I don't get all of these negative comments on this video. Guess it's just RUclips, and people like to complain. I think it's a great, accessible lecture, in which Mr. Penrose tried to explain difficult concepts in clear language. Thanks for taking the time to upload it!
Absolutely fascinating. I've struggled for years to read and understand these concepts, and Penrose spouts them off like their his children's names. Wonderful presentation.
Penrose is a bit eccentric, but I don't know that I've ever seen a better explainer of complex ideas. And I absolutely love his old-fashioned hand-drawn transparencies, which I think really show his enormous love of teaching.
The best part is when he puts up an illustration and the camera refuses to switch to it in preference to showing him looking down at something we will never see and point all sorts of things out.
Amazing.......it's only in the past decade or so that we have access to lectures of this quality. Right or wrong in his conclusion, his work is mind bending
To those recording/editing lectures like this: Please keep it focused on what the lecturer is showing. Cuts to the hall/audience are not only unnecessary but also distracting, especially when the subject is technical and we have to study the relevant diagrams etc.
As the waves come from a distance radius compressing the wave amplitude (like dropping pebbles into a pond) 4pi R2 forms a potential infinity of future possibilities at every degree and angle of space and at every moment of time. This can be seen in a two slit experiment when someone turns on a light from a detector adding energy compressing the wave amplitude the shorter the expanding wave lengths the greater the energy. Time is inverse multiplying +/- dividing like frequency and wave length.
I actually prefer these types of lectures. Why are my fellow Millennials crying about the lack of PowerPoint? This is a specialized lecture for those interested in the subject.
One thing I like about this theory is that it does away with inflation, which always seemed like a bodge to me. I have Roger Penrose’s book on CCC and I’m looking forward to reading it.
The important difference for me is that the weightlifter is engaged in a pursuit that benefits themselves. The professor and a big chunk of the rest of the world are engaged in pursuits that affect me. I don't know how to build my own PC out of raw materials, but I sure value the smart people in the chain that went into making it possible that I can benefit from all that research and work. So I'll always encourage scientific exploration, even if I can't directly see an immediate benefit.
No one ever mentions this to the video people. Lets assume they know their job. Status quo, like the sleeping also being on the clock. Why would Rodger have to explain the degraded effect they are having not only on his video but all on line programs. With such effort having gone into such topics, does it always have to fall flat, over such a minor detail as keep the camera on the board.
Brilliant lecture concepts, naïve photographer, a few tired old men. (I'm 70 myself so I probably would have been resting my eyes during the beginning material too). I'm delighted that professor Penrose's concepts are fleshed out versions of my own pitifully vague ideas that I've nurtured for 20 years. Glad to have found him. He's crystalized what I just mushed around in.
This is the best logic about the big bang that I've ever heard/seen. I hope he gets a chance to see where his logic fits the whole picture before his years are up.
Mr Autistic Actually, my understanding is that while conceding a Big-Bang, the question he proposes is its origin. A singularity explosion out of "nothing" as opposed to a perpetual aeon Bang. I cannot now, or ever, accept the standard model as I could never accept something from nothing, so his idea makes a lot more sense to me...an eternal universe...non-created.
So then there is a maximum size limit on a black hole? Could massive merging black holes reach this maximum entropy level? Would they explode like a hyper hyper nova after reaching this limit? Could that qualify as a big bang?
When I consider how powerful how violent how so absolutely decisive the universe is - I am just amazed and humbled that we and all other life exists. Simply amazing.
@@schmetterling4477 Hydrogen, for example, emits radiation only at certain wavelengths. chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/Chem_160/Chapter_07%3A_Atomic_Structure_and_Periodicity/7.03_The_Atomic_Spectrum_of_Hydrogen When you see a spectrum like the one shown in the video, this must be emitted by something closely resembling a perfect black body. A plasma state cannot emit radiation with continuous spectrum. Neither could the CMB, unless the universe was made entirely of graphite.
Considering the Hubble Factor Equation, Big Crunch requires a '-'ve Cosmological Constant (related to Dark Energy) & a larger '-'ve Curvature of the Universe. H'/H = (DE) + (DM) + (M) + (E) + (Curvature) As per observations, the current values for the DE factor is around 70% & the Curvature factor is around 1%.
at 28:30 he says that cosmologists thinking that entropy at the time of big bang being low is because of the space being so small, is just wrong. Can anyone direct me where I can learn more about why he thinks that it's just wrong? Because when i search it up in the internet, everybody seems to repeat what Roger Penrose argues to be "just wrong".
If only he knew then what we know now about the recent announcements regarding ripples observed in the background radiation just as he described in this lecture.
I am not a scientist or mathematician but I don’t feel so bad struggling to understand CCC because more than half of the audience looks equally confused. Interestingly, the person who looked the most focused in the audience was the little boy. Who knows who he may become?
Absolutely brilliant! Dr Penrose never ceases to amaze. I can't help hearing a certain "ring of truth" in what he says here. As always, his logic is elegant and conceivable, the latter in particular being something that's difficult to say about notions like string theory as any kind of insight into cosmology. I think 100 years from now, people will continue to confirm his views, much as we do Einstein's today.
