What are Hawking points? | Sir Roger Penrose | Mathematical physicist and Nobel Prize

Roger Penrose - Physicist and mathematician
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. Penrose has made contributions to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems and one half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".
November 21, 2019 at City of science and industry in Paris.

[@cmilkau]

"Infinity is a lot longer than an awfully long time" I'm inclined to frame that quote

[@ogi22]

Many years ago i have seen a recording of his lecture he gave in Copernicus Lecture Center in Poland. I'm very happy to see physicists from my country contributing in such advanced physics and it is amazing to watch Sir Roger still giving lectures with his famous hand drawings and pushing physics ideas forward 😀

[@scienceforfree0]

@ogi22 Thank you for your comment ! We should record Sir Roger Penrose in 1 month. Hope you will appreciate the next video on @scienceforfree channel !

[@MrBollocks10]

He collaborated with the University and some exciting things came out of it.

[@ogi22]

@@MrBollocks10 Yup, very smart man with a traditional style in lecture graphics 🥰

[@gliderfan6196]

If Sir Roger was Richard Feynman he would paint connecting eons on his truck. Such a clarity of presentation of such complicated things that only most brilliant minds can come to.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Glider Fan Thank you for the comment ! Subscribe now to @scienceforfree channel to follow us and enjoy new videos.

[@jonathandawson3091]

24:57 Every time I get goosebumps when I see that picture connecting the eons so logically, so simply.

[@dradeel]

I know exactly what you mean. It's so elegant and beautiful, and such a pure Occam's razor in how its simplicity solves all the paradoxes, unknowns and logical necessities so neatly. I only stumbled across Penrose's CCC theory and his model of the universe two days ago. Since then I've been watching all the talks and videos on him that I can find, and every time he shows how the aeons fit together and especially how remnant signals from a past aeon could conceivably be observed in the cosmic background radiation of our current aeon, my restless mind is at such ease. It just makes so much sense. I like that. Every sense of unrest, inconsistency and frustration with conventional models and theories are done away with.

[@bernardputersznit64]

a whirl wind of so much science and cosmology - yet he still makes it lucid to us

[@leyasep5919]

The danger is to "think" or "have the feeling" we understand but with no solid ground : it becomes faith, not science. Speculations are the beginning, not the end and every hypothesis must be thoroughly tested..

[@harryflashman3141]

I love the way Penrose still uses images from seventies projectors.. old school.

[@krypton9984]

I love your ideas Sir Roger, I have followed them as they evolve for over ten years and the only regret I have is that it seems to take more than the length of even a genius's life to finally get them perfected and understood by the world. Brilliant. Look after yourself, I wish I could see a human who can take this to the conclusion, which is surely a decade or more away

[@scienceforfree0]

@Krypton Thank you for your comment !

[@dennistucker1153]

Sir Roger Penrose...such a great mind. One of the world's best.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Dennis Tucker Thank you for your comment ! We should record Sir Roger Penrose in 1 month. Hope you will appreciate the next video on @scienceforfree channel !

[@zathrasyes1287]

Sir Penrose is one of the smartest guys living on our planet right now.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Zathras Yes Thank you for your comment! Welcome on @scienceforfree channel.

[@BiigTitties]

This idiot gets it

[@Nilguiri]

Sir Roger*

[@durandalgmx7633]

That may be so, but he can't explain shit. He's building the lecture on his own experience without explaining that experience.

[@TheNewPhysics]

Being smart doesn't mean being correct. In this case, Sir Roger Penrose is wrong.

[@sarahjane1975]

This was an inspiration which came to me back in 2008 but could never express in words or mathematics. What a gift to hear Sir Roger Penrose explain it with such clarity. I feel truly enlightened to have listened to this lecture and wish it could have gone on for hours more. Thank you so much for posting.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Sarah Jane thank you so much for your comment ! We should record Sir Roger Penrose in 1 month. Hope you will appreciate the next video.

