Such a spectacular discussion featuring two legendary scientists! The arguments from both sides were so sharp that I had a feeling that I was watching a thriller. And the moderation was top-notch, with concise and precise comments done at the right time to allow for a less prepared audience to follow the discussion. Have never seen anything better in many years. Great thanks to everybody who made this event for us.
Absolutely the best cosmological discussion that I've seen in the last 10-15 years. At least from a CCC perspective which is what interests me most. Thank you so much for expertly moderating this in such an informed and entertaining way! And thank you to Prof.s Guth and Penrose for such a good natured, friendly and illuminating discussion! Truly wonderful experience up listen to this!
@@PhilHalper1 - a question if I may; both you and Prof. Guth dealt with CCC in a very respectful way here but that is not how I have seen it treated earlier. It is usually dismissed with some kind of " Penrose is getting old" type argument. Is this discussion a small indication that more and more in the field are starting to take CCC more seriously?
I don't think you can separate CCC from Penrose's protoconsciousness research. If you watch his WE lecture - he talks about the collapse of the wavefunction - that's a hint he's referring to protoconsciousness. That gets you into quantum biology. For example modern science is based on reducing the entropy of matter which is increasing the entropy of gravity - as Penrose points out - hence our ecological crisis today facing biological annihilation in a decade or less. Funny how cosmologists don't see the direct connection to the ecological crisis. I call this the Strong Misanthropic Principle.
Alan Guth and Sir Roger Penrose are two giants! Listening to them, exposing their thought about the "immensity", is like listening to music to me. It elicit so much fascinating ideas. Can't have enough of that stuff. Thanks for this wonderful piece. Merci beaucoup!
What is this channel? Having two Nobel Prize takers in physics as guests? Next week we'll have Biden and Putin discussing peace in Ukraine. Week after that a Space Alien will discuss with God what a human is, and what wine it goes with when fried. And the week after that you will be surprised!
Every few weeks we seem to get some over the top hype about some boxing or MMA prize fight. Now, THIS is a prize fight! We’ve heard all the smack talking, now let’s see who has the goods. Seriously, thanks so much for this momentous video, to you and your participants.
@@PhilHalper1 I think it is remarkable that both can't see they might be talking about the same thing. As for Roger, all it takes for a cyclical model to appear 'multiversed' is to have the clock function performed by mass and not time. If so than all 'cycles' wil appear to coexist simultaneously, albeit with a certain order. Meaning, if at the supra-Big Bang world (the world the Big Bang is expanding in) the same setup applies as in the subatomic world (where mass also performs as clock) there is no issue. We thus need to see the architecture of creation as a nested iteration of spacetime setting dominance (where grid= space and clock=time) and energy mass continuum setting dominance (where grid= energy and clock is mass). In other words; We thus have a fundamental DUAL setting between functions (grid clock potential inertia) and measures (space time energy mass) and one dominates over the other in nested scales. So quantum is not necesseraliy restricted to anything small. Both participants need to focus on this basic setting before trying to say anything on the cosmic scale IMHO. By the way for Roger; both settings between functions and measures apply at the same time; they are mutually compensating (allowing for maintaining the equilibrium at origin of all functions and measures) AND they are mutually orthogonal (to yet allow for change in the first place). As an example; the energy of a particle is BOTH the particle property of potential AND its spiraled grid around it. This is why , in the double slit experiment, we can also see its spiraled grid function propagating (seemingly in reverse!) through both slits causing an interference pattern. How ever, due to the rule of orthogonality; the in-product of both functions must always be 1. So by the act of measurement of its energy at a slit sensor, its orthogonal grid function must collapse go to almost 0 in order to retain the in-product at 1. Rather elementary IMHO
Wow!!! I'm speechless! This episode is too important to be on You Tube!! I think Alan and Roger should definitely get together and collaborate on analyzing the CMB data a little better. They should even write a paper presenting their results
I respect Penrose and his team for going up against the establishment on this, regardless of whether their conjecture turns out to be correct. The one issue I have is that, according to this interview, the primary problem with inflation that CCC seeks to solve is, according to inflation, not actually a problem.
From what I gleaned, the debate is about the theoretical origin of observable irregularities, circular patterns in the cosmic background radiation, in that CCC postulates that these could be evidence of entropic structures left over from a previous aeon imprinted in an imperfect singularity, whereas the inflation view does not see that an imperfect singularity is necessary to produce the observed irregularities in the cosmic background radiation. Much depends upon how early in time/space the singularity became 'imperfect' resulting in observable entropy. Are these circular patterns the 'smoking gun' that tells us there was no perfectly symmetrical singularity in the 'beginning' of what we see today or can you get from perfection naturally, with a natural explanation, to imperfection (entropy) at some division of Planck scale that then inflates naturally to what we observe today? So, did entropy begin before inflation enlarged it and if so, what mechanism evolved asymmetry from a perfectly symmetrical singularity? CCC says there was no symmetrical singularity to start with, as the asymmetry was the 'footprint' of a previous aeon. Inflation says that an original, perfectly symmetric singularity may or may not have been the case, but inflation happens in either case. So, inflation does not seek to define or explain what the original singularity was like. CCC can include inflation as repeating inflation and collapse. Inflation does not include a collapse, but rather eventual evaporation into nothingness. I could have gotten all that wrong, I'm no physicist, but that is my layman's impression of what they were talking about. Obviously, it's way more complicated than that, so I struggle to comprehend.
Ccc can't have inflation because the outcome ends up been too smooth. Ccc says original singularity is smooth due to entropy information been destroyed. Inflation says original singularity smoothness basically is irrelevant as long as we buy an anthropic argument for why our universe is just so.
Great stuff - I'm so glad that this debate took place. Both Roger and Alan were firm, but gracious, in presenting their respective arguments and very well moderated by Phil too.
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology. Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that of increasing entropy. Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality! Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein. Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality. Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
What an engaging and respectful discussion of competing ideas by two brilliant thinkers. And a superb job by the moderator. This was a joy to watch. Thank you for your hard work to make this happen.
Clicked this literally 0.000000000014 seconds after I saw this in my feed. GOAT of science videos managing to get Alan Guth AND Roger Penrose at the same time. Kudos!
