We need to 'gravitise' quantum mechanics, not quantise gravity | Roger Penrose | Full interview

[@jimbopeebles8210]

I could listen to Mr. Penrose talk all day and never grow tired. It’s amazing how easily he regards others with his explanations, what a truly beautiful person.

[@AAA9549-w7w]

Listening to him is like listening to the devil.

[@oldpharaoh]

@@AAA9549-w7w Like listening to smooth jazz and a cup of coffee? I agree.

[@JonathanTBE]

​@@AAA9549-w7w if the devil is the opposite of god then i agree, absolute wisdom

[@eric.nathanson]

That Penrose has this much mental horsepower at 93 is inspiring.

[@drake_sterling]

Never saw him with a cane by his knee. Long live Sir Roger!

[@genghisgalahad8465]

Because he's been applying his prowess his whole life now!

[@imPyroHD]

I agree! You should also see Jean-Pierre Serre, arguably the greatest mathematician of the 20th century, he's regularly been giving conferences since he turned 90 (hes 98 now) and it's mind boggling

[@JDHof1]

I too agree! Penrose is inspiring. You must know Platonic theory bedrocks Christianity to understand Penrose. Mind over matter all the way until heart over mind. I suppose that could be symbolized via the infinite symbol ∞. Coincidence? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Yassinebridii]

Getting sick of these types of comments on every video of his, no one is discussing what he is talking about.

[@YogiMcCaw]

Sir Roger is a gift to humanity. Part genius scientist, part artist, and part musician, and a wise and compassionate sage, all wrapped into one. Super rare. As for gravitising the quantum, I have no idea how to formulate that. It's an intriguing approach, and at this point, even Sir Roger admits he hasn't got it figured out yet. It may be for a future genius (or geniuses) to finally unravel for humanity. When someone who is as heavy a thinker as Sir Roger points to a road less travelled and says there's something important to be found there, people should take up the challenge. But that's one of the things I really admire about Penrose. If he thinks there's important knowledge to be gained he's willing to go out on a limb, even risk his reputation, to get at the truth. So add courage to the traits above. Thanks for an outstanding interview, Curt.

[@keffbarn]

Penrose is such a legend. Even though he is old, he has young and curious mind. Very inspirational!

[@brentoncarter4275]

He got it wrong his entire career. He admits it in this interview if you actually listened.

[@infectedrainbow]

He's a highly successful screwball.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

It was an honor to speak with Roger Penrose for hours, both off-air and on-air. It was also an honor to host some of the panels at this year's festival at the Institute for Arts and Ideas. Thank you to the organizers. (Oh, and there’s a 1.5-hour more technical interview available on my channel, filmed at the Math Institute at Oxford, if you’re interested). Thanks again to the producers of the Institute for Arts and Ideas. - Curt

[@luizbotelho1908]

Dear Curt . The first point on the Scientific Method : Homages (well deserved by Penrose ,including him have already received a Nobel Praise! ) must not be confused with scientific serious discussions on a given scientific topic .Let me call your attention about a sad event involving A Einstein . After Einstein being nearly considered a demi God of the Science , he submitted a paper on General Relativity which was refused by being clearly wrong .Einstein got mad about ! . Fortunately (for Science!) , the referee was deadly correct . About Sir Roger , Every scientist has his| her time! . I think that Roger has lost a lot of new developments (Huge!) on Theoretical Physics since its time of highly relevant research . So all carefulness by his part should be advised by not misleading young and inexperienced people. And criticism (but courteous!) is well praised!.

[@ekkolapto3]

Great job speaking with Roger on your channel and here at the IAI. Hope to see you interview Penrose many times in the years to come!

[@Penrose707]

Great job Curt, so happy to see you getting out and about. Especially to get to speak with one of my idols :D

[@Hermetics]

kiss-ass :))

[@perthyren601]

You would nod your head til it fell of, without take anything away 😊

[@ravensnflies8167]

there isnt enough footage of sir penrose. i could listen to/watch him endlessly. reminds me of my grandfather.

[@janwar7]

Reminds me of my father.

[@Hiltok]

When using the title 'Sir' it should be used with the Knight's given name, so he is addressed as 'Sir Roger' or more formally as 'Sir Roger Penrose' but not as 'Sir Penrose.' The same holds with Dames, so Judy Dench may be addressed as 'Dame Judy' or 'Dame Judy Dench' but not as 'Dame Dench.'

[@matthewlennon6289]

Grateful for Curt, it’s a rare thing to have a formally trained person specialize in interviewing rather than research per se. He gives us a window that other interviewers would lack either the knowledge, thoughtfulness or humility to accomplish. Not to mention guests like Sir Penrose won’t speak to just anyone.

[@gm_solo]

Love this interview. Both people really shine in a beautiful format like this.

[@Newlectures10]

I am from Africa, Libya. This man's ideas are great and very genius. Changed the way I look at science.

[@someone-w9n]

Bless Libya and all of North Africa and Middle east. The source of all knowledge came from there!

[@Newlectures10]

@someone-w9n This is a narcissistic word. Civilization is one human civilization. When you talk about Arab sciences, they are not measured in complexity and depth. Today, they were very primitive. Get out of the complex of the past.