I have that same gut-feeling while having traversed this physical quest ...he is really on to something here....but the conceptual gap is hard pressed for the mainstream to embrace his idea's....yet
23:00 but the glass did begin as sand a very large phase space and was then melted in a furnace and shaped moving it to a small phase space. Only once it reached the party and falling off the table did it crack and begin the process of erosion back into large phase space of sand...
I really can't work out why one would pay umpteen thousands of dollars to go to university these days- These great people such as Sir Roger, Leonard et al are teaching me everything right here!
Because this is really not teaching you much at all. It is a sugary snack of information. It is a good start, but it is no more than reading the back cover dust jacket on a book and wondering why people pay money to buy the whole book to read -- its all summarized so well in these 3 paragraphs!
I should add that acetate slides are far more flexible in use than PowerPoint - you have to be very expert as a PowerPoint manipulator to hop back and forth as the occasion demands DURING a talk and as one's thoughts arise even during a presentation such as this.
Yes Occams Razor Only two combinations of spherical + and -electro magnetic wave fronts exist they have opposite vectors and spin or compression and expansion. Everything will oscillate in periodic or harmonic motion. All motion is spiral. All direction is spherically curved. Vibrating matter is opposed motion simulating rest and balance now through violent motion. More violent the opposed vibrating motion Plancks constant is multiplied by a larger amount as time slows down within that ref-frame
I hope I'm wrong 19:35 , he says the log of the volume is the entropy.... the argument in the log should be the complexions number Wi, the number of possible configurations the systemcan possibly occupy, so is there any equivelence upon which he's stating this, sounds weird to me.
Hmm? I don't see a problem with that. The volume isn't the 'number' of configurations of course, it's some metric on a continuous phase space. And it's not the total number of configurations, it's the volume of some subset. But still, makes perfect sense to me.
I've been trying to figure out what it is about this theory that bugs me. I think the issue is that the conformal mapping from end to next beginning has an effect of changing the metrics of the meter and/or second. While the mathematics of conformal mappings is very elegant, it basically says "metrics don't matter". In physics, though, the metrics DO matter. So, it seems like there's a bit of hand-waving going on about the transition from old to new. Granted, we haven't looked at the math, but the change in metric bugs me.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if in 50 yrs the name “Penrose” was synonymous with the discovery of how the Universe behaved before the big bang.In fact im stunned that more cosmologists arent backing his CCC theory.Hes definitely on to something big here....Really big.
@Alexander Buech I understand your point,but our current model has flaws as well.But just because it has flaws doesn’t mean it,or part of it,isn’t right. This is nothing more than a detective story,and if we stop chasing clues,we wont find the suspects. There are some parts that are austoundingly intriguing,but i also know there are flaws.I hope he or his predecessors can work them out.
@Alexander Buech We had to inject dark energy and dark matter to make it work,but we have no idea what that is. Its also incomplete,as we don’t know at the moment of conception,nor do we know if inflation is even correct.All im saying is new ideas spark other ideas,and Penroses is interesting. You don’t have to throw away our model as a whole,as it’s supposed to work WITH CCC. If you think we already have all the answers, we don’t.
@Alexander Buech My whole point, if you really look at my original post, is that I wouldn’t be surprised if that how the universe behaved ”BEFORE” the big bang. I never argued anything about our current understanding AFTER the big bang..It does check all the boxes,as you say. I don’t know why im debating my own opinion.Its an idea, nothing more. You seem intelligent enough, reread my original post.
I totally agree. The two big questions; The origins of the universe and the nature of conciousness. In Penrose's model there maybe an explainable cohesion of the two. That's just a feeling. There are several brilliant scientific minds around today, Penrose is certainly one of the very best in that he's prepared to almost discard a previously established scientific idea if it's led to a standstill. Then he produces an alternative model which is definitely testable. I've no doubt that people will be looking for the smoking gun on this one, with a very good chance of finding it.
So if I understand the lecture correctly, if I get the gist that is, is Sir Roger saying that overhead transparencies came before the big bang? Or am I missing the (Power) point?
There once was a lady named Bright, Who traveled much faster than light, She started one day, in a relative way, And returned on the previous night! What shape is the Universe in ? The Universe is in Great Shape for an Old Universe !
"All of the energy and matter that existed still exists. Matter does not create energy of itself. The actions of matter enable energy to become manifest".
PLEASE make a post on the relation between DIV GRAD at finite density charge sources and the relation of this to gravitational curvature for finite density mass distributions. For zero charge density DIV GRAD X=0, while for mass the mass on a rubber sheet model suggests negative (Gaussian) curvature in the surrounding vacuum, suggesting DIV g
Does anyone know why Andromeda formed where it is and not 2 meters to the left ? On top of that does anyone know what is the direction of rotation of Andromeda and if its clockwise why it is not anticlockwise . I have some idea on 2nd question , its not rotating clockwise or anticlockwise , its nether or both depending of the point of view , but its strange , its kind of 2 dimensional thinking but its the best i can do for the moment
No time and no space because there's no observer and no reference points. Only photons and they don't experience time. That means the scale of the universe loses its meaning, it could be infinitely big or infinitely small, because how would the photons know without something they could use as a reference?
I found the lecture fascinating and fun to try and follow all the twists and turns while using mental gymnastics to acquire new information, questioning previously held views and discard old ones. I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture and hope the hypothesis gets rigorous testing and research support from the community and supporters to see if Professor Penrose's theory is right.