@@PhilHalper1 Investigations of the mathematical structure of M-theory have spawned important theoretical results in physics and mathematics. More speculatively, M-theory may provide a framework for developing a unified theory of all of the fundamental forces of nature. Attempts to connect M-theory to experiment typically focus on compactifying its extra dimensions to construct candidate models of the four-dimensional world . Although a complete formulation of M-theory is not known, such a formulation should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes and should be approximated by eleven-dimensional supergravity at low energies. Modern attempts to formulate M-theory are typically based on matrix theory or the AdS/CFT correspondence. M should stand for "magic", "mystery" or "membrane" according to taste, and the true meaning of the title should be decided when a more fundamental formulation of the theory is known Therefore, we ask physicists to use wonderful theories in order to develop the aforementioned brane s mathematics in order to explain the emergence of the universe since the moment of the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
@@oldanime734 why does compactification sound like a denial of what branes really are. If it were true, all those dimensions would be displayed like flowers for our enjoyment.
It's a great pleasure to see both of them in one frame. when i heard Roger penrose was one of the recipient of 2020 nobel physics prize, burst a joy in my heart. every year I expect-"this year maybe nobel physics prize will get Alan Guth or Roger penrose or Stephen Hawking. And finally Roger get the prize. Now I'm waiting for Alan Guth. And btw,great interview.tnx to Phil Halper for arranging and nicely hosting this interview.
Bless Roger Penrose! He is a personal hero and I cherish all the crazy things he says. I am a huge fan of CCC and ORCH O-R theories: even if they will be proven wrong they are courageous attempts at solving BIG problems that are grounded in solid math and that is what we need more of.
@@Kalumbatsch Thank you for that valuable insight. Last I heard, they had someone at Princeton running an experiment designed to falsify ORCH O-R. Looking for signs of quantum effects by shining lasers on tubulin and then seeing if anaesthetic drugs have dampening effects in proportion to their relative strength when used in medical applications.
@@Kalumbatsch And so they are doing more work to falsify the theory you don't believe in than you are. I hope they prove their theory, but if they prove they are wrong about the quantum effect of anaesthesia, it's hardly a loss for science. So either way, I am excited to see the results. Being wrong is always a great learning experience. You should try it sometime.
I don't recall a more spirited debate in a long time. Fantastic interviewer as well, great job at giving each participant enough space to expand (no pun intended) on their ideas.
I do hope there is something in the CCC ideas - for me as a non-specialist there is an appeal to Occam's Razor when the far future can be cyclically 'equated' with the distant past. Thanks for a great discussion, these eminent guys are scientifically at each other's throats but the discussion was perfectly civil, a refreshing change in today's world.
1:19:50 Penrose: makes hypothesis, makes prediction, sees and records data. Counter: sees points/rings, attempts to fit that data into existing models, succeeds in fitting data to theory. Which one is more scientific?
@@Grandunifiedcelery He's made like 10 other 60 minute videos going in to detail about all the cutting edge theoretical astronomy models that are truly mindblowing. Interviews with all the leading scientists within their own theories going into great detail. Truly worth a watch!
This channel has some of the best content on RUclips. Actually, it’s the best popular content concerning cosmology anywhere I’m aware of. Thanks so much for making this dialogue happen.
A well moderated discussion between cosmological giants. Each casting doubt on the other with no clear conclusion reached. An hour & a half of enjoyment. Thanks to all concerned.
@@PhilHalper1 I would be interested to read Alan Guth's list of papers/authors showing inflationary scenarios that produce the observed features (predictions of CCC?) on the CMB.
Cycling universe that bounce and cycling universe bubble In multiverse that lead infinity and eternity that mean eternal and infinite so multiverse everlasting and no beginning no end
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology. Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that increasing entropy. Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality! Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein. Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality. Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
Would be interesting to see a finite vs infinite universe discussion. Ironically Guths co author Vilenkin of the BGV theorem believes in a finite universe.
Would be great to get a string theorist's reaction to this video's discussion. I wonder what Michio Kaku would bring to the table. Lisa Randall is another favorite of mine, who would bring some brane concepts to the table, as well. I sense that the discussion is complicated enough without string and brane arguments, but a three ring circus is more entertaining than a one ring circus (but perhaps more exasperating because how can one take in all of that?), OK I'll finish watching the series.
this is epic,two of the greatest minds of our modern time with different views on the nature of reality,having an intellectual and respectful discussion.Thank you for giving us this content and massive respect to Sir Roger Penrose and Alan Guth
Truly one if not the most informative, educational, robust debates between two of the most intelligent, knowledgeable persons in the world in cosmology, theoretical physics and mathematics. I have been searching for the last six months for further understanding of Sir Roger’s position on the mind blowing probability of extreme low entropy position (he had stated in another interview, one in 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 123) at the Big Bang and incredibly found the answer from Alan’s explanation on just how inflation addresses that outcome. I commend you Phil. Well done my friend.
I have been waiting for this discussion of the pros and cons of these competing theories for years. This is great, and to hear a give-and-take between the originators of the theories is even better.
@@PhilHalper1 Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality! Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein. Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality. Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity).
@@hyperduality2838 you are misguided on a number of what constitutes duality. Gravity is a force that can cause of acceleration on mass put other forces cause acceleration of mass. Case in point, the other three forces. So, no, they are not dual. What of Dark energy? Dual to gravity? Why do you think it’s called Dark? No one knows, it’s global to the entire universe. Duality causes reality? Like to read that peer reviewed paper if you have a link. If only it were that easy.
@@Ascendlocal There are new laws of physics -- the 4th & 5th laws of thermodynamics! Generalized duality = energy is duality, duality is energy! If energy is being conserved then duality is being conserved -- the 5th law. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. According to Descartes, Kant, Hegel and many others the mind/soul is dual. Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality).
WOW, I discovered Physics over the lock down and I wish I was 60 years younger. I am always amazed how fantastic this all is to me. Please bear with my dare I say it , School boy zeal. Thank you.
@@epajarjestys9981 I'm 66 and feel like I'm in physics kindergarten compared to what Phil understands. It will be interesting in the future, if self-learning AI will tackle some of these great questions of cosmology. Somewhat more difficult than playing chess, however, right?
I prefer to think of the multiverse as an organism. This is to say that each universe is a cell of sorts, and just like cells in our bodies, if we live inside them, we would never come in contact with the next cell over and so on. In themselves, cells are universes of activity and complex atomic interactions. So just like all the stuff of a body, the universe is one thing... This is to say that the multiverse is also one thing, so that no two universes are actually separate in any way but are individual bodies of activity, just like the cells of biological creatures, crystals in a glass or the totality of all the atoms in our universe. It's rather quite easy to think this way because the concept is simple, much like the universe which is simply complicated because we think it is. The universe is simply consciousness...
This was wonderful. I find both models completely fascinating. I don't know if it's correct but CCC might be the most beautiful cosmological idea I've heard.