[@IbrahimSaadawi]

Egyptian here. I have fallen into a days-long wormhole of Penrose speeches. Such a brilliant man. Listen to his talk with Brian Greene

[@lanatrzczka]

This is the very first interviewer I have seen that can actually get Penrose excited and engaged in interaction. Usually he comes off as very polite, but bored to tears.

[@tixch2000]

Very nice and touching interview. Sir Penrose is more relaxed than in other interviews, and stories are revealing of how the mind of a physicist can works.

[@HisBortness]

Every time Sir Roger says "but it will take too long" or "it's too technical" I want to scream "NOOOOOOOO TELLLLLL MEEEEEEEE"

[@Braveclean]

Much respect to you for revisiting this man. He was onto something critically important, even if he wasn’t entirely correct in your last interview with him. I’m glad you’ve done this once again, and I hope you continue to do so in the future.

[@primechords]

The clarity of his thinking is jaw dropping. He is unbelievably articulate and engaging. Curt does a fantastic job as well, you can tell he listens very intently.

[@mikedotexe]

I love that Curt lets him tell his stories without feeling the need to corral him toward a fast answer. There's so much dignity in taking things slow. When I watch these videos, I am ready to hear these stories from this amazing man, and so glad he's got the space to do that. 🖤

[@lsb2623]

Curt just admiring his beloved grandfather... such a sweet chemistry in this vid.

[@sparty94]

fantastic discussion. professor penrose doesn't do these kinds of talks with just anyone, well done.

[@ivocanevo]

I would watch this again with some of Penrose's hand drawn slides carefully edited in for context. His ideas are so visual.

[@shiddy.]

this is so good I watched it twice ... this seems like the kind of thing that you get new stuff out of every time you watch it ... very good - an amazing example of a human mind

[@ebindanjan]

Congratulations and thanks for this great chat with Sir Penrose. I learned a lot from this

[@Hiltok]

Why do Americans think that knights are called Sir Family-Name when that has never been so? It is Sir Roger, or more formally, Sir Roger Penrose. If he were a lord, he might be Lord Penrose, but lords often take other names when ennobled. Penrose isn't a lord.

[@GhostGXr]

Roger Penrose is probably my most favorite physicist of our time, because he is humble and has a solid foundation. He doesn't expect fame, and he doesn't fall for new age physics. He's calssical in a sense. And I love that. Wonderful man!

[@lily-ui5st]

Everytime I see professor Penrose I upvote

[@douglashobden]

What a colossal intellect Sir Roger has, it is always a pleasure to hear him speak.

[@iRONMATH_INDUS]

He will always be brilliant❤. Thanks for getting this together, and allowing him to speak, and us absorb. He was definitely enjoying himself.

[@fuseteam]

if this isn't the actual "full" interview imma riot

[@GeoffreyAngapa]

Pleasure to listen to Sir Roger and his overflowing mind. I wish physicists would heed his insight that the big change needs to come on the quantum side.

[@TheFuryOfTheAvocado]

Wow what an awesome discussion. Getting to talk with the great Roger Penrose must have been awesome. One or the greatest minds of the twentieth century

[@isatousarr7044]

The traditional approach to unifying physics has focused on quantising gravity, treating spacetime as another field to be expressed within the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics. This has given rise to models like string theory and loop quantum gravity. However, these approaches face significant conceptual and experimental challenges, including a lack of empirical evidence and difficulties in reconciling spacetime’s continuous nature with the discrete mathematics of quantum theory. Gravitising quantum mechanics, as an alternative, suggests that gravity due to its role as the geometry of spacetime might demand a reformulation of quantum principles themselves. Unlike other forces, gravity is inseparable from the fabric of spacetime, meaning that it might not conform to the same quantisation rules as electromagnetic, weak, or strong forces. This idea builds on the notion that quantum mechanics may be incomplete when it comes to gravity. Penrose, for instance, has proposed that quantum superpositions of mass distributions could destabilise spacetime geometry, leading to an objective collapse of the wavefunction-a process that is fundamentally gravitational. This perspective introduces gravity as an agent of decoherence, naturally bridging the quantum and classical worlds without requiring the quantisation of spacetime itself. The implications of gravitisng quantum mechanics are profound. It might offer resolutions to long-standing paradoxes, such as the measurement problem, by tying wavefunction collapse to spacetime curvature. It could also illuminate black hole physics, including the information paradox, and provide insights into the origin of the universe, where quantum and gravitational effects converge. Ultimately, this approach reflects a call for humility in theoretical physics: an acknowledgment that our current understanding of quantum mechanics may not be the ultimate framework, especially in the presence of gravity. Gravitising quantum mechanics invites us to rethink the fundamental principles governing reality, potentially paving the way for breakthroughs that harmonise the microcosmic and macrocosmic realms of physics.

[@QED_]

Question, please: In your experience of physicists, is there maybe a different kind of theoretical mind necessary to think about gravitizing quantum mechanics (rather than quantizing gravity) (?)

[@mark.J6708]

Love your comment.