Not the best auditorium for this kind of extrapolation. But Mr Penrose forever clucks on about how he can't use a fucking computer. The man's a bona fide genius
There is no spatial reference with only photons exists. Therefore there is no difference between the end of a previous universe and a new big bang. Both situations are equivalent due to conformal geometry of space.....no time.
Inward spherical wave fronts from the universe forms + charge ( like dropping pebbles into a pond) The greater the mass/energy density of + and -electric charges the greater the multiplication + and - division C2 like that now from the Sun forms the inward force called gravity as light spheres superimpose crests and throughs become in phase the wave fronts will synchronize or amplify as the inward absorption causes them to resonate together towards same moment of time now the moment of emission.
nothing as things that break will never defragment except with extremely low probability even for a small system, but the quantum effect would not show the reverse dynamics and the more likely effect would be partial defragmentation . For the whole universe to due this violation of expected entropy increase would be a fluke of quantum mechanics. Therefore would only be for a moment then continue increasing. This is Boltzmann's meaning of never. It's a statistical result, as is the answer to your question...never. It's the same as a stock market crash.
Can someone answer my question. According Roger P...today entropy is 10 tothe power 123. Good. After applying boatman equation, please space scome to 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. Lets xall is number T I understand upto here. I dont understand the following. Now as per Roger Penrose there is 1 in T chance that this could have happened. No clue how he came to that conclusion. Can someone comment
Po 13 latach przydałoby się zweryfikować, co osiągnęli uczestnicy tego wykładu? Czy ktoś podążył fascynacją fizyką? Widać tam kilka bardzo młodych osób, ciekawe czy ten wykład zainspirował ich do wyboru ścieżki zawodowej.
Ciekawe, bo już jakiś czas temu, widziałem mapy promieniowania tła, gdzie były widoczne te "ripple". Ale twierdzono że pochodzą one ze styku równoległych wszechświatów, wskazując na model inflacyjny.
Yeah!! "David Bohm sees the manifestation of all forms in the universe as the result of countless enfolding and unfolding between these two orders. Therefore, the explicate order corresponds to the physical world as we know it in day to day reality, the other deeper order is the implicate order, which is like a vast holographic movement. We see only the surface of the implicate order as it unfolds. Most neurological investigations show how action is indeed taken before becoming conscious of it."
The precise notion is that photons do not have REST MASS, unlike ordinary particles. Only particles without rest mass can move at velocity c, particles with rest mass have to move slower than c.
So Dr. Penrose: Do you think there is any way an intelligent being could survive and make it through the great "reset" to the next aeon? Could any not disintegrated matter survive? Will the reset not happen if all matter is not gone? What triggers the reset, a quantum fluctuation ?
You can see the answer in the sky: it's the CMB. If you believe that a radiation field that contains a couple thousand bits worth of information in total (if not less) can be the remnant of a super-civilization, then the answer is positive. Or... you can stop drinking and start thinking. ;-)
With all due respect, can someone help me understand why he drew a cone for the universe? To me, and I am not a physicist, however, if I were to throw a bomb into the air, I am fairly sure that the explosion would go outwards in most directions. Then why is he suggesting that the biggest bang of all time only exploded in one direction? If I am to understand that there was nothing before the big bang, then what was it that acted as a huge back stop to help throw this explosion in a cone shape direction?
a graph shows only the history of the evolution of the universe, not its shape. Second , the universe didn't explode like a bomb, it just expanded at every point (like the surface of a balloon but in 3d), it's something very different. The bomb explodes in something (space). Where was the universe to explode if nothing was there? The big bang is just a metaphor.
@@marcin3701 Here is what I found, "According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.8 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second". If this is true, what is the difference between an explosion or expansion? Either way they both had to go into nothing at a rate of speed that imitates an explosion. My thoughts are that the universe broke through a sort of membrane from another universe because it got to large and was bumping up against that membrane then gave way and started a new universe.
@@iamric23 What is the difference? Essential. When a bomb explodes, something is always in front of the wave. There is no front for the expansion of the space. Nobody is in front or behind. They are all in the same position. The description you found is not correct. Yes, it may be a balloon, but as I said, it is about its surface, not the balloon itself ( and this surface is our universe, for the balloon the surface has 2 dimension (2d), and for the universe it is 3d. You can't imagine it because our brain is incapable of it.). You have two ants on the surface of the balloon. As the balloon expands, the ants move away from each other (doing nothing). In the event of a bomb exploding, someone would be in front of the wave and the other further and there is a centre of the explosion . Someone is always in a different position to the other. Everyone is in the same position when a space expanding. In addition, the space between them expands, nobody moves. There is no center, no edges. Each point is a center.
@@marcin3701 Thanks for answering this, just wondering if you have any physics training? I unfortunately cannot agree with your understanding of the ant theory. due to the basic fact that when things expand, things within expand as well. I am interested in knowing where the beginning of this expansion began, this would be good to know. Only then can people begin to start forming their own hypotheses.
@@iamric23 This is knowledge for today, not my theory. If you disagree with this, it's your problem. I tried to describe it as simply as possible. "when things expand, things within expand as well" - but there's still a concept of gravity so ... you're wrong. Space expands, things inside don't.
Okay so what are all those stars observed at the center of our galaxy hurtling at millions of miles an hour around an invisible object orbiting then ? or what about stars that are observed having huge quantities of their constituent material sucked away from them, what's responsible for that then ?