Couldn't agree more, I haven't watched to the end of this video yet, but in the other video from Phil, when he talks about the idea that you can't measure distance without good clocks, and since there aren't any good clocks since everything that remains are basicly photons which are timeless -> distance becomes meaningless -> resembles small universe. That blew my mind so hard. It's such an outlandish idea that still makes so much sense. Mind = blown.
@@TheDrakmannen While it is a rather elegant solution. It is purely mathematical. I love Penrose and CCC, it's a beautiful theory but let's not forget Penrose is a mathematician first, physicist later.
@@darshitkoladiya I agree that it is a very mathematical theory, but I can’t help seeing possible truth in it. Somehow it makes more sense to me atleast more than for example LQG’s bouncing universe or some of the string theory models. I’m not a scientist in any way, so this is all way over my head and highly subjective either way. Fun to discuss regardless!
CCC has to be augmented by a particle physics model that explains why the rest mass will eventually decay, but that's a research program for future generations. I agree, though, that it's a very beautiful idea, and it makes intuitively sense, especially for the General Relativity-inclined people.
This video will be studied in the future! Two knowledge giants, along with an amazing moderator with precise interventions explaining and mediating conflicting ideas. It seems to me that the main weakness of the CCC is the information loss and the main weakness of the inflation models is the Multiverse.
Over my head, but quite fascinating! I love hearing from these great minds. No doubt, there are very technical mathematics supporting each view. It seems to be that if we could know precisely what happens inside a black hole, that knowledge would help very much. On the whole, it's all mind boggling, but I strive to understand the problems described.
@@PhilHalper1 Yes, I'm in the process of watching the series. I saw episode 3 last night. Most likely, I will re-watch the series a couple of times just to try and get whatever talking points escaped me the first time through. So far, the series is wonderful (on many levels of the word 'wonderful') so yes, I'm a fan.
Wonderful debate. I feel like Penrose's prediction, that there should be circles in the CMB is quite compelling since they ended up being there once people looked based on his prediction, as I understand it. The after-the-fact explanation of the circles via Gaussian distribution from cosmic inflation is less compelling, due to it being a response to discredit as opposed to a successful prediction, like Penrose was able to produce. I would like to see more funding for the work on the calculations that Penrose says have not been done yet, it may lead to more compelling predictions.
The guts of the debate starts at 1:15:30 when Guth lays into Penrose on the eight papers showing CCC's claims of "circles in the sky" and "Hawking points" are explainable as random quantum fluctuations that the inflation theory posits. Penrose's response that he "finds that really hard to believe" that they could be random is the choke point. Why, Sir Roger? The background discussion up to then, while informative, is largely irrelevant. We need another hour.
Both are talking nonsense about the matter. The only people who are trustworthy with the CMB data are the ones who made the measurements. Understanding instrument response and data cleaning are extremely difficult tasks that take the people who built these experiments years. Anybody who does ad-hoc data analysis on these data sets without having been part of the collaboration is, most likely, just going to produce whatever ghost they want to see.
@@PhilHalper1 I forgot to tell you how excellent your videos are. As a former journalist, I came to learn that the timing, brevity and pointedness of a question is as essential as its content. Your interview style is dead on. You seem to elicit answers that have just enough technical references to allow an amateur wanna-be cosmologist to remain engaged, but not so much as to feel overwhelmed. (I was a print journalist, so I could go back and rearrange and edit stuff out. On these live streams, you don't have that luxury, but I stayed riveted.)
I know! I wish we could have a follow up podcast where we could dive deep into those papers and continue the debate. It felt like the debate was cut off too early for Rodger to formulate his response. I guess the question boils down to: did Rodger use an accurate model of CCC or did Alan’s team not use an accurate model of CCC? It seems like a communication issue in the end. I’m really curious how Rodger will respond to these papers.
@@bendavis2234 It doesn't matter how somebody responds to these results. Physics is not a debate club. Unless there are multiple dedicated instrumental efforts to find this effect which agree with each other within the expected error bars, it's all speculative.
I feel like there was so much more potential for this discussion. Guth and Penrose have wildly competing theories on the formation of our Universe, but they spend so much time arguing over semantics and basic principles.
I never understood the thing of several combined states existing at the same time and space, my head is more prepared for the existence of different universes but not necessarily in different realities. Outside the whole thing??, nothing, simply nothing and not bearing any pressure from inside. My own ideas about the things!!!.
@@throwabrick spicy as milk Very gentlemanly discussion and respectful disagreement with old Sir Roger Penrose who seems to not have really studied the many refutations of the proposed evidence for CCC seen in the CMB so far. Not sure about this, because I don't have the expertise to really understand the calculations, but that's how it seems to me. You should watch David Guth vs. Carlo Rovelli if you want to see spice.
I always enjoy skydivephil's content. But listening to Alan Guth and Roger Penrose makes me wonder if I suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect! Well done Phil, I think....
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology. Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that of increasing entropy. Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality! Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein. Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality. Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity). Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
Wow! This is incredible. Can't believe we got these two together. I prefer CCC ovr inflationary models. Why must the aeons be sequential and not cyclical? Why not one aeon that repeats?
@@PhilHalper1 Could’ve sworn I was subbed, certainly am now; amazing opportunity, almost an embarrassment of riches, these two play second fiddle to no other.. admirable intermediation/orchestration on your part; thanks to all involved for enriching our understanding.
This was a wonderful debate to listen to. Thankyou to everyone involved. I still have high expectations that one side or the other will ultimately become accepted dogma. May the best idea win. Also Penrose is a star, most of us will have dementia by his age and he is still sharp as a pin. Gives you hope.
Roger is clearly a smart man and I favor his theories over inflation. That said I think it is a shame he's such a terrible advocate, literally speaking, for his arguments! Glad the moderator was able to reign him in somewhat.
One of my favourite RUclipsrs strikes again!! Wonderful video! Phil is you are reading this, what are you’re tips for books to read to get more familiar with all the cosmological science?
thanks for your comment. I would recommend Carlo rovellis "Reality is not What it seems". Brian Greenes Fabric Of Reality, Sean Carroll;s Big Picture and for the two models we cover in this video Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth and Cycles fo Time By Penrose , the latter is hard though.
It’s interesting that we have just observed some mega structures in the observable universe: a circle and an arc which seem to be collinear if not concentric.
If you want to see an example of risk taking genius confronted by formalist consensus skip to 1:10:00 or so. Guth's theory does not predict rings, Penrose's theory relies upon them. Penrose presents them as evidence, Guth says his theory includes them because the variance is not profound enough to rule out the possibility of rings occurring by the chance built in to his theory. Consider that Guth's community has built their reputations upon the theory of inflation, whereas Penrose is simply speculating, his reputation already confirmed in other ways.