[@Skyl3t0n]

chat gpt vocabulary

[@isatousarr7044]

@@QED_ From a quantum physics perspective, it's an intriguing proposition to consider whether a different kind of theoretical mindset is necessary to think about "gravitizing quantum mechanics" rather than "quantizing gravity." The traditional approach of quantizing gravity assumes that the framework of quantum mechanics is the foundational structure upon which gravity must be reconciled. This mindset leads us to apply well-established quantum rules to describe the gravitational field, resulting in theories like quantum field theory in curved spacetime or attempts to quantize spacetime geometry directly. However, gravitizing quantum mechanics flips this perspective on its head. It suggests that the principles governing gravity such as general covariance, spacetime curvature, and the equivalence principle might inform and reshape our understanding of quantum mechanics itself. Instead of seeing gravity as a classical limit of a quantum framework, we could explore how gravitational phenomena might impose constraints or even generate new principles in quantum theory. This shift might require a more holistic theoretical approach, blending concepts like relationalism (where spacetime and events are defined relative to one another) with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. It could involve revisiting foundational questions about locality, unitarity, and the role of observers, concepts that are often taken for granted in quantum theory but may need re-examination in a gravitational context. In essence, gravitizing quantum mechanics demands a mindset that embraces the possibility that the interplay between spacetime and quantum phenomena is more fundamental than either framework in isolation. It challenges us to think beyond traditional paradigms, potentially requiring new mathematical tools and conceptual frameworks that respect both the continuity of spacetime and the discreteness of quantum states.

[@QED_]

@@isatousarr7044 props

[@blijebij]

Sir Roger Penrose is correct that the Schrödinger equation predicts a continuous and deterministic evolution, while the collapse of the wave function during measurements introduces random and non-deterministic changes. However, this does not mean that QM is wrong but rather that it is incomplete. In other words, it is unfinished. Always love talks with Sir Roger Penrose.

[@alexcaledin4521]

- that's because physics is not the whole reality, it's only some game rules as Feynman said.

[@blijebij]

@@alexcaledin4521 Our physics model does not describe reality as a whole, true. Else unification was already found between GR and Qm. Some perspective is still missing.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Sir Penrose is correct means someone learned something. Who is his competitor. Good luck

[@Hiltok]

@@brendawilliams8062 As a knight, his honorific is appended to his given name, not his family name, thus it is 'Sir Roger' or 'Sir Roger Penrose' but not 'Sir Penrose.' The same is true of dames such as Dame Judy Dench (Dame Judy, not Dame Dench) or sticking with science, Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell is Dame Jocelyn, not Dame Bell Burnell.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thx

[@cynicaldreams4301]

So roger finally interviews curt! Great

[@mervcharles8365]

I love that Roger still takes time to share his views and still working on ideas at 93 years old.

[@charles.e.g.]

Roger Penrose has this unique gift for making me feel intelligent and unintelligent at the same time.

[@nancyhope2205]

This interesting and well explained. I think I understood, some of this, and I can use these concepts.

[@gladiator8192]

@@nancyhope2205 are you also a physicist??

[@nancyhope2205]

@ I wish. I am an enthusiastic autodidact.

[@QED_]

@@nancyhope2205 props

[@erichodge567]

Roger Penrose is an amazing human being. I just wish someone would ask him the REALLY important question: Sir, how have you managed to stay so sharp at age when anyone else would just be staring into a dark corner babbling nonsense?

[@imstevemcqueen]

If particle physics theory is wrong, and more and more people think it is, then he is babbling. You don't understand anything he said, neither do 99.99999999% of all people

[@Hiltok]

@@imstevemcqueen Well, you clearly didn't understand what he said. Don't impute that to everyone else.

[@BetzalelMC]

Love this thought/process! Very much aligns with a theory I’ve been working on since the 90’s… and I almost wholly agree with Sir Penrose that we need to look to gravitize QM and _not_ the other way around

[@tommyheron464]

Roger is such a kind, warm and genuinely a genius of a man. I am proud to have shared this small overlap of time with him.

[@burgercide]

Can't get enough of this guy.

[@alanarcher]

I love how intense Sir Penrose is when he points out that, "You follow the Schrödinger Equation, you don't get the right answer!"

[@DavidHall-x1u]

I used the Penrose process when I was investigating getting energy from the ergos sphere of a blackhole it worked in my Quantum simulator beautifully thank you Sir for your research👃

[@burthurt8365]

Roger is an international treasure . ❤

[@hagenkleemann7309]

Reading the comment section as a psychologist (with no real mathematical understanding of the physics discussed) I get the impression that there's just the thinnest of lines dividing great inside from utter madness. And the location of this line seems fundamentally uncertain.

[@dev_invc]

@@hagenkleemann7309 Why would you think it’s a thin line and not a continuum?

[@hagenkleemann7309]

​@dev_invc Within the subjects dealing with the matter it is a continuum 😊. I would agree. But as an observer you might want to decide wether it is one or the other 🤷🏼‍♂️😉

[@lidan9805]

Ideas in my mind to share: 1) complex number in Schroeder equation describes wave functions in higher dimensions 2) it needs higher energy to make a bigger wave in the higher dimensions, and that bigger wave is more difficult to collaspe 3) Small wave functions collaspe in 3-dimenional space when being "measured" or "observsed" due to a "force" acts on it, in a manner similar to what gravity acts on matter. 4) i hope it is what meaningful to others 🫣🫣

[@43harshgirishpatel43]

Sir Penrose is a legend!!! May, God keep him healthy and happy.