When Roger Penrose speaks of Black Holes having very low temperatures I imagine that's because Physical Space at -273 degrees is bearing down on it at the speed of light, it's hard to visualise there being any temperature above absolute zero. Can anybody tell me why is it that the theoretical "Information" which is squeezed out of the event horizon due to Hawking Radiation is not instantaneously swalloowed up again by the Black Hole? I just don't see how it could escape the unimaginably overwhelming force of the actual fabric of space which, to repeat would reach FTL velocity at the event horizon. I trust that there are plans to preserve Roger Penroses acetate drawings-they really are good- for posterity, they will be revered and marvelled over for as many cernturies as we have left. He is a remarkable man and is a great source of encouragement for me in my studies (albeit rudimentary) of Physics.
There is an argument from simple algebra that the particle ensemble immediately following the Big Bang should not have contained massless particles as the dominant species. If we use Einstein's equation to solve for a referent, or apparent, speed of light- with respect to a traveling particle in the ensemble: then we may derive a parabola similar to the deviations from tensor curvature in observable astronomy data-sets. However, the aeons before and after the Big Bang could then therefore be characterized by the disappearance and re-appearance of massless particles during heating and cooling periods respectively. If this explanation justifies theory with existing data, then there should also be a deviation in the Weyl curvature of light emitted by electron stars, in the form of Cherenkov radiation backscattering in the shape of a halo.
Rather like looking at wave fronts coming to a sea shore! As the waves come and go containing much of the same water (information) as before. 4pi R2 like water receding from the shoreline (universe) into the bass of a wave forming +/- breaking at the crest of time 2pi. We have Dirac's equation t=0 because inward spherical wave fronts multiplying time dilation at right+angles compress input +4-0-4+- now outward wave fronts expand C2 as time unfolds from Euler's identity +1=0 the moment of now.
Hey folks, this is a lecture, not a Star Wars movie! Lectures may challenge a lot of people... Even the photographer didn't know what to do with him/herself so took pictures of the audience instead of the lecture....
The V in the Boltzman equation is not related to the volume of the black hole or the volume of an object. It is the volume of the "coarse grained region" of the Phase Space. I'd watch that bit again.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
My new happy place is Sir Roger's voice saying "...but don't worry too much about that."
I hope when I am an old man I'll be able to go to lectures like this and fall asleep in the first row like those guys. Seems like a good life.
Ohhh poor you. I feel very sorry for you. Because this man Will be recognised in the future for explaining the course of the universe. Poor you 😢
you would not see irony, even if it would kick you right in between your legs, right? @@ΠαναγιωτηςΣαρδελας-λ6ρ
The guy wasn’t asking for sympathy, he was saying chilling out and listening to lectures like this is desirable. What’s wrong with you?
I LOVE his drawings. So much more friendly than just one more powerpoint presentation.
I don't get all of these negative comments on this video. Guess it's just RUclips, and people like to complain. I think it's a great, accessible lecture, in which Mr. Penrose tried to explain difficult concepts in clear language. Thanks for taking the time to upload it!
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
Reliability does not go hand in hand with credibility always till the Quantum of scientific community raise itself to that level of understanding
The finest mind of his generation!
@@ramchandradey4059 What on earth are you even talking about?
@@21stcenturyscots
He's just upset because he really wants the universe to end permanently
Genius.
Absolutely fascinating. I've struggled for years to read and understand these concepts, and Penrose spouts them off like their his children's names. Wonderful presentation.
Penrose is a bit eccentric, but I don't know that I've ever seen a better explainer of complex ideas. And I absolutely love his old-fashioned hand-drawn transparencies, which I think really show his enormous love of teaching.
Uhmm, not so much. What is this 1975? Can he at least get an assistant to create some nice computer based images?
How on earth is he eccentric?
He is the perfect textbook version of an Oxford professor.
Watching him put all that together is just fascinating, a true genius at work.
The best part is when he puts up an illustration and the camera refuses to switch to it in preference to showing him looking down at something we will never see and point all sorts of things out.
Amazing.......it's only in the past decade or so that we have access to lectures of this quality. Right or wrong in his conclusion, his work is mind bending
Brilliant, Generous!
Thank you for making this available to the rest of us!
My bets are on Penrose!
Starts at 5:26
coecovideo Thank you.
You're doing God's work laddie
Actually the summary of the man is not bad. If given well, it is worth so much since the man himself will not blow his own trumpet.
I love old-style lectures with acetate slides. Death to powerpoint!
Only a sith deals in absolute.
I am holding on to everything I can find on this amazing man.
Audience: Will copies of the stack be available after the presentation?
Penrose: No I only drew the one.
To those recording/editing lectures like this:
Please keep it focused on what the lecturer is showing. Cuts to the hall/audience are not only unnecessary but also distracting, especially when the subject is technical and we have to study the relevant diagrams etc.
also watching old fuckers sleep is annoying
As the waves come from a distance radius compressing the wave amplitude (like dropping pebbles into a pond) 4pi R2 forms a potential infinity of future possibilities at every degree and angle of space and at every moment of time.
This can be seen in a two slit experiment when someone turns on a light from a detector adding energy compressing the wave amplitude the shorter the expanding wave lengths the greater the energy.
Time is inverse multiplying +/- dividing like frequency and wave length.