I don't think eight papers offering an alternate way of 'finding' particular patterns in the CMB counts for much of anything in the way of 'downgrading' the possible truth value of a theory that is so young that its own founders admit there's much work to be done. But, since I can't follow the math that might not be saying much...
I really liked the technical detail the guests were allowed to use. I have a little background in math and physics and I really got a lot out of the semi-technical intuitive descriptions.
Congratulations Phil, what a great video. So much expertise and knowledgeable from both Alan and Sir Roger. Would love to see more of this type of show. Thank you !
This was very interesting. I'm just a layperson, but this discussion was easy to understand, and I was very happy to hear a discussion of falsifiability. Karl Popper was a major influence on me in my philosophy of science class (as well as Thomas Kuhn). I'm glad I came across your channel.
I think they should just bring back the dislike count. Too many other types of reactions are just unhelpful in my opinion, like Facebook which is garbage.
@39:00 this is _key_ for CCC. Even if unitarity is inviolate (so no information loss) the black hole evaporation cannot observationally recover all the information. So CCC is an effective theory: All the information still exists, but no observer can hope to recover it all. So a conformal rescaling can be observed by any system at a time beyond the conformal horizon between Penrose's aeons. That just means, looking backwards in time, we cannot ever see all the information the previous aeon black holes evaporated, so effectively it makes our "big bang" (aka. conformal horizon) appear to have such low entropy. From a quantum physics point of view, every aeon has exactly the same amount of information. But the conformal rescaling mean future observers, if they evolve, will look back and see what looks like low entropy gravity beginnings.
Fabulous content.. great job. Perfect moderation and what sterling guests. Thank you for this delicious treat.
thanks very much
No lies told
Such a spectacular discussion featuring two legendary scientists! The arguments from both sides were so sharp that I had a feeling that I was watching a thriller. And the moderation was top-notch, with concise and precise comments done at the right time to allow for a less prepared audience to follow the discussion. Have never seen anything better in many years. Great thanks to everybody who made this event for us.
thank you so much for your comment, much appreciated
Absolutely the best cosmological discussion that I've seen in the last 10-15 years. At least from a CCC perspective which is what interests me most. Thank you so much for expertly moderating this in such an informed and entertaining way! And thank you to Prof.s Guth and Penrose for such a good natured, friendly and illuminating discussion! Truly wonderful experience up listen to this!
so kind you to say , really appreciate. it
@@PhilHalper1 - a question if I may; both you and Prof. Guth dealt with CCC in a very respectful way here but that is not how I have seen it treated earlier. It is usually dismissed with some kind of " Penrose is getting old" type argument. Is this discussion a small indication that more and more in the field are starting to take CCC more seriously?
@@PhilHalper1 class got spare
Llo I I
lol mom l mom mmkmj
I don't think you can separate CCC from Penrose's protoconsciousness research. If you watch his WE lecture - he talks about the collapse of the wavefunction - that's a hint he's referring to protoconsciousness. That gets you into quantum biology. For example modern science is based on reducing the entropy of matter which is increasing the entropy of gravity - as Penrose points out - hence our ecological crisis today facing biological annihilation in a decade or less. Funny how cosmologists don't see the direct connection to the ecological crisis. I call this the Strong Misanthropic Principle.
Both Guth and Penrose are such heavyweights. I have nothing but respect for both of them. I really enjoyed this conversation.
Glad you liked it
Absolutely love a good well intentioned debate without nonsense argued in good faith.
Alan Guth and Sir Roger Penrose are two giants! Listening to them, exposing their thought about the "immensity", is like listening to music to me. It elicit so much fascinating ideas. Can't have enough of that stuff. Thanks for this wonderful piece. Merci beaucoup!
Thanks so much for your comment
Oh my word this is unbelievable Guth and Penrose together ,this is wonderful , I shall cherish this video and listen to this over and over again .
so glad you liked it, thanks for your comment
I came here to say this.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
@@Psnym you are welcome
What is this channel? Having two Nobel Prize takers in physics as guests? Next week we'll have Biden and Putin discussing peace in Ukraine. Week after that a Space Alien will discuss with God what a human is, and what wine it goes with when fried. And the week after that you will be surprised!
Every few weeks we seem to get some over the top hype about some boxing or MMA prize fight. Now, THIS is a prize fight! We’ve heard all the smack talking, now let’s see who has the goods. Seriously, thanks so much for this momentous video, to you and your participants.
thanks so much for your comment
@@PhilHalper1 I think it is remarkable that both can't see they might be talking about the same thing. As for Roger, all it takes for a cyclical model to appear 'multiversed' is to have the clock function performed by mass and not time. If so than all 'cycles' wil appear to coexist simultaneously, albeit with a certain order. Meaning, if at the supra-Big Bang world (the world the Big Bang is expanding in) the same setup applies as in the subatomic world (where mass also performs as clock) there is no issue. We thus need to see the architecture of creation as a nested iteration of spacetime setting dominance (where grid= space and clock=time) and energy mass continuum setting dominance (where grid= energy and clock is mass). In other words; We thus have a fundamental DUAL setting between functions (grid clock potential inertia) and measures (space time energy mass) and one dominates over the other in nested scales. So quantum is not necesseraliy restricted to anything small. Both participants need to focus on this basic setting before trying to say anything on the cosmic scale IMHO. By the way for Roger; both settings between functions and measures apply at the same time; they are mutually compensating (allowing for maintaining the equilibrium at origin of all functions and measures) AND they are mutually orthogonal (to yet allow for change in the first place). As an example; the energy of a particle is BOTH the particle property of potential AND its spiraled grid around it. This is why , in the double slit experiment, we can also see its spiraled grid function propagating (seemingly in reverse!) through both slits causing an interference pattern. How ever, due to the rule of orthogonality; the in-product of both functions must always be 1. So by the act of measurement of its energy at a slit sensor, its orthogonal grid function must collapse go to almost 0 in order to retain the in-product at 1. Rather elementary IMHO
Wow!!! I'm speechless! This episode is too important to be on You Tube!!
I think Alan and Roger should definitely get together and collaborate on analyzing the CMB data a little better. They should even write a paper presenting their results
they have continued to talk back and forth since this was recorded.
@@PhilHalper1 Good to hear! Maybe you'll call them back for a part 2 episode!
I respect Penrose and his team for going up against the establishment on this, regardless of whether their conjecture turns out to be correct. The one issue I have is that, according to this interview, the primary problem with inflation that CCC seeks to solve is, according to inflation, not actually a problem.
