsoftserver]

DdDark energy exsist as a FIELD INVARIANCE of Space configuration "PHASALITY" using a form of Spatial automorphism to auto regulate (gauge) ( ENGAGE) or Break Symmetry , the amount of energy , time , Velocity ( NEWTONIAN MECHANICS) plus {frequency) , and Volume required to Continuous Transform Any particle matter of that SPACE TIME "Configuration" ( FIELD, TENSOR, PARTICLE WAVE ENERGY PAIRING ) (LANGRAININ MECHANIC ) at that specific location ,` or at any future location in that Space Time, Ex. photons or light like particles Traveling in a straight line at a Fraction of speed of light (ECLUDIEAN SPACETIME DILATION) gives rise to Baryonic mass and (RADIOACTIVE DECAY ) through Quasi-Local Fields INTERACTION SCALAR FIELD "PHASING" like (HIGGS BOSON) particles fields , Extending into like matter electron proton ect. thru When ( Riemann space) gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear Strong force is engaged thru Baryionic Field Boson interaction the electromagnetic Photon Particle enters and engages Curvatured Space. Reaching infinite mass (NEAR INFINITE PHASALITY) for that particle wave location causing a curved Deceleration we call gravity.and Electromagnetism Entanglement happens by Shears TRANSFORMATION of this Baryonic mass/particle/ when Space itself shears and Rotates , Like a Automorphism mapping of Space, So all FIELD in that Space becomes INVARIANT Orients itself, to a common point enabling one PARTICLES (like the MUON) to exist as a COLLAPSING Wave Function in Two Different Non-Local SPACES or fields. (PHASE) or thru a local Field SYMMETRY ,and Because Information travels in a Linear fashion in 3 Dimension Space , We olny become Aware of this Spacetime Information by attempting to Communicate outside our everyday 4 Dimensional Spacetime . and Not Seeing ,or Receiving anything back then we say mass is missing, Entangled particles don't need this Same Time information to Communicate because it Exists at every point in the Entangled PARTICLES BARYONIC MASS WAVE function . The SpaceTime Coordinates has Shared Merging at a Every Point in the field .So Field Entaganelment is (BOTH)a Attractive Force Within a mutual , Baryonic LEPTON MUON MESON Field space is a Repulsive Force where the Wave Particle are Running Away from Itself as a non local non mutual (RELATIVISTIC )field, So when you observe or try to measure the Particle the Wave function does not Collapses because the wave and Particle exsist as non mutual independent Quasi local Field OVER A DISTANCE WAVE or a Gauge less field for Relativistic and Quantum Field Entanglement the Field Symmetry Collapse of breaks from a ( DIALATED SCALAR Field So Dark Matter Could be a Non-Localized Spacetime like a Black Hole with Equally distributed gravitational mass and inertial mass .Analysis of high velocity Nuetrino burst from Gamma rays as Observed from our 4 Dimensional Spacetime Frame of Reference might confirm this. Were the Nuetrino ACT as a SYMMETRY break of ENTROPY (Gauge Field) breaks and lose its Orientation.and this ROTATIONAL SYMMETRY break can be Non-Local or Quasi-Local Field when all Particle waves FIELD and SPACES becomes INVARIANT UNDER A mutual FLAT MANIFOLD

[@847lifestyle]

neil...talk to us about bob lazar and all that jazz.

[@michaeldupree6793]

If there is infinity, how can there be a big crunch?

[@TunaFreeDolphinMeat]

Prefer the idea that our known universe will expand infinitely as the lights slowly go out over many billions of years. But the information, the material and energy and light captured in black holes has the singularity that can create a new bing bang and space and a new universe elsewhere. Still cyclical. I hope the JW Telescope will help us peer further back in time

[@CMVMic]

The series of events do not need to be infinite, it can be finite but causality can be cyclical.

[@myles5158]

He said pretty much googol amounts of years, which he is referring to as infinite , I THINK

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Successive infinities? Doesn't fit my model of infinity. Oh well, stranger things have happened. From the photons point of view it would be oscillating in and out of existence at an infinitly high frequency. Therefore photons have infinite mass? ... Brain death occurred at 04:00 UTC :)

[@Graeme_Lastname]

@@GlobRes Oh yes m8. You can mold the definition to suit any data, like the police and the tax office and the church does. B well m8. 😉 🖖‍ 👌‍

[@Graeme_Lastname]

@@GlobRes I do understand that m8, just having a giggle. Strange Aussie humor. :)

[@gkelly34]

Sounds more sensible than an infinite number of universes.

[@Ennuibody]

An infinite number of universes is still in play if you consider it an infinite number of cycles as in Penrose's model

[@gkelly34]

@@Ennuibody but I thought the previous one goes bang to give the present one? I can’t deal with one being recycled infinitely, but not infinite universe with different laws.

[@Atmanyatri]

Great channel thank you so much

[@etienne7774]

Jesus made it 6000 years ago in 6 literal days... if you want to believe the Truth. Read God's Word, KJB.

[@etienne7774]

@@GlobRes view Dr William Lane Craig's refutation of the God of the gaps argument. Atheists fall for any lie.

[@etienne7774]

@@GlobRes Who cares? When you're in hell you'll care. But then it's too late.

[@mcruru5998]

That was some great news

[@theobserver9131]

Sir Rodger is my favorite genius. I wish he was my father.

[@jacekpiterow900]

So, what about your real father? Worth nothing?

[@theobserver9131]

@@jacekpiterow900 I've never met him. Thanks for asking.

[@theobserver9131]

@@jacekpiterow900 I had a stepfather, and he was worth less than nothing. He was a violent angry abuser. Boy, you sure stepped in it didn't you?

[@theobserver9131]

@@jacekpiterow900 I would call you a smartass, but you are not the first part of that.

[@jacekpiterow900]

@@theobserver9131 My father was looking for his dad till he was about 60. He did not know why he left them. It was war. But he still had hope. He also had nasty step father. But he keep believing. Never said anything bad about him. Aren't you just judge people too easy. How do you know what was the reason? Maybe that was the best thing he could do? Look what "mothers" do this days to their kids? They call that "pro choice". Be grateful for your mom, and never do that to your son.

[@jbbeiser983]

I have my own little theory and I keep it to myself thank you.

[@Paine137]

You've said too much, then.

[@jimgraham6722]

We are very lucky to have Roger Penrose relate his thoughts about such fundamental issues. As others have opined one cannot help but think something like what Roger describes is the basis of reality.

[@glorymanheretosleep]

You understand there is a chance he is wrong.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@glorymanheretosleep Certain to be wrong in at least some aspects. In CCC there is some invocation of unknown, possibly unknowable processes.