[@hyperduality2838]

Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@procerusgigas]

Its funny that even this level of genius stil get confused by trivial things such as, how to operate a rrmote controller for presentations.😂

[@tortysoft]

This man is incredible - and I think he is right too. It makes sense to me on many levels. I don't have great depth of understanding though, just lots of levels.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Simon Anthony Thank you for your comment! Welcome on @scienceforfree channel.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@scienceforfree0 Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@mattblack6736]

@@hyperduality2838 stop spamming.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@mattblack6736 Spam is the wrong word. There are new laws of physics:- From a converging, convex (lens) or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics! According to the 2nd law all observers have a syntropic perspective. My syntropy is your entropy and your syntropy is my entropy -- Duality! "Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order. Opposites, opposame = duality. SINE is dual to COSINE -- the word "co" means mutual and implies duality. Symmetry is dual to conservation -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Duality (thesis, anti-thesis) synthesizes reality (non duality). Classical reality is dual to quantum reality creates true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Hawking points are dual to Hawking lines.

[@seditt5146]

@@hyperduality2838 No.... Spam is without a doubt the correct word for that drivel. Its stuff you think sounds deep but is surface level thinking and in some of the cases absolute nonsense. Lines being the duality of points? No... Stop spreading your ideas until you flesh them out least you look like a drunken fool. This is the same sort of stuff I could have expected from my mentally unstable drunken uncle before he passed. Its not that deep bro, your post anyway, the topic is wway.....wayyyy deeper than you wish to give it credit for. Check it, all particles in reality are made of 3 color charges... a trinity of force. Super symmetry is bunk and does not exist so.... what now with your thought process?

[@dAvrilthebear]

such a brilliant mind and a real gentleman

[@shaunhumphreys6714]

thankyou for this upload. ive listened to the full lecture e.g. his nobel prize winning speech and lecture which was shared for black holes. this is a useful simpler version.

[@AlexTrusk91]

i love those hand-drawn pictures and everything else about this.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Alex Trusk Thank you for your comment! Welcome on @scienceforfree channel.

[@sobertillnoon]

I absolutely love the hand drawn graphics and written notes.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Austin Hibdon We love too !

[@MrBollocks10]

He invented a lot of those SpaceTime "Penrose" diagrams that are standard in that field nowadays.

[@r4ndomuser861]

Excellent, I love the physics vids especially. I haven’t seen this one yet!

[@scienceforfree0]

@R4ndom User Thanks for the message ! We started this channel dedicated to science just few days ago. Lot's of very good contents will follow very soon. We just need this channel to be known widely to help diffusion of the contents. A new subscriber will be so appreciated.

[@bjpafa2293]

Sir, it is an honor to be present to your doubts, mostly when they somehow agree to one's visin of the Universe...

[@scienceforfree0]

@Bj Pafa 22 Thank you for your comment! Welcome on @scienceforfree channel.

[@rgoodwinau]

Privileged to be present at a Penrose public lecture in Sydney in 2007 on his earlier thoughts on this. Now more advanced. Has to be a stupendous Nobel prize if observations can provide sufficient alignment and certainty in the constrained time left.

[@GavriilMichas]

This will help the conceptual completion of charts for interstellar travel, even if the CBM won't last forever as it would be fainter and due to Hubble flow.

[@paulfrindle7144]

A lot of this makes perfect sense. Thinking in terms of geometry is a powerful tool, because it allows us to imagine and process ideas beyond the conventional. The most powerful concept here is the notion of inverted geometry which puts infinity at the other border of the representation, rather than a conventional singularity. It's most certainly got me thinking - like an introduction to another world?

[@axle.student]

I know this is an old video and post, but where do you consider time and space in this "inverted geometry" with particular attention on the question of time? Time as emergent and not real, or time as something more fundamental?

[@Nienormalny]

I enjoy sir Penrose’s lecture so much! So nice to grasp that we easily forget what huge math is also behind it. To the channel itself - i didn’t get where and when was this performed? Science channel should care for such information. Also 360p hurts, but i guess that was the source material? Anyway nice channel! Subscribed.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Nienormalny Thank you for your message! Concerning the quality the image, it's 1080p HD. You should fix it on your device. The place of the lecture is shown and will be added with the date in the description. @Scienceforfree channel will post in less than a month a exclusive lecture of Sir Roger Penrose.

[@sergiogiudici6976]

Impressive argument. I would like to hear more details about the "matching" of a eon with the following.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Sergio Giudici Thank you for your comment !

[@zetacrucis681]

He describes it in some detail in his book Cycles of Time

[@Fritzbedeek]

...or is the talk he refers to early when he says he will be speaking the next day to experts - where is that one on youtube?

