Seeing Through the Big Bang into Another World - Professor Sir Roger Penrose

[@supertramp2.078]

WOW! this guy really believes in teaching through pictures not by deriving bundles of large equations. i like this. derivations can be found in any good book,but why we need a physics teacher is to explain the significance of these equations ,and how they are helping us to justify the physical picture. the way dr. penrose lectures is profound, liberates brain to think beyond boundaries. feeding just equations don't do that.

[@SuccessMMA]

Penrose is such a gifted lecturer.

[@FAX335]

He's a great teacher, in my opinion. His method and style are very accessible for a student.

[@youcanfoolmeonce]

Very nice presentation, especially for the layman's point of view, fairly easy to follow. No arrogance whatsoever as shown by many astrophysicists, cosmologists and theoretical physicists; on the contrary, modesty and sometimes hesitation characterizes his style that is justifiable for the subject with so much unknown phenomena . What I get from his talks is that the Universe is not only infinite but has always existed and will never end and that must be true based on the laws of conservation of matter and energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing and cannot be destroyed, so the Universe could not have started out of nothing. Also, apart from this talk, common sense tells me that space is self evident and infinite regardless of the amount of matter in it. So how can space and time be created supposedly at the "Big Bang"? Is it not a crazy idea? I hope more scientists will join Professor Penrose to create a theory that explains the universe based on real physics and less speculation, without crazy ideas and more common sense. And if we cannot come up with what banged, why it banged and where it banged we should accept that we have finite knowledge and understanding.

[@UK_Bollington]

I would love to watch a video of these transparencies - animated - with a voice over SLOW explanation !

[@STohme]

Very brillant presentation.

[@kitchitwee]

Penrose and Gurzadyan subsequently published a response paper which directly addressed both studies, exposing flaws, discrepancies, and misinterpretations. As far as I know, this response provides a sufficient defense of Penrose's original findings and a justification for further investigation.

[@albedoshader]

You forget that the light cones themselves can be tipped over by gravity. It’s the space structure itself influencing in what direction light cones are ‘pointing’. What Penrose is saying is that photons can pass through a singularity but massive particles can’t. By the way, the idea that photons don’t experience time was what helped Einstein develop his special theory of relativity over one hundred years ago. So the idea is old :)

[@ReySyndicate]

I'd like to see what happened to this work.

[@puckluck2357]

Pops of the black holes after Hawking radiation..... would it be a supernova similar to the end of a low solar mass star?

[@JohnVKaravitis]

As the black hole evaporates, when it gets to less than 3 solar masses, it won't be a black hole anymore, right? So, no "pop." Reactions?

[@albedoshader]

In other talks he explains that way after the top of the big bang/expansion drawing (e.g. at 7:40) comes what he calls the “boring era” where only black holes are left, evaporating after the microwave background got cooler than the black holes, because of cosmic expansion. Supermassive black holes would need some 10⁶⁴ to 10¹⁰⁰ years to evaporate and go “pop”. The drawings aren’t to scale ;)

[@aplacefaraway]

You can scan these and put on powerpoint?

[@jonrichens]

so brave. we love you Roger!

[@cellofingers]

This is worth watching.

[@stupidtreehugger]

My first exposure to pre Big-Bang hypotheses. Very elegant. Love his drawings. P clarifying that photons don't experience time - what a wonderful epiphany - photons internally are timeless and full-of time, and could be reaching beyond this universe, because, being massless, P seems right: there is no reason why photons would be affected by a gravitic singularity (assuming it is indeed space-time that's curved by gravity and not light as such when we see gravitic lensing). Let there be Light

[@milica999_2]

Thank you.

[@josephsiler1946]

There once was a lady named Bright, Who traveled much faster than light, She started one day in a relative way, And returned on the previous night! What shape is the Universe in? The Universe is in Great Shape for an Old Universe!

[@husnainanwaar1992]

what if the universe perceives time differently than we do

[@MsArgentana]

I'm not mathematician but think that the TAO symbol has the meaning of interacting big-bangs and black holes in the contineous transformation of birth and death of submited materia to energy....

[@kitchitwee]

It is hardly likely that as distinguished a physicist as Penrose would have continued with this theory if his observations were as easily refutable as you're suggesting. I am aware of two studies that attempt to discredit Penrose and Gurzadyan's findings, both of which are considerably more complicated than a mere misinterpretation of well-known astronomical bodies for the conjectured phenomena (they deal with an alleged pre-existing randomness in the data).

[@ggrey5990]

Good choice of pen, Professor.

[@MrGOTAMA420]

+Gwynne Gibbons ubiball is the best!

[@ggrey5990]

gotama420 The only pen ;)

[@googleiscensorship34]

Why did you put so much distortion on the voice?