From what I gleaned, the debate is about the theoretical origin of observable irregularities, circular patterns in the cosmic background radiation, in that CCC postulates that these could be evidence of entropic structures left over from a previous aeon imprinted in an imperfect singularity, whereas the inflation view does not see that an imperfect singularity is necessary to produce the observed irregularities in the cosmic background radiation. Much depends upon how early in time/space the singularity became 'imperfect' resulting in observable entropy. Are these circular patterns the 'smoking gun' that tells us there was no perfectly symmetrical singularity in the 'beginning' of what we see today or can you get from perfection naturally, with a natural explanation, to imperfection (entropy) at some division of Planck scale that then inflates naturally to what we observe today? So, did entropy begin before inflation enlarged it and if so, what mechanism evolved asymmetry from a perfectly symmetrical singularity? CCC says there was no symmetrical singularity to start with, as the asymmetry was the 'footprint' of a previous aeon. Inflation says that an original, perfectly symmetric singularity may or may not have been the case, but inflation happens in either case. So, inflation does not seek to define or explain what the original singularity was like. CCC can include inflation as repeating inflation and collapse. Inflation does not include a collapse, but rather eventual evaporation into nothingness. I could have gotten all that wrong, I'm no physicist, but that is my layman's impression of what they were talking about. Obviously, it's way more complicated than that, so I struggle to comprehend.
Ccc can't have inflation because the outcome ends up been too smooth.
Ccc says original singularity is smooth due to entropy information been destroyed. Inflation says original singularity smoothness basically is irrelevant as long as we buy an anthropic argument for why our universe is just so.
Great stuff - I'm so glad that this debate took place. Both Roger and Alan were firm, but gracious, in presenting their respective arguments and very well moderated by Phil too.
thanks thats kind of you to say
The moderator's work is truly commendable
thanks
Listen for transitional words to move the discussion along…well done
Penrose is the greatest mind of our time
Such a bright mind even at 90 years old
He makes people who make people feel dumb feel dumb.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
I tend to agree, though I favor Neil Turok and colleague's cyclic universe theory
@@brittanylee4591, I'm rather certain that Penrose also believes in the cyclic universe hypothesis.
This is why I love RUclips. A true clash of the titans. I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thank you.
you are welcome
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology.
Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that of increasing entropy.
Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality!
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality.
Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity).
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
What an engaging and respectful discussion of competing ideas by two brilliant thinkers. And a superb job by the moderator. This was a joy to watch. Thank you for your hard work to make this happen.
you are very welcome, glad you liked it.
Clicked this literally 0.000000000014 seconds after I saw this in my feed. GOAT of science videos managing to get Alan Guth AND Roger Penrose at the same time. Kudos!
it wasnt easy but finally we got there, thanks for you keen response
What an achievement to get these two titans together. Well, well done mate. Remarkable and brilliant. Thank you!
thanks
Skydivephil returns with a Big Bang
thanks
@@PhilHalper1 Investigations of the mathematical structure of M-theory have spawned important theoretical results in physics and mathematics. More speculatively, M-theory may provide a framework for developing a unified theory of all of the fundamental forces of nature. Attempts to connect M-theory to experiment typically focus on compactifying its extra dimensions to construct candidate models of the four-dimensional world .
Although a complete formulation of M-theory is not known, such a formulation should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes and should be approximated by eleven-dimensional supergravity at low energies. Modern attempts to formulate M-theory are typically based on matrix theory or the AdS/CFT correspondence.
M should stand for "magic", "mystery" or "membrane" according to taste, and the true meaning of the title should be decided when a more fundamental formulation of the theory is known
Therefore, we ask physicists to use wonderful theories in order to develop the aforementioned brane s mathematics in order to explain the emergence of the universe since the moment of the Big Bang 14 billion years ago.
@@oldanime734 why does compactification sound like a denial of what branes really are. If it were true, all those dimensions would be displayed like flowers for our enjoyment.
Boooo!
underrated humor.
This discussion was a captivating intellectual delight, enhanced by the intelligent and pertinent contributions of the moderator.
thanks so much
It's a great pleasure to see both of them in one frame. when i heard Roger penrose was one of the recipient of 2020 nobel physics prize, burst a joy in my heart. every year I expect-"this year maybe nobel physics prize will get Alan Guth or Roger penrose or Stephen Hawking. And finally Roger get the prize. Now I'm waiting for Alan Guth. And btw,great interview.tnx to Phil Halper for arranging and nicely hosting this interview.
thanks for your comment, much appreciated.
Bless Roger Penrose! He is a personal hero and I cherish all the crazy things he says. I am a huge fan of CCC and ORCH O-R theories: even if they will be proven wrong they are courageous attempts at solving BIG problems that are grounded in solid math and that is what we need more of.
Thank you! I'm with you on this! ✊
There comes a point where these speculative ideas cross over into complete nonsense, and Orch OR is an example of that.
@@Kalumbatsch Thank you for that valuable insight.
Last I heard, they had someone at Princeton running an experiment designed to falsify ORCH O-R. Looking for signs of quantum effects by shining lasers on tubulin and then seeing if anaesthetic drugs have dampening effects in proportion to their relative strength when used in medical applications.
@@throwabrick And?
@@Kalumbatsch And so they are doing more work to falsify the theory you don't believe in than you are. I hope they prove their theory, but if they prove they are wrong about the quantum effect of anaesthesia, it's hardly a loss for science. So either way, I am excited to see the results.
Being wrong is always a great learning experience. You should try it sometime.
I don't recall a more spirited debate in a long time. Fantastic interviewer as well, great job at giving each participant enough space to expand (no pun intended) on their ideas.
lol, thanks for your comment, glad you liked it
I do hope there is something in the CCC ideas - for me as a non-specialist there is an appeal to Occam's Razor when the far future can be cyclically 'equated' with the distant past. Thanks for a great discussion, these eminent guys are scientifically at each other's throats but the discussion was perfectly civil, a refreshing change in today's world.
You are welcome
1:19:50
Penrose: makes hypothesis, makes prediction, sees and records data.
Counter: sees points/rings, attempts to fit that data into existing models, succeeds in fitting data to theory.
Which one is more scientific?
*Two heroes!*
subscribed👍
@@Grandunifiedcelery He's made like 10 other 60 minute videos going in to detail about all the cutting edge theoretical astronomy models that are truly mindblowing. Interviews with all the leading scientists within their own theories going into great detail. Truly worth a watch!
@@TheDrakmannen Thanks! Yes, I will.