[@scienceforfree0]

@Fritzbedeek Thank you for the comment. The only recorded talk is this one, and there is no question period.

[@bpetersson5024]

Such a brilliant mind, and still coming up with what seems like concepts that deal with the "Elephant in the Room": what happened before the big bang; it took time to digest. For those that haven't read them, Penrose's books cover a lot of this material.

[@bobhoven3959]

So much to think about❤😊 amezing how far we come , even do we only know about 4% great 👋👋👋 thank you

[@scienceforfree0]

@Bob Hoven Thank you for your comment ! We should record Sir Roger Penrose in 1 month. Hope you will appreciate the next video.

[@mr.d.8121]

🤯 Awesome

[@Fritzbedeek]

there must be a question period after this talk. Where could that be found?

[@tomctutor]

So any Q's please? Yes, can you go back to the first slide and explain it all again from there.

[@user-ol5id1jg3y]

What a brilliant mind..Tutor to Stephen Hawking..later collaborator..one brilliant mind has gone...may Roger Penrose reach 100 years old...he is 93 years ..not long to go...i have read his book emperor's new mind...found it difficult

[@mavelous1763]

Can someone PLEASE get this genius some display devices that work?!!! JFC.

[@astoni314]

Sometimes the requested previous slide seems as inaccessible as the previous notional eon. At least we had a memory of what the previous slide looked like. To think that this is all just particular to our universe by observation...does that imply that other possible universes would behave similarly, or never interact with others? Would some be bigger and longer in existence than others by an order of googols? All universes would go through the same notional eon cycles, probably? Would a multiverse view look like sparse never ending threads of spaghetti in diagrammatic form? Someone will have written a paper on it, maybe in the last eon.

[@penzman5385]

Not much recent talk of Hawking points. Hopefully he's still working on it.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Penz Man You should be happy to know that a brand new lecture will be on @scienceforfree channel in about 3 weeks. You have opportunity to subscribe to follow the news !

[@janimker9518]

@scienceforfree Down 36min in this topic (really start from zero - which coincides with my formal level in modern Cosmology), I am stuck. Dr. Penrose mentions here a notion called somehow infinite time in future (and speaks also of "time before the BigBang" - which notion does also confuse me, do we have a proper definition for this concept called "time"?). Back to my stuck point: what kind of infinite future is talked here? The one in which (assuming that I am a particle, call me proton if you like) my neighbor proton is beyond the limit of my observational universe (should a photon from his decay eventually comes to me, if he was unlucky to decay before me)? Then yes, sure, such a future Universe is apparently one with Entropy zero by definition. Do Dr. Penrose speaks about physics (and equations) of such Universe and compares it with ours today? Fine: then my question for Dr. Penrose is this - how then can eons be defined if you have no more chance to apply Scale on anything, not even on Any of the presumed 9 or 10 dimensions? As a mathematical construct this is feasible, but Nothing will be observable inside this kind of future physics - not even the dimensions, nor the mass or energy, or clock, or time. So, I am skeptic that contraction and expansion in this limit (as allowed by mathematics as it can be) does preserve any physical meaning. But, I stand to learn. Where I am wrong?

[@cmilkau]

Could the previous/next eon be just an exact copy of the current eon?

[@Paine137]

Unlikely.

[@b.griffin317]

If I understand Roger correctly what he is saying requires positive spacetime curviture (current consensus is for flatness) and that these microwave rings exist in the CMB. What I don't quite understand is what the rings represent: Is he saying they are the death rattle flashes of SMBs from the previous aeon imprinted on the SMB of our's? Or something else? I'm not quite sure what he's saying here.

[@ScrambleBandOfficial]

Hawking Points don't require positive curvature, they work fine flat. The collision points of SMBs in a previous aeon fade out over infinite time to a single point in space. Once that point crosses the boundary into our current aeon, the stretching of the universe after our big bang spreads them out until they are about 4º in our sky. When you look at the cosmic microwave background, you can see points in rings all over that are indeed 4º. This is hotly debated but it does seem more than a coincidence that he should look for them and they seem to appear.

[@b.griffin317]

@@ScrambleBandOfficial Thank you for the clarification.