I actually prefer these types of lectures. Why are my fellow Millennials crying about the lack of PowerPoint? This is a specialized lecture for those interested in the subject.
One thing I like about this theory is that it does away with inflation, which always seemed like a bodge to me. I have Roger Penrose’s book on CCC and I’m looking forward to reading it.
The important difference for me is that the weightlifter is engaged in a pursuit that benefits themselves. The professor and a big chunk of the rest of the world are engaged in pursuits that affect me. I don't know how to build my own PC out of raw materials, but I sure value the smart people in the chain that went into making it possible that I can benefit from all that research and work. So I'll always encourage scientific exploration, even if I can't directly see an immediate benefit.
Penrose just rocked my world... AGAIN.
Someone should tell the camera guy its not a rock concert so there is no need to show the audience every 30 seconds.
+fashric10 Atleast when 80% appear to be sleeping!
I'd sooner the camera stayed on the display while it's being discussed.
No one ever mentions this to the video people. Lets assume they know their job. Status quo, like the sleeping also being on the clock. Why would Rodger have to explain the degraded effect they are having not only on his video but all on line programs. With such effort having gone into such topics, does it always have to fall flat, over such a minor detail as keep the camera on the board.
wrong, no such thing as should or not, no need no mattter what
You can count the first row members slowly falling asleep
Brilliant lecture concepts, naïve photographer, a few tired old men. (I'm 70 myself so I probably would have been resting my eyes during the beginning material too). I'm delighted that professor Penrose's concepts are fleshed out versions of my own pitifully vague ideas that I've nurtured for 20 years. Glad to have found him. He's crystalized what I just mushed around in.
Bro dropped a hard ass intro beat. Whats the songs name??
This is the best logic about the big bang that I've ever heard/seen. I hope he gets a chance to see where his logic fits the whole picture before his years are up.
Mr Autistic Actually, my understanding is that while conceding a Big-Bang, the question he proposes is its origin. A singularity explosion out of "nothing" as opposed to a perpetual aeon Bang. I cannot now, or ever, accept the standard model as I could never accept something from nothing, so his idea makes a lot more sense to me...an eternal universe...non-created.
Mr Autistic And I hope the old guy in the front row wakes up before the cleaners arrive.
+Tom O'Connor Read the book of Lawrence Krauss. Something out of nothing.
+ChrischrosBelgium I did, and I'm afraid that I find the basic concept to be preposterous.
Nothing = Nothing.
Something = Something.
I'm afraid that your answer is the best proof that you did not understand his book.
So then there is a maximum size limit on a black hole? Could massive merging black holes reach this maximum entropy level? Would they explode like a hyper hyper nova after reaching this limit? Could that qualify as a big bang?
When I consider how powerful how violent how so absolutely decisive the universe is - I am just amazed and humbled that we and all other life exists. Simply amazing.
Not much goes on most places most of the time.
26:45 you need a solid (or a liquid) body in order to produce continues radiation spectrum, as shown on the graphic.
What's wrong with a hot plasma? The CMB is not continuous enough for you????
@@schmetterling4477 Hydrogen, for example, emits radiation only at certain wavelengths. chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/Chem_160/Chapter_07%3A_Atomic_Structure_and_Periodicity/7.03_The_Atomic_Spectrum_of_Hydrogen
When you see a spectrum like the one shown in the video, this must be emitted by something closely resembling a perfect black body. A plasma state cannot emit radiation with continuous spectrum. Neither could the CMB, unless the universe was made entirely of graphite.
@@CharlesOffdensen There is an almost perfect black body consisting mainly of hydrogen and helium plasma over your head - it's called the Sun.
One of his comprehensive lecture on RUclips that I come across.
You have inappropriate content of children on your computer. Authorities have been notified.
@@hdbrot You must be involved.
Considering the Hubble Factor Equation, Big Crunch requires a '-'ve Cosmological Constant (related to Dark Energy) & a larger '-'ve Curvature of the Universe.
H'/H = (DE) + (DM) + (M) + (E) + (Curvature)
As per observations, the current values for the DE factor is around 70% & the Curvature factor is around 1%.
at 28:30 he says that cosmologists thinking that entropy at the time of big bang being low is because of the space being so small, is just wrong. Can anyone direct me where I can learn more about why he thinks that it's just wrong? Because when i search it up in the internet, everybody seems to repeat what Roger Penrose argues to be "just wrong".
If only he knew then what we know now about the recent announcements regarding ripples observed in the background radiation just as he described in this lecture.
I am not a scientist or mathematician but I don’t feel so bad struggling to understand CCC because more than half of the audience looks equally confused. Interestingly, the person who looked the most focused in the audience was the little boy. Who knows who he may become?
Absolutely brilliant! Dr Penrose never ceases to amaze. I can't help hearing a certain "ring of truth" in what he says here. As always, his logic is elegant and conceivable, the latter in particular being something that's difficult to say about notions like string theory as any kind of insight into cosmology. I think 100 years from now, people will continue to confirm his views, much as we do Einstein's today.
I have that same gut-feeling while having traversed this physical quest ...he is really on to something here....but the conceptual gap is hard pressed for the mainstream to embrace his idea's....yet
23:00 but the glass did begin as sand a very large phase space and was then melted in a furnace and shaped moving it to a small phase space. Only once it reached the party and falling off the table did it crack and begin the process of erosion back into large phase space of sand...