@@TheDrakmannen thanks so much for this
Yeah highly recommend watching all his other stuff
This channel has some of the best content on RUclips. Actually, it’s the best popular content concerning cosmology anywhere I’m aware of. Thanks so much for making this dialogue happen.
thanks so much for your comment, makes it all worthwhile
@@PhilHalper1 Thank you.
Great conversation and interesting hypotheses! Love both of your work and thank you :)
Thank you
A well moderated discussion between cosmological giants. Each casting doubt on the other with no clear conclusion reached. An hour & a half of enjoyment. Thanks to all concerned.
you are welcome
@@PhilHalper1 I would be interested to read Alan Guth's list of papers/authors showing inflationary scenarios that produce the observed features (predictions of CCC?) on the CMB.
Thank you for this! Bringing these 2 together for this particular discussion is incredible! I could've listened to them for another few hours
that would have been great
Cycling universe that bounce and cycling universe bubble In multiverse that lead infinity and eternity that mean eternal and infinite so multiverse everlasting and no beginning no end
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology.
Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that increasing entropy.
Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality!
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality.
Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity).
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
What an absolute delight to be able to listen to this discussion! Thanks to all involved!
glad you liked it
Why did you say "we're running out of time"? It's the internet, let these 2 talk for 5 hours
Thanks! Best physics debate I have ever watched. Fantastic, competent moderator moderator.
really appreciate your comment , thanks
So great to see Skydivephil active again. Thanks!!!
you are welcome
Magnificent. I get the feeling that Sir Roger is much closer to the truth.
thanks
Much closer
Would be interesting to see a finite vs infinite universe discussion.
Ironically Guths co author Vilenkin of the BGV theorem believes in a finite universe.
Thats what I was thinking about
he believes it is finite to the past but infinite in size and infinite to the future
@@PhilHalper1 does his notion of finite to the past debated by Sir Penrose in this video?
Would be great to get a string theorist's reaction to this video's discussion. I wonder what Michio Kaku would bring to the table. Lisa Randall is another favorite of mine, who would bring some brane concepts to the table, as well. I sense that the discussion is complicated enough without string and brane arguments, but a three ring circus is more entertaining than a one ring circus (but perhaps more exasperating because how can one take in all of that?), OK I'll finish watching the series.
I dream of a future where discussions like these dominate headlines and prime-time like Sunday night football
wouldn't that be nice
i dream of such future as well my friend.
Seems to me like Alan Guth is really a humble man. Genius and humility - Nice combo! :)
hes a class act for sure.
this is epic,two of the greatest minds of our modern time with different views on the nature of reality,having an intellectual and respectful discussion.Thank you for giving us this content and massive respect to Sir Roger Penrose and Alan Guth
thanks for your comment, its much appreciated.
Yeah we know...every single comment is ppl saying this.
The modern legends and having discussion with them and hear them is like a elixir for the world
Truly one if not the most informative, educational, robust debates between two of the most intelligent, knowledgeable persons in the world in cosmology, theoretical physics and mathematics. I have been searching for the last six months for further understanding of Sir Roger’s position on the mind blowing probability of extreme low entropy position (he had stated in another interview, one in 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 123) at the Big Bang and incredibly found the answer from Alan’s explanation on just how inflation addresses that outcome. I commend you Phil. Well done my friend.
thanks so much , really appreciate it. have you seen our film on CCC? that explains Rogers position quite well.
@@PhilHalper1 no, but I will and I just subscribed. I envy you. What I wouldn’t give to meet these “rock stars”
I have been waiting for this discussion of the pros and cons of these competing theories for years. This is great, and to hear a give-and-take between the originators of the theories is even better.
glad you liked it.
@@PhilHalper1 Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality!
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality.
Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity).
@@hyperduality2838 you are misguided on a number of what constitutes duality. Gravity is a force that can cause of acceleration on mass put other forces cause acceleration of mass. Case in point, the other three forces. So, no, they are not dual. What of Dark energy? Dual to gravity? Why do you think it’s called Dark? No one knows, it’s global to the entire universe. Duality causes reality? Like to read that peer reviewed paper if you have a link. If only it were that easy.
@@Ascendlocal There are new laws of physics -- the 4th & 5th laws of thermodynamics!
Generalized duality = energy is duality, duality is energy!
If energy is being conserved then duality is being conserved -- the 5th law.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
According to Descartes, Kant, Hegel and many others the mind/soul is dual.
Being is dual to non-being creates becoming -- Plato.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality).
@@Ascendlocal Energy = force * distance.
If forces are dual (1st comment) then energy must be dual.
WOW, I discovered Physics over the lock down and I wish I was 60 years younger. I am always amazed how fantastic this all is to me. Please bear with my dare I say it , School boy zeal. Thank you.
you are welcome, good luck with you learning
I also feel 60 years too old to understand this, and I'm not even 40 yet.
@@epajarjestys9981 I'm 66 and feel like I'm in physics kindergarten compared to what Phil understands. It will be interesting in the future, if self-learning AI will tackle some of these great questions of cosmology. Somewhat more difficult than playing chess, however, right?
Meditate daily it will improve your cognitive.
What a great straightforward discussion. Pure pleasure to watch and listen to. A rarity. Thanks a lot.
thanks so much for your comment, much appreciated.
Take note David Gross, this is how two civilized people argue: like gentlemen.
I prefer to think of the multiverse as an organism. This is to say that each universe is a cell of sorts, and just like cells in our bodies, if we live inside them, we would never come in contact with the next cell over and so on.
In themselves, cells are universes of activity and complex atomic interactions. So just like all the stuff of a body, the universe is one thing... This is to say that the multiverse is also one thing, so that no two universes are actually separate in any way but are individual bodies of activity, just like the cells of biological creatures, crystals in a glass or the totality of all the atoms in our universe.
It's rather quite easy to think this way because the concept is simple, much like the universe which is simply complicated because we think it is.
The universe is simply consciousness...
Thank you for bringing alan guth
thanks
This was wonderful. I find both models completely fascinating. I don't know if it's correct but CCC might be the most beautiful cosmological idea I've heard.
Couldn't agree more, I haven't watched to the end of this video yet, but in the other video from Phil, when he talks about the idea that you can't measure distance without good clocks, and since there aren't any good clocks since everything that remains are basicly photons which are timeless -> distance becomes meaningless -> resembles small universe. That blew my mind so hard. It's such an outlandish idea that still makes so much sense. Mind = blown.
@@TheDrakmannen While it is a rather elegant solution. It is purely mathematical. I love Penrose and CCC, it's a beautiful theory but let's not forget Penrose is a mathematician first, physicist later.