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@b.griffin317]

@@hyperduality2838 tl;dr

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@ScrambleBandOfficialthanks

[@guitarcrax127]

What a joy to get to hear Sir Penrose talk. I think I intuitively understood it as we living in a state of quantum entanglement of possibilities for 380,000 years before space as we imagine it came to be. It sounds like it should be instantaneous, or could it also be gradual (nature does dislike discontinuities)

[@scienceforfree0]

@Anudeep Yegireddi Thank you for your comment! Welcome on @scienceforfree channel.

[@keithnicholas]

no, it just took that long for light to be able to escape out

[@sh4dow666]

The mechanism of the transition between aeons appears to be missing from this. I don't know if there is a proposed mechanism for this, and this is just a "dumbed down" presentation glossing over the details, but to me this would seem to be the most essential part of the whole argument. Just that comformally two possible states look similar, shouldn't be enough to conclude (or even strongly suggest) that there must be some identity between them.

[@scienceforfree0]

@Andreas Lorenz Thank you for your comment !

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@lobohez7222]

😁

[@drdca8263]

I think the idea is that if you do some rescaling, that the long term future can be seen as equivalent to another aeon? So that like, the one that comes “after” is just like, embedded within the end of the current one?

[@drdca8263]

@@hyperduality2838 not what “duality” means.

[@DieterDuplak314]

for all those having fun contemplating such topics i highly recommend any book from rudy rucker.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

I don't agree that conformal cyclic cosmology requires a Ragnarok. There could be precipitous exchange

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

Here is something to consider that "on the surface" might not seem obvious or important, but perhaps is. what I am thinking is that the reason we may believe probability seems to govern the Quantum level is because we have not fully grasped the role of “Time” in the Quantum Realm. We throw around the concept of “Certainty” like “our” Certainty is everyone’s Certainty. Without Time there can be no certainty and we know that Time is not an “absolute” but it can be different for different observers. Therefore perhaps the “measurement problem” is only a problem because we are imposing our concept of “Time” on the Quantum Realm and it gives us the only answer possible from “its” perspective which is a range of probabilities that may apply in our Macro Realm. In other words just as Einstein suggested that Time was not absolute maybe “certainty” is not an absolute but can be different for different observers in different levels of what we call Reality. Maybe what is needed is mathematical equation/s that would describe exactly how to transform the certainty at the quantum level to the certainty at some other level of Reality.

[@Paine137]

The uncertainty principle is a fundamental limitation on objective measurement.

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

Point taken and understood, but I was not referring to the Uncertainty associated with "The Uncertainty Principle" when I was talking about Certainty but more so the expected Certainty associated with "The Collapse of the Wave Function" and the Probabilistic nature associated with the answer as given by the Probability wave that emerges as the only answer we seem to be able to get as in the Theory of QED.

[@christophergame7977]

The idea that the 'universe' started at low entropy and has been changing to 'high' entropy is evidence of the hubris of physicists.

[@Paine137]

You would win a competition that called for converting an eye-roll into a sentence. Yikes.

[@christophergame7977]

@@Paine137 Thank you for your comment. I now think my comment was perhaps mistaken. On the other hand, entropy is defined for a state of thermodynamic equilibrium: not for things like a big bang, the opposite of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

[@cormorant4161]

I assume that what we are to conclude from this is that the aeon we are in now is just one of an infinite series, where one aeon's heat death is the next's big bang. I'm guessing that it may also imply that the laws of physics that apply in ours are also the same in all universes in the series.

[@leyasep5919]

how could we know if it is not observable ?

[@joaidane]

@@leyasep5919 The whole point of the presentation is that Hawking Points are a visible (in our eon) remnant of the previous eon. And I should think that if the physics of these "re-appearing" Hawking Points conform (no pun) to current laws of physics for radiation and quantum properties etc. then it argues in favour of the idea that the previous and next eons will have very similar physics.

[@leyasep5919]

@@joaidane overall it's a flimsy assertion...

[@bjdouma]

Sir Roger gets rid of inflation, so we can all live happily ever (and ever and ever and ...) after.

[@SwissPGO]

I have still an issue with entropy as we go from one eon to the next and 2nd law of thermodynamic around 26:00...

[@aditya.sedhai]

Hawking points

[@quantumcat7673]

I give 10 hawking's points to the uploader of this video.

[@scienceforfree0]

Thanks a lot!