[@richardchapman1592]

Tried to comment on another interview with Roger where he was beautifully describing an open ended totality of loveliness he's found from being almost entirely dedicated to the pursuit of using a limited range of logic symbols to describe experimental observation. So glad he can tell of a wonderful way of escaping from what can often be a painful reality into the world of abstract purity.

[@DDDelgado]

Dear Sir Roger Penrose, I am a nanotechnology researcher with a deep interest in theoretical physics, particularly the integration of gravity into quantum mechanics. Recently, I published a preprint on ResearchGate proposing that gravitational gradients might induce measurable dephasing in the electromagnetic field of a traveling beam, potentially hinting at a graviton-photon coupling or a novel symmetry. As a hobbyist in theoretical physics, I greatly admire your contributions to the field. I wonder if such an idea could inspire a mathematical model or shed light on the fundamental nature of spacetime and forces. Thank you for your incredible work! I would be honored if you consider this concept. Best regards,

[@PetraKann]

You need to write a letter to Sir Roger Penrose

[@DDDelgado]

@PetraKann do you have his email address, thanks :-)

[@PetraKann]

@@DDDelgado no

[@DDDelgado]

@PetraKann I did email him to his legacy email. Hopefully, ty anyways. :-)

[@TemNoon]

This is a great interview. The depth into the origins and deep significance of twistor theory was very well put, accessible (if not “easy” or “simple”) and explained some things about twistor theory that I hadn’t heard before. Thank you! Sir Roger is such a heritage gift to the world.

[@natmanprime4295]

Great stuff! Thx

[@Kronzik]

Patiently waiting for Penrose's response to Kerr, him touching on it here was such a tease.

[@SpotterVideo]

Dr. Penrose is suggesting instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Sir Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Sir Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay)

[@drake_sterling]

Disregarding the terms, this is inductive and synthetic - just what is needed. Don't give up on your vision; you are on the right track, IMO.

[@rafitiki]

Great interview! Thank you!

[@Esch_atton]

Curt and Roger are an awesome duo.

[@EscapeFromDaSystem]

so glad to see him still alive man x

[@tevis190]

More! GOD I love Roger Penrose. Thank you Curt. Made my day and challenged my intellect all day thinking about the ideas he introduces and explains.

[@MikeWiest]

Wow! Thank you!🙏

[@mehdimehdikhani5899]

I wish I knew which year this discussion happened.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

It's from three months ago (2024 Sept).

[@Thomas-gk42]

It was at the HTLGI festival in London this year, I was there and saw Roger Penrose together with Sabine Hossenfelder on the panel. I hope it gets uploaded too.

[@richardsaylor6214]

Beautiful, relaxed, clear conversation. Thanks.

[@drake_sterling]

Right. That's why I will pay Curt for exclusive content. (2025 1st qtr 👜👌)

[@mitsaoriginal8630]

@@TheoriesofEverything Please interview John Smith.

[@Wilson-Jr]

"We need to 'gravitise' quantum mechanics, not quantise gravity". That line itself deserves a Nobel.

[@Minptahhathor]

@@Wilson-Jr damn, wipe up when ya done 💀

[@gregorygant4242]

This is true I think , quantum mechanics is the real TOE but not in it's current form but in a more advanced form which we don't have now and it's not string theory , no . Unfortunately even Mr. Penrose won't figure it out despite his brilliance he's no Einstein no disrespect , even he couldn't figure it out back then. Mr. Penrose will just take the answer to his grave I'm afraid .

[@bernardoj54]

@@gregorygant4242 not even Einstein figured it out, só I don't understand why you mentioned he's no Einstein

[@gregorygant4242]

@@bernardoj54 That's what I meant even Einstein with all his genius couldn't figure it out how could Mr. Penrose do it ? Mr. Penrose is very old now I don't think he can figure it out with the time he has left on this Earth, the man is 90+ years old now.

[@ralphkeener795]

Perhaps, for the same reason the majority of us don't own "flying cars" as expected by this late date. So much time was spent trying to find solutions to the miriad physical and aerodynamic problems that have to be solved to make such such a product feasible, let alone financially viable in the market place that virtually every potential commercial effort to produce a flying car was abandoned before it could get off the ground. (Pun intended) On the other hand, had a fraction of the effort and financial input by engineers and financial institutions been applied to overcoming the far fewer number of problems that would be involved with creating a "drivable plane", a large number of us would be wasting far less time commuting from point A to point B. Many times, the solution lies not in the effort, mechanics and processes applied to the problem, but in the perspective of the obsever to the problem.

[@max5665]

I believe that Roger Penrose is absolutely right - and I fear that the followers of Quantum Mechanics will have to come to terms with it. Thank you.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Awh, you are so cute when you are admitting that you don't understand physics. ;-)

[@max5665]

@lepidoptera9337 you are so cute, too, believe me, when you are candidly admitting you don't have the ability to "read" who is in front of you. No worries, it's very common in those who speak too much and out of turn. Thank you.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@max5665 You are getting cuter by the minute. :-)