@@darshitkoladiya I agree that it is a very mathematical theory, but I can’t help seeing possible truth in it. Somehow it makes more sense to me atleast more than for example LQG’s bouncing universe or some of the string theory models. I’m not a scientist in any way, so this is all way over my head and highly subjective either way. Fun to discuss regardless!
CCC has to be augmented by a particle physics model that explains why the rest mass will eventually decay, but that's a research program for future generations.
I agree, though, that it's a very beautiful idea, and it makes intuitively sense, especially for the General Relativity-inclined people.
Penrose is a treasure within humanity
We are very lucky to be alive at the same time as Penrose
Outstanding interview Phil, thank you so much for organising and producing this!
you are very welcome
This is historic
thanks
YEAH
Not really. Both speculative models with little evidence.
@@notionSlave it's the two people sharing a forum I'm talking about. Also you sound kinda zealot-y bro.
@@audio_boys Still zero evidence. :)
This video will be studied in the future! Two knowledge giants, along with an amazing moderator with precise interventions explaining and mediating conflicting ideas.
It seems to me that the main weakness of the CCC is the information loss and the main weakness of the inflation models is the Multiverse.
thanks very much for your comment , its very kind of you to say
Dang impressive friends you have! Awesome stuff
thanks very much
I'd like to see more debates like these in the future.
lets see if we can make it happen
Wow, what an incredible video. Sir Roger Penrose and Alan Guth both giving insight into their theories. This is amazing, well done Phil!
thanks very much , glad you liked it
OMG.. this is gold
love this channel. Internet was invented for exactly this
the fact that this video exists is amazing
thanks
Over my head, but quite fascinating! I love hearing from these great minds. No doubt, there are very technical mathematics supporting each view. It seems to be that if we could know precisely what happens inside a black hole, that knowledge would help very much. On the whole, it's all mind boggling, but I strive to understand the problems described.
thanks glad you liked it , have you seen our film series? ruclips.net/video/Ry_pILPr7B8/видео.html. It may help you understand more
@@PhilHalper1 Yes, I'm in the process of watching the series. I saw episode 3 last night. Most likely, I will re-watch the series a couple of times just to try and get whatever talking points escaped me the first time through. So far, the series is wonderful (on many levels of the word 'wonderful') so yes, I'm a fan.
Amazing to see these two giants together in 2021.
What an amazing meeting of minds. Really excellent moderating, too. Thanks for posting this!
thanks , look out for a new episode probably in a bout a month from now
Wonderful debate. I feel like Penrose's prediction, that there should be circles in the CMB is quite compelling since they ended up being there once people looked based on his prediction, as I understand it. The after-the-fact explanation of the circles via Gaussian distribution from cosmic inflation is less compelling, due to it being a response to discredit as opposed to a successful prediction, like Penrose was able to produce. I would like to see more funding for the work on the calculations that Penrose says have not been done yet, it may lead to more compelling predictions.
glad you liked he debate thanks for the comment
The guts of the debate starts at 1:15:30 when Guth lays into Penrose on the eight papers showing CCC's claims of "circles in the sky" and "Hawking points" are explainable as random quantum fluctuations that the inflation theory posits. Penrose's response that he "finds that really hard to believe" that they could be random is the choke point. Why, Sir Roger? The background discussion up to then, while informative, is largely irrelevant. We need another hour.
I wish we could have gone on for longer but we agreed on 90 mins in advance and we went over that.
Both are talking nonsense about the matter. The only people who are trustworthy with the CMB data are the ones who made the measurements. Understanding instrument response and data cleaning are extremely difficult tasks that take the people who built these experiments years. Anybody who does ad-hoc data analysis on these data sets without having been part of the collaboration is, most likely, just going to produce whatever ghost they want to see.
@@PhilHalper1 I forgot to tell you how excellent your videos are. As a former journalist, I came to learn that the timing, brevity and pointedness of a question is as essential as its content. Your interview style is dead on. You seem to elicit answers that have just enough technical references to allow an amateur wanna-be cosmologist to remain engaged, but not so much as to feel overwhelmed. (I was a print journalist, so I could go back and rearrange and edit stuff out. On these live streams, you don't have that luxury, but I stayed riveted.)
I know! I wish we could have a follow up podcast where we could dive deep into those papers and continue the debate. It felt like the debate was cut off too early for Rodger to formulate his response. I guess the question boils down to: did Rodger use an accurate model of CCC or did Alan’s team not use an accurate model of CCC? It seems like a communication issue in the end. I’m really curious how Rodger will respond to these papers.
@@bendavis2234 It doesn't matter how somebody responds to these results. Physics is not a debate club. Unless there are multiple dedicated instrumental efforts to find this effect which agree with each other within the expected error bars, it's all speculative.
These videos are gold. This was a very insightful debate between two of physic's greats. The moderator was very engaged. Thanks for making them!
thanks for your comment
Congratulations on bringing these two together to discuss their ideas... in public! ‼️ 👀 😃
thanks for your comment
I feel like there was so much more potential for this discussion. Guth and Penrose have wildly competing theories on the formation of our Universe, but they spend so much time arguing over semantics and basic principles.
I never understood the thing of several combined states existing at the same time and space, my head is more prepared for the existence of different universes but not necessarily in different realities. Outside the whole thing??, nothing, simply nothing and not bearing any pressure from inside. My own ideas about the things!!!.
Great gentlemanly discussion..absolutely deserving of their reputations! Thanks for even making this happened!
yeah I waited a long time to get these two together , glad you thought it was worth it.
I thought Guth was getting pretty spicy, myself.
@@throwabrick about as spicy as ketchup.
@@throwabrick spicy as milk
Very gentlemanly discussion and respectful disagreement with old Sir Roger Penrose who seems to not have really studied the many refutations of the proposed evidence for CCC seen in the CMB so far. Not sure about this, because I don't have the expertise to really understand the calculations, but that's how it seems to me.
You should watch David Guth vs. Carlo Rovelli if you want to see spice.
I always enjoy skydivephil's content. But listening to Alan Guth and Roger Penrose makes me wonder if I suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect! Well done Phil, I think....
lol, thanks
Making predictions (projections) is a syntropic process and predictions are used to track targets and goals -- teleology.
Making optimized predictions (syntropy) is a dual process to that of increasing entropy.
Syntropy = entangled entropy, correlated or associated information or mutual (common) information.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
Points (singularities) are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Null homotopic implies contraction to a point, non null homotopic requires at least two points (a line) or duality!