[@frankenshizzle]

So hes saying that there are spots in the CMB that are evidence of blackholes from previous universes?

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@unsteadyeddy3107]

U wot m8?

[@rufie83]

At about 4 minutes in he experiences time delay, could it be that the big bang on the picture created a black hole? 😛

[@charleslaw2561]

Interesting, but the great renormalization of space and time is hard to grasp or believe.

[@davidwilkie9551]

What is holography, Sublimation-Tunnelling quantization jumping positioning, interference wave-packaging, and CCC here-now-forever, it's where we live.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

Shame the volume is too low. {:o:O:}

[@johnb.heartfield3021]

It's so funny. At the same time when he's explaining such sophisticated things like Big Bang, inflation, and Hawking spots, he's struggling with a stupid zapper for his slides.

[@brendawilliams8062]

He possibly keeps a pen and pencil handy and doesn’t need yt videos.

[@konradcomrade4845]

I want to add a bit to that Dark Energy discussion. You have to take into consideration, that it was invented by Richard Feynman. Knowing he was a prankster on a few occasions, it could easily be one of his best, where and when he gave his colleagues a bite to chew upon!

[@MrBollocks10]

Dark Energy came from Feynman ?? Do you mean the conservation of Energy? He did do a lot on that. I think you're getting mixed up. Pearlman and co came up with Dark Energy only about 25 years ago. Feynman died about a decade before the need for Dark Energy.

[@konradcomrade4845]

@@MrBollocks10 I think it was a short video, where he talked about it. with a smile on his face.

[@MrBollocks10]

@@konradcomrade4845 It had been thought of until long after he was dead. (11 years ) Are you sure you don't mean Dark Matter?

[@MrBollocks10]

Pardon me. I meant. It hadn't been....

[@DrWrapperband]

Seems correct, except virtual particles go into the black hole as well as radiated out. It seems more likely that the black holes at the end of time expand to tremendous amounts, then form the child universes, once the rest of space has expanded to "nothing". i.e. Dark energy is the escaped virtual particles from Black holes, that is the balance that keeps total energy of Universes = Zero.

[@CLipka2373]

The "virtual particle pairs ripped apart" layperson's mental picture of hawking radiation is dubious at best. The actual mechanism is rather different. For starters, the radiation emitted has wavelengths in the same order of magnitude as the size of the black hole's event horizon. I think a better layperson's quantum explanation would be that hawking radiation is matter tunneling out of the black hole singularity even beyond the event horizon due to heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which in essence says that the more you try to confine anything to a particular location, the higher the probability becomes that portions of it leak out randomly). That picture is probably just as wrong, but it doesn't lead to headscratchers like how infalling virtual particles can reduce the mass of a black hole. As for how the virtual particle model might be salvagable: Spontaneously created virtual particles exist (if they even really do at all, and aren't just an artifact of the maths we use) on borrowed energy; so if one particle pops into existence near a black hole and never gets a chance to annihilate with its pair partner, it carries stolen energy into the universe. If conservation of energy is to hold, then the black hole that swallowed the pair partner needs to be held accountable for the balance. In a sense, the mass added to the black hole by the swallowed virtual particle is negative. (Which intuitively makes no sense, but quantum mechanics has never given much of a damn about our intuition anyway.)

[@CLipka2373]

As for "black holes = child universes", I see one serious problem with that concept: The total energy content inside any individual black hole is inevitably finite, and less than the energy content of the parent universe. So if this was a mechanism by which a multiverse was created, then from each generation to the next the energy content of each individual universe would diminish, until eventually all the energy would be spread between so many universes, that there would be too little energy in each of them to continue the process.

[@johnnyreb280]

In the process of Hawking radiation, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created close to the event horizon of the black hole. One particle falls into the black hole, while the other escapes as radiation. The overall effect is that the black hole loses energy and mass as this radiation carries away energy from the black hole. However, it is important to note that the exact mechanism of Hawking radiation is still an active area of research, and there are various competing theories and models attempting to explain it. While the basic idea of virtual particles near the event horizon leading to radiation is widely accepted, there are still many open questions and uncertainties about the details of the process.