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Einstein is easily the greatest scientist of the 20th century followed by Dirac. Both are on the Mount Rushmore of Physicists. Einstein, according to Douglas Stone (deputy directory of Yale's Quantum Institute), is the greatest conceptual genius of time alongside Leonardo Da Vinci. Einstein taught himself differential and integral calculus by age 14. He wrote an original proof the Pythagorean Theorem at age 11. He read, and understood, Kants Critiques of Practical and Pure Reason, at age 12 (something college-aged students struggle with today). He had perfect scores in the physics and math sections of the Zurich Polytechnique entry exam at age 16 when the youngest age they would accept any student was 18 years old. He was a prodigy. He got the equivalent of straight A's in math and physics in secondary school and when he got to the Zurich Polytechnique he got the highest grades in his entire graduation class until his second year of university. After his second year of university, his grades plummeted from being the highest because he skipped all his classes. Why? Because they weren't teaching Maxwells work on electromagnetism (it was still fairly new at the time). So he stopped going to class (and skipped all his math classes because he had already taught himself advanced math as a teenager and foolishly believed that calculus was all that was needed to understand the universe). He found out later that differential geometry/Riemannian geometry and tensor calculus were different beasts entirely. In the physics curriculum of 1900, advanced mathematics like differential geometry was not taught and most physicists of that time did not know learn it. Ironically, it was Einstein's work on General Relativity that helped spur physics departments all around the Western world to mandate advanced mathematics in their physics curricula. According to Dirac, the general theory of relativity is the most beautiful theory in all of science. Dirac and Einstein had a mutual appreciation for each other. When Abraham Flexner, the head of the Advanced Institute at Princeton, asked Einstein (already at the Institute, which scientist he should bring to Princeton. Einstein immediately replied "Dirac." And the ONLY book Einstein would ever refer to on quantum mechanics was written by Dirac. He would often ask his assistant "where is my Dirac?" (a reference to Dirac's textbook on quantum mechanics). Dirac, famously taciturn, held Einstein as the leading scientific mind of the century. According to Professor Douglas Stone of Yale University, Einstein should have received 10 Nobel Prizes. It was Einstein, not Planck, who started the quantum revolution by explictly quantizing the radiation field (something Planck did not do). Einstein was the first to conceive of the boson and the photon, the first force carrying particle discovered. Einstein discovered the theoretical basis for the LASER. Einstein started condensed matter physics as a new field. Einstein wrote a first paper on quantum information theory with his famous EPR paper. Einstein was the first to come up with Probability Waves (which Max Born always acknowledged). Einstein independently derived the same work J. W. Gibbs came up with. Einstein independently derived the Raleigh-Jeans Law. The list is endless. Einstein was the first to show that atoms and molecules exist with a predictive tool to determine their size. He came up with a new method of deriving avogrados number. Einstein was the first person to correctly explain the Tea Leaf Paradox. Although Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz (and even Maxwell), had come up with several parameters and transfprmations for what we now call Special Relativity, it was Einstein who not only derived it from first principles, but was the first to correctly derive the conservation of mass theorem (e=mc2) as a necessary function of the invariance of the speed of light (which is why science historians give him credit for Special Relativity and not Poincare and Lorentz). Again, im leaving out MANY things he did. 10 Nobel Prizes worth of genius and a whole panoply of brilliant ideas. Even Neils Bohr owes the idea of the Bohr model for Hydrogen - in which energies are exchanged only in fixed amounts (h-bar) - from Einsteins papers on quantizing the radiation field between 1905 and 1911. Einstein was also the first to correctly introduce the equation for wave-particle duality, which he applied to photons. De Broglie took the same equation, more or less, and applied it to electrons to get matter waves. The four greatest physicists of all time are: Einstein, Newton, Maxwell and Dirac Book suggestions: Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian Blackbody and the Quantum Dis-Continuity by T.S. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by T.S. Kuhn Peace and Love.

[@longshotkdb]

One of a kind. I'm completely obsessed with Orch Or. It's just the best thread I've ever pulled . . . Forever grateful for that. ∆

[@travman2863]

LOL the beginning of this video 0:00 to 0:12 where Roger Penrose talking about following the Schrodinger equation. That's exactly why I follow the McGinty equation.

[@gkelly34]

I can’t get my head around 4-D spacetime geometry, this man is a genius 😊

[@tune490]

I love that Sir Roger Penrose is challenging a lot of the preconceived notions stuck in quantum mechanics. Yes we need to gravitise the standard model.

[@romansasik9087]

Mesmerizing!

[@martinhoy1]

Very Interesting. Mr Penrose is amazing. I’ve learned such a lot from his videos & books 😀👍

[@tam31433]

Wow, awesome, thank you

[@ShahrulShahrul-b3t]

ACTUALLY PENROSE IS ONLY HALF-RIGHT. The solution of the issue, maybe gravitise the QM, or quantize the gravity.... its still a mystery, which no one knows.... JUMP INTO CONCLUSION IN DARK, IS NOT HELPING...

[@frankmccann29]

Finally, Dr. Penrose you nailed it. I've got some aspects.

[@RhettAnderson]

I never get tired of hearing Penrose.

[@gerald1964]

It is interesting that the mathematics that are fundamental to areas such as digital signal processing and communication theory are also applicable to areas such as quantum mechanics.

[@engineersteveo9886]

As frequency approaches infinity does that represent a particle?

[@alex79suited]

I'm excited 😊. Peace ✌️ 😎. No collapsing.

[@Frost_Byte_Tech]

Can someone please help me understand him explaining that when you fall freely under gravity, it eliminates the field altogether.. does this mean that quatum objects are always moving ?