Looking more and more likely that RP is right - 12 years on… beautiful presentation and excellent questions and moderation.
I really can't work out why one would pay umpteen thousands of dollars to go to university these days- These great people such as Sir Roger, Leonard et al are teaching me everything right here!
Because this is really not teaching you much at all. It is a sugary snack of information. It is a good start, but it is no more than reading the back cover dust jacket on a book and wondering why people pay money to buy the whole book to read -- its all summarized so well in these 3 paragraphs!
I should add that acetate slides are far more flexible in use than PowerPoint - you have to be very expert as a PowerPoint manipulator to hop back and forth as the occasion demands DURING a talk and as one's thoughts arise even during a presentation such as this.
Penrose starts at 5:18
thanks for that!
Dear Frankbraker, it seens nobody gave your question attention. The first law is the one before the second. Regards.
Yes Occams Razor
Only two combinations of spherical + and -electro magnetic wave fronts exist they have opposite vectors and spin or compression and expansion.
Everything will oscillate in periodic or harmonic motion.
All motion is spiral.
All direction is spherically curved.
Vibrating matter is opposed motion simulating rest and balance now through violent motion.
More violent the opposed vibrating motion Plancks constant is multiplied by a larger amount as time slows down within that ref-frame
I didnt read comments , but can't it also be said that the table will have entropy given enough time as well given the right angle to gravity?
I hope I'm wrong 19:35 , he says the log of the volume is the entropy.... the argument in the log should be the complexions number Wi, the number of possible configurations the systemcan possibly occupy, so is there any equivelence upon which he's stating this, sounds weird to me.
Hmm? I don't see a problem with that. The volume isn't the 'number' of configurations of course, it's some metric on a continuous phase space. And it's not the total number of configurations, it's the volume of some subset. But still, makes perfect sense to me.
I've been trying to figure out what it is about this theory that bugs me. I think the issue is that the conformal mapping from end to next beginning has an effect of changing the metrics of the meter and/or second. While the mathematics of conformal mappings is very elegant, it basically says "metrics don't matter". In physics, though, the metrics DO matter. So, it seems like there's a bit of hand-waving going on about the transition from old to new. Granted, we haven't looked at the math, but the change in metric bugs me.
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if in 50 yrs the name “Penrose” was synonymous with the discovery of how the Universe behaved before the big bang.In fact im stunned that more cosmologists arent backing his CCC theory.Hes definitely on to something big here....Really big.
@Alexander Buech
I understand your point,but our current model has flaws as well.But just because it has flaws doesn’t mean it,or part of it,isn’t right. This is nothing more than a detective story,and if we stop chasing clues,we wont find the suspects.
There are some parts that are austoundingly intriguing,but i also know there are flaws.I hope he or his predecessors can work them out.
@Alexander Buech
What’s not quite right? No part of my statement is wrong.tell me which part i got wrong?
@Alexander Buech
We had to inject dark energy and dark matter to make it work,but we have no idea what that is. Its also incomplete,as we don’t know at the moment of conception,nor do we know if inflation is even correct.All im saying is new ideas spark other ideas,and Penroses is interesting. You don’t have to throw away our model as a whole,as it’s supposed to work WITH CCC. If you think we already have all the answers, we don’t.
@Alexander Buech
My whole point, if you really look at my original post, is that I wouldn’t be surprised if that how the universe behaved ”BEFORE” the big bang. I never argued anything about our current understanding AFTER the big bang..It does check all the boxes,as you say. I don’t know why im debating my own opinion.Its an idea, nothing more. You seem intelligent enough, reread my original post.
I totally agree. The two big questions; The origins of the universe and the nature of conciousness. In Penrose's model there maybe an explainable cohesion of the two. That's just a feeling. There are several brilliant scientific minds around today, Penrose is certainly one of the very best in that he's prepared to almost discard a previously established scientific idea if it's led to a standstill. Then he produces an alternative model which is definitely testable. I've no doubt that people will be looking for the smoking gun on this one, with a very good chance of finding it.
YES!!! I am still waiting and I am very cross. I don't have 13.7 billion years to wait!
Ciekawa prezentacja, ciekawa praca, powinien dostać większe wsparcie w poszukiwaniu dowodów.
Yea.
So if I understand the lecture correctly, if I get the gist that is, is Sir Roger saying that overhead transparencies came before the big bang? Or am I missing the (Power) point?
There once was a lady named Bright,
Who traveled much faster than light,
She started one day, in a relative way,
And returned on the previous night!
What shape is the Universe in ?
The Universe is in Great Shape for an Old Universe !
"All of the energy and matter that existed still exists. Matter does not create energy of itself. The actions of matter enable energy to become manifest".
34:55 and 35:26 are low entropy
The start is like ab indisn movie bgm❤❤🎉🎉
It's like NPTEL opening music.
35:28 if you knew that Roger Penrose would get a nobel ten years later you wouldn't sleep.
Did anyone else fast forward to the conclusion?
I dont know of a better artist than this man wrt explaining mathematics and physics concepts
What is the music at the beginning?
PLEASE make a post on the relation between DIV GRAD at finite density charge sources and the relation of this to gravitational curvature for finite density mass distributions. For zero charge density DIV GRAD X=0, while for mass the mass on a rubber sheet model suggests negative (Gaussian) curvature in the surrounding vacuum, suggesting DIV g
What’s with the 70s cop tv show intro music?