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Gravity is a converging (convex) or syntropic force -- attraction.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality.
Divergence (inflation) is dual to convergence (gravity).
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
The only thing to make it even better is if Monika was here too. Hope she's well. Phil, you've done it again!
she is well thanks for asking and thanks for the encouragement.
I hope when I’m 74 (like Guth) or 90 (like Penrose) I can still engage in conversations like this.
If you can engage in conversations like this at any age, you are well ahead of 99% of us.
Penrose had better be prepared when he debates Guth, Guth is very meticulous, Penrose is very imaginative, in a debate meticulous always wins
good point
I thought Guth was getting a bit aggressive which I thought was perhaps rather revealing.
1:03:51 - Sir Roger went towards the window and fine-tuned the Cosmological constant to its present value
lol
You deserve way more subscribers
I cannot believe what he just did!!! He put two of the greatest minds alive that share opposite opinions to have a discussion 😱😱😱
thanks
Wow! This is incredible. Can't believe we got these two together. I prefer CCC ovr inflationary models. Why must the aeons be sequential and not cyclical? Why not one aeon that repeats?
thanks glad you liked it
This is GOLD
couldn't agree more
Best deep discussion I have come across! I may have to watch it several times!
thanks, let us know what you thin on subsequent viewings.
Good to know I'm not the only one who watches this kind of discussion over and over again!
Only just discovered this channel, what a gem!
thanks so much, hope you like our material
I subscribed a couple years ago, but thought this channel had died. This was a good way to announce you're still around.
bit of a break due to a) pandemic and b) working on a big project with mainstream media . More on the latter later on.
Hats off for getting this to happen. Marvelous.
thanks so much
@@PhilHalper1
Could’ve sworn I was subbed, certainly am now; amazing opportunity, almost an embarrassment of riches, these two play second fiddle to no other.. admirable intermediation/orchestration on your part; thanks to all involved for enriching our understanding.
@@nyrdybyrd1702 you are welcome , glad you found it interesting.
This was a wonderful debate to listen to. Thankyou to everyone involved. I still have high expectations that one side or the other will ultimately become accepted dogma. May the best idea win. Also Penrose is a star, most of us will have dementia by his age and he is still sharp as a pin. Gives you hope.
couldn't agree more , thats for watching, glad you liked it.
Thank you for collaborating two great minds together to give a priceless discussion piece
You are welcome. Thanks for your comment
Roger is clearly a smart man and I favor his theories over inflation. That said I think it is a shame he's such a terrible advocate, literally speaking, for his arguments! Glad the moderator was able to reign him in somewhat.
thanks
Big fan of Penrose. I was so excited to see a new video!
I hope it met your expectations
One of my favourite RUclipsrs strikes again!! Wonderful video!
Phil is you are reading this, what are you’re tips for books to read to get more familiar with all the cosmological science?
thanks for your comment. I would recommend Carlo rovellis "Reality is not What it seems". Brian Greenes Fabric Of Reality, Sean Carroll;s Big Picture and for the two models we cover in this video Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth and Cycles fo Time By Penrose , the latter is hard though.
@@PhilHalper1 Tnx so much! Will check the books out!
@@bladetrinity87 I would add that Lisa Randall's book, Warped Passages, is also very enjoyable and interesting.
It’s interesting that we have just observed some mega structures in the observable universe: a circle and an arc which seem to be collinear if not concentric.
Great to see you posting on this channel again. You're great at explaining these grand concepts without making us learn a lifetime of math.
thanks very much , appreciate the support.
The mathematics in the papers they refer to would be on a post-doctoral level that's just mind blowing, I'm sure.
How marvellous! Thankyou so much!
you are welcome
If you want to see an example of risk taking genius confronted by formalist consensus skip to 1:10:00 or so. Guth's theory does not predict rings, Penrose's theory relies upon them. Penrose presents them as evidence, Guth says his theory includes them because the variance is not profound enough to rule out the possibility of rings occurring by the chance built in to his theory. Consider that Guth's community has built their reputations upon the theory of inflation, whereas Penrose is simply speculating, his reputation already confirmed in other ways.
I don't think eight papers offering an alternate way of 'finding' particular patterns in the CMB counts for much of anything in the way of 'downgrading' the possible truth value of a theory that is so young that its own founders admit there's much work to be done. But, since I can't follow the math that might not be saying much...
What a magnificent privilege to converse with these two intellectual giants. I envy you.
yes it really was
Amazing conversation. Side note: anyone see a subtle facial resemblance between Alan Guth and Bob Lazar?
thanks and yes the similarity is there
Hmmm and you never see them together… :)
Another masterly interview from skydivephil. What a privilege to listen to these brilliant minds. This channel is a gift to humanity.
I really liked the technical detail the guests were allowed to use. I have a little background in math and physics and I really got a lot out of the semi-technical intuitive descriptions.
thanks, glad you like it. have you check out are other films? they have a similar feel.
Congratulations Phil, what a great video. So much expertise and knowledgeable from both Alan and Sir Roger. Would love to see more of this type of show. Thank you !
you are welcome, thanks for you comment
Great video sky, do you have a link to the video you produced with Roger, referenced several times in this one? Thanks!
its in the description but here it is ruclips.net/video/FVDJJVoTx7s/видео.html
This was very interesting. I'm just a layperson, but this discussion was easy to understand, and I was very happy to hear a discussion of falsifiability. Karl Popper was a major influence on me in my philosophy of science class (as well as Thomas Kuhn). I'm glad I came across your channel.
thanks , hope you like our other material too
The best minds coming together to discuss this is a historic event. Thank you for posting this excellent video sir!
you are welcome
This was fantastic!
thanks
This. Is. Amazing. I've always loved this channel, and now I just love it even more.
thanks so much for your encouragement
RUclips should have a Love button for videos like this
I think they should just bring back the dislike count. Too many other types of reactions are just unhelpful in my opinion, like Facebook which is garbage.
@39:00 this is _key_ for CCC. Even if unitarity is inviolate (so no information loss) the black hole evaporation cannot observationally recover all the information. So CCC is an effective theory: All the information still exists, but no observer can hope to recover it all. So a conformal rescaling can be observed by any system at a time beyond the conformal horizon between Penrose's aeons. That just means, looking backwards in time, we cannot ever see all the information the previous aeon black holes evaporated, so effectively it makes our "big bang" (aka. conformal horizon) appear to have such low entropy.
From a quantum physics point of view, every aeon has exactly the same amount of information. But the conformal rescaling mean future observers, if they evolve, will look back and see what looks like low entropy gravity beginnings.