[@lepidoptera9337]

It doesn't. Tidal forces can not be eliminated by freefall.

[@Frost_Byte_Tech]

@lepidoptera9337 then please explain what he means by his statement

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@Frost_Byte_Tech Who? Penrose? I can not tell you what an old man who has lost his mind means. I can only explain proper physics to you. ;-)

[@Michael75579]

One common way of looking at things is to imagine you're standing on a scale on top of a trap door; the scale will show your weight. The trap door opens and both you and the scale start to fall towards the ground; as you're falling the scale will read zero. In the case of astronauts aboard the ISS, both the astronauts and the ISS are falling along the same path and so the astronauts appear to be weightless.

[@KeithAllpress]

There are two ways to accelerate. One is to move directly toward eachother. The other is to orbit elliptically which is the same thing in fact but you never get closer in total. You literally fall but you also move away from your fall direction. This may be involved with the quantum world in some deep way... Gravity comes into it because we already have Einstein's excellent theory of general relativity that links gravity to mechanics. Mechanics is the key common element. Penrose is suggesting that the collapse postulate of the quantum state needs explaining or replacing with something more physically grounded. That is when the universe suddenly and for no apparent reason ignores your nice mechanics equations. Einstein wasn't too happy either. Penrose doesn’t actually reject the concept outright he just says it's a problem that needs a physical explanation. He proposed that gravity is involved. It's not a bad idea but you know this stuff is deep. His point is you can't mesh gravity with quantum theory until you get the basics right. What does it mean when the universe does this? Are your equations faulty? Apparently not. It's a conundrum. An embarrassment even. Which is probably why everybody has their pet theory. Or the professor teaches her students to shut up and calculate. I've got a pet theory too. But I am not a Nobel Laureate and I don't even have a physics major.

[@karanchanaya2981]

Love and Respect ❤

Roger Penrose the greatest mind of the 21st century.

[@markdagley4213]

I love listening to Penrose. As I take it in and philosophize along with him, I am struck that both GR and QM have an illogic that is in reference to the observer. Light speed is a constant to the observer. Superposition is probabilistic, the observer affects it. Both illogical. Both most likely true. Gravity is a constant weak force but if you go with it you are free, you don't even know it is there; if you fight against it you get exhausted, you are stressed by its effect. Gravity holds multiple things together. Moving on to God and faith. God's faith and love permeates everything, affects everything. Light's onward march is like God's holiness, never changing for the observer. But each of us have a little gravity and have a little effect by our faith, how we see things. When our faith, our quantum 'gravity', to create our reality goes against God's pervasive reality, Schrödinger's cat ends up dead, eventually. When our faith, our quantum 'gravity', aligns with God's faith, His gravity, Schrödinger's cat ends up alive, eventually. Miracles - our faith in the improbable aligning with God's faith in the possible opens the door to meaning and reality. When we pool our faith, it becomes weighty, takes on gravity enough, to move from QM to GR. But to get there, I suppose our own little egos, our spiraling 'reality', needs to collapse in the face of God's constancy, as we align our gravity with His, or else our orbit will spiral down into meaninglessness. Oh, for such true freedom! I love listening to Penrose. He inspires my imagination!

[@markkennedy9767]

I love this guy. Hes so genuine

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, but unfortunately also wrong.

[@ashwinvishwakarma2531]

Why did he describe Roy Kerr comments on existence of singularities as ridiculous? Im really curious, it was a completely valid counterexample.

[@romansasik9087]

It's because Kerr confused local time with invariant time in his paper.

[@ashwinvishwakarma2531]

@@romansasik9087 Ah yeah, I just watched another video on it. I unsubbed from Sabine now, she's the one who spread that misinformation. Really don't like her anymore. It also shows how old age (speaking of Kerr) really impacts the ability to do mathematics for some people. Makes me think of also someone like Michael Atiyah who was trying to prove the RH near the end of his life. Crazy how Penrose is still relatively on top of his game.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

I would be really interested in knowing what they're up to in Cambridge

[@benstevens6634]

I never really get the term “measurement”, can it just be thought of as a “duplication of information”? I.e. we are causing a sensor to reflect whatever is happening in the system we are measuring, which somehow collapses the wave function that existed before the information was duplicated?

[@SLWoodland]

To make any sense of what we understand about the underlying makeup of matter, we must first realize that being interconnected is important! Having a discrete model of what connects everything in our universe is necessary to even begin understanding what makes up everything. Interconnecting everything physically cannot be ignored. Start there, period! First things first!

[@nickturnock3369]

Question. Do you get more virtual partices flitting in and out of existance in the space station which is in freefall than you would if you the space staion were on earth?

[@coreymorris1693]

I love love to know what he thinks of haw puthoff work. Especially when it come to this and the whole extended electro dynamics using a modified heavy side equation as the fix.

[@LuisAldamiz]

He's so right! Why Academia is not just following this man to breakthrough? Why are they adopting losing tactics like String Theory and all that junk about "quantizing gravity"?

[@ricomajestic]

Because he's wrong!

[@MarcAdrin]

Que maravilloso Penrose. Un genio absoluto. Una celebridad ❤

[@tubalcain1039]

Interesting historical information.