[@CLipka2373]

@@johnnyreb280 There are no competing scientific theories and models of Hawking radiation - there is only ONE such model being researched, namely the one put forward by Stephen Hawking himself. For the simple reason that it is not an actually observed phenomenon waiting for an explanation, but a prediction resulting from said model waiting for verification or falsification by such an observation (which is currently far beyond our reach). All research on the matter is geared towards coming up with ideas to test portions of the model. And that one model has nothing to do with virtual particle pairs getting separated - it has something to do with event horizons and different frames of reference. The commonly discussed virtual particle model of Hawking radiation is not a rigorous scientific model - it is merely an attempt at explaining the predicted mechanism to scientifically curious laypeople without having to dig deep into Hawking's actual model.

[@CLipka2373]

Actually we don't know whether Hawking radiation exists - and if so, whether it actually causes black holes to "evaporate". In a nutshell, the predictions Hawking made are based on (as far as I know) the following presumptions: (1) that in the vicinity of a black hole's event horizon we can still trust both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; and (2) that conservation of energy holds with respect to black holes. Based on presumption (1), Hawking predicted that black holes (or rather, the vicinity of their event horizon) should emit radiation with a blackbody spectrum (at a very low temperature, unless the black hole is very small). Based on presumption (2), he concluded that therefore black holes should (eventually) lose mass and shrink, and ultimately "evaporate" entirely.

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

Tell 'im he's dreamin'

[@grayaj23]

I want him to be right about this, because this is the coolest idea for what the distant future will be like. But I know he's in the minority with this. He's not alone, but very close to it.

[@cdreid9999]

Popularity doesnt dictate truth. Weve soent billions on de/dm and found nothing yet it is the most widely accepted theory. At one time the preeminent theory was the music of the spheres..

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@cdreid9999I want him to be right so I can consider 82 and 83

[@CLipka2373]

Well, that's an easy question: Hawking points are places where people sell cheap stuff on the streets... ... I'll see myself out, thanks.

[@irgendwieanders2121]

Dafuque? Did he just say we can see behind/before the big bang? Wow.

[@Paine137]

“Infinity is just like any other place.”

[@marcuscarpenter4885]

If I could hear this

[@bjpafa2293]

Suddenly i could not enlarge/zoom. So, till next time, my fault. 🙏✨

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@cdreid9999]

Im definitely not a physicist but i have an intuition we arent going to find de/dm and physicists are goinf to have to go back to the drawing board and erase compensatory theories like de/dm and inflation and find a model thst doesnt require forces we cant detect snd events we dont have evidence of

[@Paine137]

Something is adding gravity at the edges of galaxies, and we don’t know the source: hence dark matter. An explanation is necessary.

[@netopir3804]

Penrose is certainly a great mathematician and physicist with a reputation, that will last. But fundamental particles have certain unchangeable probabilities of properties. Will changing scales in a purely mathematical sense preserve these properties? Probably not. Also, there is no evidence of previous universes, as seen from numerous analyses of the CMB.

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@drdca8263]

@@hyperduality2838 stop spamming

[@hyperduality2838]

@@drdca8263 Hawking points are dual to Hawking lines. Higgs Bosons are dual to Higgs Fermions. The point duality theorem is dual to the line duality theorem -- universal hyperbolic geometry. If you postulate the concept of a point then you need to include the concept of a line --algebraic geometry. Any two points define a line -- duality. Sine is dual to cosine -- the word "co" means mutual and implies duality. Addition is dual to subtraction (additive inverses) -- abstract algebra. I will stop spamming when you can prove me wrong! Right is dual to wrong. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@johngeverett]

I can't help but be amused when even brilliant people have difficulty using technology.

[@daos3300]

all brilliant people are not brilliant technologically

[@Paine137]

He’s a theorist, not an experimentalist.

[@TheYear-dm9op]

26:33 I can follow, but ouch my brain.

[@tim1883]

Boltzmann

[@themanofewords]

TL:DR Our universe will all get vacuumed up into giga black holes, which evaporate/explode forming the basis of the "big (multiple) bang" for a subsequent universe. Dude....

[@bonerici]

Penrose is correct. Unfortunately I know too much physics and what he says seems bonkers to me

[@Paine137]

At least he’s trying, and he admits that his model is speculative. There’s value there even if it turns out not to be correct.

[@michaelcharlesthearchangel]

After Hawking and Penrose, we all would be wise to not let the British to alone control scientific narrative.