Clickbait title, came here expecting pics of Roger’s youth
What's the starting music?
Does anyone know why Andromeda formed where it is and not 2 meters to the left ? On top of that does anyone know what is the direction of rotation of Andromeda and if its clockwise why it is not anticlockwise . I have some idea on 2nd question , its not rotating clockwise or anticlockwise , its nether or both depending of the point of view , but its strange , its kind of 2 dimensional thinking but its the best i can do for the moment
One thing I don't understand, if all there is left at the end are photons with no mass there are no "clocks" therefore no time?
No time and no space because there's no observer and no reference points. Only photons and they don't experience time. That means the scale of the universe loses its meaning, it could be infinitely big or infinitely small, because how would the photons know without something they could use as a reference?
Photons are not things. They are energy values. Photons only "exist" as long as irreversible energy exchanges with massive systems are possible.
I found the lecture fascinating and fun to try and follow all the twists and turns while using mental gymnastics to acquire new information, questioning previously held views and discard old ones. I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture and hope the hypothesis gets rigorous testing and research support from the community and supporters to see if Professor Penrose's theory is right.
The first row in the audience seems to be VERY interested... (NOT). In fact, it seems that one of them died during the lecture.
-- haha i was going to say that XD
Not the best auditorium for this kind of extrapolation. But Mr Penrose forever clucks on about how he can't use a fucking computer. The man's a bona fide genius
1:10:30 : if particles are massless they dont care where the bigbang was...
Can somebody explain that?
There is no spatial reference with only photons exists. Therefore there is no difference between the end of a previous universe and a new big bang. Both situations are equivalent due to conformal geometry of space.....no time.
Don't you just love overhead projectors
love the way the audience is in rapt attention and the front row luminaries are all asleep
Those seats aren't cushioned are they?
Inward spherical wave fronts from the universe forms + charge ( like dropping pebbles into a pond) The greater the mass/energy density of + and -electric charges the greater the multiplication + and - division C2 like that now from the Sun forms the inward force called gravity as light spheres superimpose crests and throughs become in phase the wave fronts will synchronize or amplify as the inward absorption causes them to resonate together towards same moment of time now the moment of emission.
What could cause a spontaneous reversal of Time's Arrow?????
nothing as things that break will never defragment except with extremely low probability even for a small system, but the quantum effect would not show the reverse dynamics and the more likely effect would be partial defragmentation . For the whole universe to due this violation of expected entropy increase would be a fluke of quantum mechanics. Therefore would only be for a moment then continue increasing. This is Boltzmann's meaning of never. It's a statistical result, as is the answer to your question...never. It's the same as a stock market crash.
Photons does not have mass, but since it moves at the speed of light it has momentum.
Can someone answer my question. According Roger P...today entropy is 10 tothe power 123. Good. After applying boatman equation, please space scome to 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. Lets xall is number T
I understand upto here.
I dont understand the following.
Now as per Roger Penrose there is 1 in T chance that this could have happened. No clue how he came to that conclusion. Can someone comment
There are no chances here, at all. Probability requires repeatable experiments and the universe is not repeatable.
Po 13 latach przydałoby się zweryfikować, co osiągnęli uczestnicy tego wykładu? Czy ktoś podążył fascynacją fizyką? Widać tam kilka bardzo młodych osób, ciekawe czy ten wykład zainspirował ich do wyboru ścieżki zawodowej.
Ciekawe, bo już jakiś czas temu, widziałem mapy promieniowania tła, gdzie były widoczne te "ripple". Ale twierdzono że pochodzą one ze styku równoległych wszechświatów, wskazując na model inflacyjny.
Yeah!!
"David Bohm sees the manifestation of all forms in the universe as the result of countless enfolding and unfolding between these two orders. Therefore, the explicate order corresponds to the physical world as we know it in day to day reality, the other deeper order is the implicate order, which is like a vast holographic movement. We see only the surface of the implicate order as it unfolds.
Most neurological investigations show how action is indeed taken before becoming conscious of it."
thank you..
this was ten yrs ago, but was it before or after he won the Nobel Prize?
33:00 Contrast of cold space v hot sun = life & low entropy nrg out
Yeah that man is right..if info is lost with the pop of a black hole...then what about the gravity on all wave info it brings from another aeron
The precise notion is that photons do not have REST MASS, unlike ordinary particles. Only particles without rest mass can move at velocity c, particles with rest mass have to move slower than c.
its annoying how different the subtitles are from the actual words.
In translation it says vile which is wrong.Its Weyl [curviture tensor].
So Dr. Penrose: Do you think there is any way an intelligent being could survive and make it through the great "reset" to the next aeon? Could any not disintegrated matter survive? Will the reset not happen if all matter is not gone? What triggers the reset, a quantum fluctuation ?
You can see the answer in the sky: it's the CMB. If you believe that a radiation field that contains a couple thousand bits worth of information in total (if not less) can be the remnant of a super-civilization, then the answer is positive. Or... you can stop drinking and start thinking. ;-)
Is it a regular thing in Poland to go to a lecture to get some sleep?
This day and age using transparencies for a sophisticated lecture.