[@UhLittleLessDum]

He's 1,000% spot on. I've worked on a model that attempts to do exactly this, and while I haven't bound it to quantum mechanics yet, it's showing *phenomenal* potential already with observationally confirmed results. While quantum mechanics needs to be modified, specifically QED, it also applies a slight modification to Einstein's SR that intern modifies gravity and of course GR... all of which are 100% consistent with every experimental validation of SR/GR. *Summary* After deciding against a PhD, I wound up working in software instead of physics. 3 years ago I left my career in software behind to work on a model that's loosely related to this. I was able to derive multiple directly observed quantities that are completely unaccounted for by either SR or GR, and this was achieved with only the slightest modification to Einstein's SR that then of course produces a modified GR. The difference is that SR and GR and much more formally unified in the model I've been working on, and this is all accomplished without the need for time dilation or even 4-vectors. To sum up the model: - All 4 vectors are collapsed to relativistic 3 vectors. - Gamma is applied to space, with time dilation occurring only as a secondary effect. - This space dilation is then bound with the equivalence principle. - By binding this proposed spatial dilation with gravitational acceleration, it's straight forward to find a velocity required to produce our local gravitational acceleration. - Cosmic inflation becomes just a sum of all gravitational accelerations in the Universe, multiplied by some proportionality scalar. - After modifying that formula to accommodate the use of relativistic 3 vectors instead of 4 vectors, as time itself is now described by the principle of gravitational acceleration/ cosmic inflation, we find a value that fits well within 1% of direct observation through SNe and CMB data. Where it's going: - The proposed model describes our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension as a 3 dimensional, expanding geometry. - Because of this, there exists new opportunities to unify electromagnetism with gravity through some modifications to Maxwell's equations. This is what I'm currently working on now, or at least when I have time to work on it. I gave up everything for this model, and became homeless in the process. Over the course of this fiasco, I created my own academic/STEM focused note taking app/framework that I'm now hoping to release to the public for free in the next month in an attempt to draw attention to this model. Alongside the documentation for that framework, I've published some of my notes on the matter as a sort of demo. If you're curious, you find those docs if you look up my username.

[@UhLittleLessDum]

@@luizbotelho1908 Ok... now back that up with something... like literally anything. Is something about it experimentally unsound? Is the math flawed? Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't make it nonsensical. It's far more straightforward than existing models of relativity, and modifies pre-relativistic physics far less than SR/GR themselves.

[@Happidap]

@@UhLittleLessDumdon't let someone on KZbin get in your head, follow your dream. I'm unqualified and can only say, be very methodical, doubt everything and try to attack your own work to find the gaps and holes.

[@ivocanevo]

​@@UhLittleLessDumthanks for sharing all that. I hope you can get it published and peer reviewed. Tbh, speaking as someone who merely has a fascination with physics (but no postgrad or PhD credentials), I can't tell if anything you said checks out. But the combination of your confident tone, seeming lack of academic sponsorship, and efforts to find an audience in KZbin comments, is kind of a red flag for a pretty smart guy with some mental health issues. If attachment to your physics identity is ruining your life rather than changing the world, maybe gave a second look? Respectfully.

[@lepidoptera9337]

You are clearly not happy with your fast food job. Maybe you should upgrade to parking attendant. ;-)

[@awesomedavid2012]

I'm certianly skeptical, but keep working on it.

[@greatestone4eva]

6:40 that's a decision point for conscious beings. I wish they asked him about how his microtubule paper is going.

[@andrewwilliams4283]

Sir Roger Penrose....live long and prosper.,

[@markhuebner7580]

Go Roger, go!

[@ivocanevo]

29:47 _Sean Carroll has entered the chat._

[@tomditto3972]

On the one hand, the Planck mass is small, but relative to the masses associated with fundamental particles in the Standard Model, it is large. That such mass could affect quantum mechanics seems like a reasonable approach that lends itself to experimentation.

[@jacobladder5556]

Feynman says "If you can tell [which slit the particle went through], then you don't get [an] interference [pattern]." So it's all about information: if the which-slit information is extracted from the particle (thus changing it) and moved somewhere else, then the which-slit information is definite - anyway, it's information that makes the difference. I don't see where Penrose talks about information being the key to "wave function collapse." Also, assuming information cannot be transmitted backward in time, there cannot in principle be an experiment that answers the question: "has the wave function collapsed yet"?

[@jacobladder5556]

Can't we analyze the measurement, when the photon hits the screen, using the Schrödinger equation?

[@JohnWilliams-gy5yc]

Seeing somebody puts the word quantum theory and gravity on the same side of a sentence is mind blowing. Let alone Sir Penrose erging that.

[@semblt]

Fascinating

[@MrMeltdown]

I’ve posted on other videos about Schrödingers cat. I always argued that the point was not really what state the cat was in…but what would the box be like. Since gravitation could pass through the box giving away information inside it so the wave function must have collapsed… so the box must either be so huge that gravity is effectively zero outside the box. Also photons must not operate on the box in a way that can leak information… so again it could be so huge that a photon never arrives at the inner side of the box…. So those limits must define the smallest dimensions in space AND time of what the box can actually be to maintain the wave function… this seemed unobtainable by my young mind when I was first reading about things and I could never find the answers in a way I could understand in those I spoke or what I read….

[@lepidoptera9337]

You are correct. One can not shield gravity and hence Schroedinger's box can not exist. That, however, is not what resolves Schroedinger's criticism.