[@muttleycrew]

What on earth are you talking about? Public lectures are not how science progresses. Both Hawking was and Penrose still is on a fringe of their own science. If you look at journals not KZbin, that's where the scientific narrative, as you inartfully dubbed it, is really happening.

[@new_aether]

my microwave is working grest

[@heywoodjablowme8120]

My ex Arab boss was a master at Hawking points because he could sell anything.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

6:56 ::: THERE YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SMART MAN ::: HE CAN NOT THINK OUTSIDE "HIS BOX" ::: HE IS TRAPED IN THE BELIEVE OF A SINGULARITY !!! BUT THE "BIG BANG" HAPPENED EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME ::: NOT LIKE AN OLD TV STARTED) ::: BUT LIKE A MODERN TFT-MONITOR IN 3d ::: (TO EXPLAIN THIS TAKES 2 HOURES)

[@Paine137]

His model aims to eliminate arbitrary inflation: he’s thinking far outside the box. But you did write a comment incoherently and in all caps, so you must be correct.

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

i think you do not understand what i mean !!! READ THE TEXT AGAIN ::: COMLETELY BEFORE YOU ANSWER !!!@@Paine137

[@unnikrishnannairkrishnannair.]

Super massiveblackholes donot evaporate dur to lack of heat for evaporation, since blackholes eate energy

[@Paine137]

Virtual particles splitting at the event horizon cause evaporation. Heat is a byproduct. What are you blathering about.

[@jasong546]

Physics is too difficult for physicists

[@K0wface]

If physics were easy, it wouldn’t be what people are researching. We’d be far past that point and working on far more difficult problems.

[@fredk9999]

If they were called “Joe Schmoe Points” instead, no one would pay attention

[@Paine137]

Well that’s ridiculous.

[@marcelmolenaar5684]

So in the first minutes he actually says he is going to talk nonsense and then talks nonsense indeed! Well that is nice. So you don't have to waste your time....

[@Paine137]

Incorrect models can spark new perspective, which can lead to better ideas. There’s always value in such proposals, so shhh.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

What's he talking about? 8x the diameter of the Moon is HUGE for a hole in the sky. {:o:O:}

[@joaidane]

I think you have to take into account how far away it is! To us it is likely an invisible speck, the James Webb telescope will possibly unravel the mysteries of it all. (the other option as I think about his exact words, is that they are that size comparatively but being at a frequency not visible to us, we simply don't see them)

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

@@joaidane Well, 8x the diameter of the Moon is 16,800 miles. But of course, as you say, it's not like we will see one in the sky near the Moon! I suppose it's tiny for a cosmic phenomenon. {:o:O:}

[@IamPreacherMan]

I find Penrose’s ideas to be very interesting and clearly the smartest man in most any room. However, his model of a cyclical universe that poofs into existence out of a lack mass is baffling and frankly nonsensical. I think the main points physicists are missing in putting it all together is first the assumption that big bang started as a true singularity in an infinitely small space. Secondly they are failing to qualify the main drivers of all galaxies which is the BH’s, which are primordial in nature as opposed to the very different, stellar BH’s, which should be qualified as gravitars. Another point is the second law of thermodynamics, is fundamentally wrong. Order leads to disorder, which leads to order. In other words, it’s a cycle. The argument is going to be over how it cycles. I would argue when the lights go out, cold contracts, gravity wins and the sticky dark energy and dark matter contracts much more rapidly than they expanded. And my final thoughts on this is in regards to the bogus hawking radiation. It doesn’t exist. What we see blasting from accretion discs is matter that is rejected by Sag. A. I’d be willing to bet they only consume nuclei anyway. Inside is a layer of gas at the top, fluid in the middle and crystal at the center. Ice ice baby.

[@scienceforfree0]

@iAMPREACHERMAN Thanks for your comment !

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@janimker9518]

@@scienceforfree0 A) "cold contracts, gravity wins and the sticky dark energy and dark matter contracts much more rapidly than they expanded" : does this deserves a "thank you for comment"? Or the other ideas, like: B) "I think the main points physicists are missing in putting it all together is first the assumption that big bang started as a true singularity in an infinitely small space." Well, here some rephrasing would be needed, for improving the clarity (because actually two opposite conclusions/interpretations are possible by the current phrasing). My preferred opinion (if the choice of statement interpretation is the correct-intended one) is that physicists DO HAVE this assumption at hand: but it is simply refused for being too... purely mathematical. At least it is so if it does not come from their own minds :) Did you mean something else? Irony: above, somewhere here, today I also gave my cent on Dr. Penrose being a bit too mathematical for me.