[@hjembrentkent6181]

Google+ is Censorship They own the rights, so its just bad audio

[@ggrey5990]

+Google+ is Censorship Just sounds cool, obviously. They considered some wah-wah, but that would have been going a "bit far".

[@googleiscensorship34]

***** Wah-wah? I think phaser, delay and reverb would be more suitable for the topic, but perhaps I am too conservative. However, doesn't time stop inside a black hole? So if you rewind the universe expanding movie, wouldn't we come to a mass for greater than a black hole long before we get close to the big bang? But if time stops, there can obviously no big bang occur.

[@rbolo29]

He is are really talking about, 'Non-Euclidean geometry' in this video. I would just hope that our Universe doesn't end with an orthogonal separation event.

[@MrCropper]

And if the universe is flat...? (Which it is.)

[@naimulhaq9626]

The sequence of events since the big bang or even before has a sense of simultaneity, that says, nothing is happening-!!!

[@albedoshader]

No, they aren’t. Penrose himself explains that at the end of an aeon only radiation is left which makes building clocks impossible. You need particles with rest mass to build clocks. So at the end of an aeon time ceases to exist, so to speak. There’s only the conformal space structure left, together with photons.

[@lollo9991000]

Time is the answer . What we believe is the passage of time might not exist

[@TechNed]

I mean it's there, in the cmbr. I'll buy it.

[@josephsiler1946]

I propose a new theory of cosmology that no one has thought of before: When the Universe expanded it expanded into a Donut Shape with Nothing in the Center! Just like blowing a smoke ring! Only the Donut Shape would be circular! I bet Rodger Penrose didn't think of that one! New ideas deserve to be publisized!

[@rkpetry]

Photons have zero-rest-mass only in the model, but in reality photons also have the _'hooks'_ for forming particles (such as electron-positron pairs) and so there is in essence a statistically-nonzero-probability of photons meeting and 'hooking'-up, at least temporarily, in some pseudo-particle sense...maybe there are ultra-low-energy-particles we'd never notice compared to 'ours'....

[@albedoshader]

Best possible answer to Arnab’s comment :)

[@zodiacastro1]

great.

[@spiritualscientist9869]

New GUT physics ideas for 2014....Secret Technology Revealed -IVCVT Fractal Gears .... Strings may just be the path of contact shown in the video link ... Schrodingers equations explained geometrically ....Wave-Particle duality redefined.

[@arnabchatterjee2001]

Really , I am in a dream like you , my friend. So, when you wake up you shall see that most of the theories in vogue today are on the verge of being proved wrong. "Happy Sleeping".

[@iancmcintyre]

Earth time as opposed to Sun time? Not sure if you're awake.

[@lishuwen1]

time is a perception of gravity .

[@nehorlavazapalka]

that idea with circles is ridiculous for obvious reasons, but hey.......

[@josephsiler1946]

Why are we here and where did we come from, Stephen Hawking asks? This subject, Nuclear Force Energy theory, may be a good one for Undergraduate Students!

[@josephsiler1946]

What is the Real Answer, Rodger Penrose asks? What is the Theory off Everything? As Albert Einstien's theory shows: Energy = Matter × c squared! This is what happened at the Big Bang! The Universe we live in now is the formula: Matter = square root of Energy ÷ c ! So the T.O.E. theory is: E = M c squared changed into M = square root of E ÷ c. Then changed into E = M c squared. And so on and so on!

[@albedoshader]

You seem to be pretty confused about spacetime.

[@FAX335]

Sadly, Hawking appears to have been wrong about a lot of things. His "information disappears in a black hole" idea was debunked relatively quickly but he clung to his theory doggedly for 30 years. Now, it seems he is trying to develop a mathematical proof that there are alternative universes with no black holes which would, in a way, save his original idea. Apparently, Hawking has lost his mojo.

[@josephsiler1946]

If the Universe were Donut Shape then the visible Universe would be a little circle in the middle of that Donut Shape! The visible Universe we see would be only one twentieth of that Donut Shape! Andif the Donut Shape were circular then what we see would only be one two hundredth of the entire Universe! We are very small and the Universe is very, very Large!

[@earlysda]

There never was a big bang. The big bang is just one more belief of those who believe in the god of aeons of time.

[@JmSantos78]

no, it's not. Entropy!

[@arnabchatterjee2001]

Well all calculations are based and/or related to time. What time ? Before we go 4 anything that we need to specify time. Earth time with respect to Sun existed after the earth was created or at least the Sun was created. But Big Bang occured much before the Earth was created.So, Earth time existed after the Earth was created not before that. So, saying the Big Bang occured some X billion Earth years ago is wrong and needs a correction. First do that and then give lectures gentlemen.

[@aqouby]

Penrose drawings.... *sigh*