[@koenraad4618]

Once it is understood that pilotwaves are (broken symmetry on the classical field level) longitudinal electroscalar waves with superluminal signal velocity, one can technically induce gravity fields.

[@scottmiller2591]

Dirac was indeed a good lecturer and would tell jokes. I got to see him in person lecturing on the coincidence of large dimensionless numbers, and during that, he made mention of "that Weyl mathematician" (properly pronounced as "that vile mathematician") which was a humorous way of talking about Hermann Weyl, who proposed an alternative to the Dirac equation. I'm sure this wasn't a slip of the tongue, but a joke.

[@JT-np1op]

This is my framwork theory which i am still expanding. The Subtle Simulacra 1. Pure Conceptual Layer (Infinite Cusp) • Definition: The foundational layer of reality, containing boundless, unfettered energy and infinite potential. It is the source of all possibilities, unstructured, timeless, and dimensionless. • Geometric Representation: • A zero-dimensional singularity-a timeless point of infinite scale. • This singularity exists beyond comprehension, akin to an infinite “horizon of existence.” Role: • Serves as the primal source from which all energy, structure, and possibility emerges. • Contains the latent proto-forms of all known and unknown energy, dimensions, and dynamics. 2. Proto-Energy Layer • Definition: An emergent expression of the Infinite Cusp, where pure energy begins its transition from boundlessness into latent, discrete forms. • Role: • Proto-Energy acts as a multiplier force, recursively expanding from infinity to infinite infinities. • It serves as the causal foundation of all forces, structures, and emergent pathways. Geometric Representation: • A 4D hypersphere entirely constructed of infinite fractal geometry. • The fractals represent the recursive subdivision of infinite energy into latent possibilities. • The interior space of this hypersphere becomes the locus of all emergent dynamics. 3. Trans-Temporal Field Effect (Time as a Geometric Cosmic Force) • Definition: Time emerges as a geometric cosmic force, arising in relation to infinite expansion. It exists as a trans-temporal framework, enabling paradoxical relationships between movement and stasis. • Key Features: 1. Proto-Time: • Arises instantly as part of infinite infinities expanding, representing time’s foundational proto-form. 2. Trans-Temporal Emergence: • Generates a timeless, geometric field effect that anchors and stabilizes the system. • This framework allows for the recursive unfolding of probabilities. 3. Holographic Geometry of Time: • Encodes time geometrically, enabling non-linear exploration of pathways and relationships. • Even when time is “paused” or static, its geometric form remains navigable. • Time acts like a projection layer, preserving latent relationships as part of the recursive expansion. 4. Perceptual Time: • Recursive probabilistic iterations within trans-temporal time produce localized, fluid, and perceptual time. Role: • Balances dynamic flow and stabilization, ensuring energy distribution and coherence. • Resolves the paradox of movement and stasis by embedding time geometry within the emergent system. Key Insight: • Time exists as both a cosmic pressure and a geometric projection, enabling recursive exploration of emergent relationships. • Time is not strictly linear; its geometric structure supports timeless navigation and recursive refinement. 4. Tokenization Layer • Definition: A boundary or membrane layer where infinite energy tokenizes into discrete units, creating the first quantifiable forms of existence. • Role: • Translates boundless potential into structured tokens of energy, capable of interacting within emergent systems. • Provides the framework for probabilistic and finite outcomes. Geometric Representation: • The surface and interior pathways of the hypersphere undergo fractal subdivision, recursively tokenizing infinite energy into smaller and smaller finite units. 5. Emergent Tunnel (Manifold Dispenser) • Definition: A dynamic, transitional system where tokenized energy is dispersed probabilistically into manifolds within the 4D hypersphere’s interior. • Role: • Distributes energy pathways dynamically, connecting fractal regions and enabling probabilistic emergence. • Serves as the first decipherer in a three-step process leading to tangible reality. Geometric Representation: • The interior region of the hypersphere contains emergent tunnels-infinitely complex manifolds-distributing energy dynamically. 6. The Experiencer Layer (Non-Entity Waveform Collapse) • Definition: An unconscious, inanimate property of the quantum system that collapses waveforms into tangible, measurable states. • Role: • Formalizes relationships between probabilistic manifolds into quantum structures (light, matter, time). • Functions as a non-entity observer, embedded within the system as an integrated feature of the quantum realm. 7. Simulacra (Solid Waveform Phased Projection) • Definition: The final, tangible manifestation of energy and relationships, experienced as solid and structured reality. • Role: • Represents the recursive projection of collapsed waveforms into measurable, finite structures. • Serves as the third decipherer, where animate observers interact with and refine emergent systems. Geometric Representation: • A holographic projection of the hypersphere into 3D space, manifesting as observable matter, forces, and dimensions. Key Insight: • The Simulacra exists as a stabilized, recursive output of the system, refined through observer feedback while maintaining self-sufficiency.

[@JT-np1op]

Notice layer 6! My intuition is quite similar to your Sir Roger Penrose! ❤

[@tejaK]

❤❤🙏❤❤

[@markhuebner7580]

So the question is how to create an equivalence between the electric field and the gravitational field? Maybe the spin function of the electron and the quantization of spin of massive rotating bodies?

[@englishpronunciationlesson8653]

A wonderful man.