[@WetDoggo]

I'm not convinced by this explanation, mainly because he's just stretching out the time/space diagram seemingly arbitrarily to the same diameter and just puts multiple universe eons together in a row... which would imply the universe just keeps on expanding and suddenly start from a big bang event again. i do not have a better explanation on hand and can't refute it... but I also can't refute the goblin in my closet.

[@Henkvanpeer]

Mr penrose is very much reveered, I know, but what Blabla… many many words without saying much. More like politician than physicist… or likes listening to himself… 23 minutes in he actually starts saying something… so last 30% of this talk has actual content worth listening to…

[@tomctutor]

So the Universe was a plane with Earth at a center - Ptolemy No no no the Universe is a sphere with earth at the center - Copernicus No no no the Universe is a cone with us at the edge - Einstein No no no the Universe is a cylinder with us on the boundary - Penrose For God's sake make your mind up!😟

[@obsideonyx7604]

Making up the mind is impossible without omniscience. The best we can do is ever more accurate approximations. The next best theory will be beat by the next best theory after that and so on forever.

[@artificefount9930]

I was shown a picture of this, that a fortune teller showed me, and said that I had drawn it in..not my last life, but the one before that. So, I came up with this before anyone!

[@hyperduality2838]

Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@cougar2013]

“Hawking Points” are what you get if you kiss Stephen’s butt and he favors you for it.

[@leyasep5919]

I expected way better from Penrose 😕 The explanations are cute but the whole argument boils down to "believe me I'm a Nobel Prize" and he ends with "maybe there is another explanation but whatever, I like this one because it's mine" 😕 To me that's not science but a parade.

[@scienceforfree0]

Roger Penrose was not yet Nobel Prize at the time of this conference. He obtains de Nobel Prize in 2020, one year after.

[@phm19880]

I think he had developed big part of his ccc-theory before Nobel. He is joking of course with this. He said there in the near end.of the "lecture", time 31.25 that: "nobody ever be able to prove me wrong, so i can talk about this forever"..I see that comment/joke like a self-irony. If u take it precily, then he mean that its not a very good theory if cannot prove right or wrong. Like a god, or multiverse. Many think rightfully that that kind of theory or thing is not science. He seem to be downearth with this. Its very new and different approach to current cosmology. I have watch couple of his youtube lectures about it, where he clarify and speak about it precily. I have to say that to layman like me, also a cosmology hobby nerd, this is very interesting consept. Sir Roger Penrose have never been afraid to make bold claims and theorys. Like his work with american brain-scientist( or.something like that, cannot remember accurate ) about how they claim that Consciousness or "soul", stay inside of some microtubulus thing in human brain, and can leave brain after host is dead. I dont know how serious u have to take this, but it is very interesting. He is speaking lot about mystery of Consciousness, in very very fascinating way. He is not shame to be proved wrong. They make bets with Stephen Hawking about black holes that whos gonna be right pr wrong. I see him very creative person, maybe genius in some way, but definetly my point here is that we and science need creative thinkers like Sir Penrose. And he know hes math too. Veey glad he received Nobel. 😊

[@leyasep5919]

@@phm19880 thanks for the context !

[@leyasep5919]

@@scienceforfree0 well, i concede, though the rest of my point remains : I don't see what this lecture concretely brings to the table. Except maybe as material for a course on critical thinking, authority bias and others 🙂

[@phm19880]

@@leyasep5919 no problemo pal. Thank you for your understanding about different aspects. your criticism of the video and the idea is justified 👍🏻🤟

[@MidnightMaker]

This was painful to watch…

[@junkmail4613]

I have the greatest respect for Genius, BUT WHO on earth gave this fellow a microphone? We're all in a state of hope, that at some point he might say something worthwhile, meanwhile we're all holding our breath.

[@tortysoft]

So, you didn't understand him then. Try again.

[@hyperduality2838]

Two state vectors separated by a complex phase (a photon) are said to be in the same state -- Duality. Expansion is dual to compression (contraction). Divergence (entropy, co-homology) is dual to convergence (syntropy, homology). Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!