With all due respect, can someone help me understand why he drew a cone for the universe? To me, and I am not a physicist, however, if I were to throw a bomb into the air, I am fairly sure that the explosion would go outwards in most directions. Then why is he suggesting that the biggest bang of all time only exploded in one direction? If I am to understand that there was nothing before the big bang, then what was it that acted as a huge back stop to help throw this explosion in a cone shape direction?
a graph shows only the history of the evolution of the universe, not its shape. Second , the universe didn't explode like a bomb, it just expanded at every point (like the surface of a balloon but in 3d), it's something very different. The bomb explodes in something (space). Where was the universe to explode if nothing was there? The big bang is just a metaphor.
@@marcin3701 Here is what I found, "According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.8 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second". If this is true, what is the difference between an explosion or expansion? Either way they both had to go into nothing at a rate of speed that imitates an explosion. My thoughts are that the universe broke through a sort of membrane from another universe because it got to large and was bumping up against that membrane then gave way and started a new universe.
@@iamric23 What is the difference? Essential. When a bomb explodes, something is always in front of the wave. There is no front for the expansion of the space. Nobody is in front or behind. They are all in the same position. The description you found is not correct. Yes, it may be a balloon, but as I said, it is about its surface, not the balloon itself ( and this surface is our universe, for the balloon the surface has 2 dimension (2d), and for the universe it is 3d. You can't imagine it because our brain is incapable of it.). You have two ants on the surface of the balloon. As the balloon expands, the ants move away from each other (doing nothing). In the event of a bomb exploding, someone would be in front of the wave and the other further and there is a centre of the explosion . Someone is always in a different position to the other. Everyone is in the same position when a space expanding. In addition, the space between them expands, nobody moves. There is no center, no edges. Each point is a center.
@@marcin3701 Thanks for answering this, just wondering if you have any physics training? I unfortunately cannot agree with your understanding of the ant theory. due to the basic fact that when things expand, things within expand as well. I am interested in knowing where the beginning of this expansion began, this would be good to know. Only then can people begin to start forming their own hypotheses.
@@iamric23 This is knowledge for today, not my theory. If you disagree with this, it's your problem. I tried to describe it as simply as possible.
"when things expand, things within expand as well" - but there's still a concept of gravity so ... you're wrong. Space expands, things inside don't.
Okay so what are all those stars observed at the center of our galaxy hurtling at millions of miles an hour around an invisible object orbiting then ? or what about stars that are observed having huge quantities of their constituent material sucked away from them, what's responsible for that then ?
When Roger Penrose speaks of Black Holes having very low temperatures I imagine that's because Physical Space at -273 degrees is bearing down on it at the speed of light, it's hard to visualise there being any temperature above absolute zero.
Can anybody tell me why is it that the theoretical "Information" which is squeezed out of the event horizon due to Hawking Radiation is not instantaneously swalloowed up again by the Black Hole? I just don't see how it could escape the unimaginably overwhelming force of the actual fabric of space which, to repeat would reach FTL velocity at the event horizon.
I trust that there are plans to preserve Roger Penroses acetate drawings-they really are good- for posterity, they will be revered and marvelled over for as many cernturies as we have left.
He is a remarkable man and is a great source of encouragement for me in my studies (albeit rudimentary) of Physics.
Sir Roger Penrose. Bravo, Monsieur, chevalier Rose stylo. I actually admire this man.
There is an argument from simple algebra that the particle ensemble immediately following the Big Bang should not have contained massless particles as the dominant species. If we use Einstein's equation to solve for a referent, or apparent, speed of light- with respect to a traveling particle in the ensemble: then we may derive a parabola similar to the deviations from tensor curvature in observable astronomy data-sets. However, the aeons before and after the Big Bang could then therefore be characterized by the disappearance and re-appearance of massless particles during heating and cooling periods respectively. If this explanation justifies theory with existing data, then there should also be a deviation in the Weyl curvature of light emitted by electron stars, in the form of Cherenkov radiation backscattering in the shape of a halo.
Fascinating lecture.
It is always a treat to listen to sir Penrose.
Rather like looking at wave fronts coming to a sea shore!
As the waves come and go containing much of the same water (information) as before.
4pi R2 like water receding from the shoreline (universe) into the bass of a wave forming +/- breaking at the crest of time 2pi.
We have Dirac's equation t=0 because inward spherical wave fronts multiplying time dilation at right+angles compress input +4-0-4+- now outward wave fronts expand C2 as time unfolds from Euler's identity +1=0 the moment of now.
Have not seen transparency slides in like 13 years
What the heck, where's Roger Penrose?
@coperCopernicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Napisy?
Hey folks, this is a lecture, not a Star Wars movie! Lectures may challenge a lot of people... Even the photographer didn't know what to do with him/herself so took pictures of the audience instead of the lecture....
blame it on Hollywood. Can't colleges get away from the superficial Hollywood perspective ruining their presentations ?
Roger begins speaking around 5:35.
how are black holes 'high entropy'? they are states with no volume and thus no entropy at all based his earlier equation
The V in the Boltzman equation is not related to the volume of the black hole or the volume of an object. It is the volume of the "coarse grained region" of the Phase Space. I'd watch that bit again.
Black hole entropy grows on its surface area not its volume. See Maldacena Ads/CFT
Truly awesome, Thanks for sharing!
Why? His slides are perfectly comprehensible, apt and fit for purpose.
Why not use PowerPoint?