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.
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?
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!
@@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!
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!
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
The answer is both. Multiverse deals with the higher dimensions, whereby the internal mechanics of decisive paths are distributed between each slice of timelines, of which cascade into n series fractal into infinity, into infinity etc etc. The cyclical part of the universe deals with the frequency state of total energy of the universe from 0 to 1 to 0 again, if not in total, in partition of. IE in one series of cluster universes x[1010010001010] and so forth. As one timeline reaches its final energy state, it becomes anywhere and anywhen, the same as a singularity. This is the reset as described by Penrose. So there are in fact 2 levels, the level at which is the singular digit, and the level of the total[series]. That means there is s potential of infinite series of top domain universes, below that infinite/finite timelines as phase.
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.
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.
1:22:46 - So the disagreement between inflation and CCC as regards the validity of Sir Roger's "circles in the sky" (as evidence supporting CCC) comes down to a disagreement over the meaning and application of "random" in characterizing the quantum fluctuations that give rise to the temperature variations in the CMB. Specifically, Alan is saying that the fluctuations predicted by inflation follow a "random Gaussian field", which includes correlation between points in the field, and their relative distances, and that the circles represent a "clumping" that is normal, expected, and actually _predicted_ by inflation. Therefore, the circles do not constitute evidence for CCC and against inflation. Is this a mere semantic argument over the usage of "random", or is there a fundamental difference in how it applies to Sir Roger's and Alan's respective arguments? Alan says that Sir Roger is ignoring (what Alan claims is) a crucial distinction in their respective meanings of "random". It seems to me that they need to resolve the disagreement over the meaning of "random" in order to reach any mutual understanding of their respective cases. It has been asserted elsewhere in this video's comments that further discussions between Sir Roger and Alan ensued. Does anyone know whether they addressed this issue in subsequent discussions they've had?
The cyclic universe theory makes me think of Isaac Asimov's dated but still relevant famous short story 'The Last Question', where the now merged and universal ancient human consciousness, seeing the dead universe around it, decides to restart the universe in order to experience it all over again. "The consciousness...encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done. And [it] said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light --"
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 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...
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@skydivephil These are four questions about three-dimensional universes (hologram) and the problem of the cosmological constant in superstring theory Are Ads/CFT correspondence and mirror symmetry able to unify loop quantum gravity theory and superstring theory? The second question about quantum loop theory of gravity and superstring theory Is the unification of the two theories will give a (positive cosmological constant)? The third question about the transition of the hologram universe from the system of qubits to bits Has the universe moved from a two-dimensional system to a three-dimensional system by (Ads/CFT correspondence and mirror symmetry in superstring )? The fourth question about the problem of superstring theory between the positive cosmological constant and the negative cosmological constant Is one of the theories (Matrix theory and F-theory or Theory of supergravity from the eleventh dimension and Supermembranes ) able to give a positive cosmological constant in the spaces of superstring theory? We ask physicists to solve the cosmological constant problem in superstring theory and publish the correct answers to these four questions on Wikipedia. Send these questions as well as the request to theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists
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?
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.
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.
@@PhilHalper1 Certainly was worth the wait. You did a sterling job at reformulating the positions of Penrose and Guth for a lay viewer like me. For example, finally someone who pins down a physicist to define "degrees of freedom" !! I've been trying to get my head around that oft-banded about term for ages. Thanks ! I'm not at all qualified to give a scientific appraisal and both theories are magnificent though I do give CCC a wafer thin edge on a purely intuitive layman's perspective. The notion of cycles just seem more plausible than the inflation field and multiple-universes. It also covers more ground by giving an idea of what came before the big bang rather than just describing the aftermath. But I'm also biased due to my own admittedly unscientific reservedness to what I detect as a certain culture of conformity in the scientific community around inflation. Much like with string theory, I find this somewhat troubling given that it is yet to be proven. That isn't a slight on inflation itself, rather a symptom of its own success and to Guth's credit, he acknowledges the healthy need to have challenger. On the other hand, CCC for me lacks clarity on the cyclical cross-over from one aeon to another. I understand his point about having no clocks or distance when there is no matter left and only protons. But is that enough to "squash down" (Penrose's own words) this radiation and create the dense heat and energy required for a new cyclical "bang" or "propulsion" towards a newly expanding aeon? Is there actually a "squashing" process or is this just a conformal sleight of hand much like Escher's illusions and the impossible triangle much referenced by Penrose ? Sorry for the long reply, and thank you so much for this thrilling debate. I was waiting to see these two great men face one another off. At the risk of baseness it was the scientific equivalent of Tyson versus Muhammad Ali, without the insults lol
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.
49:08 Alan Guth demonstrates here the narrowmindedness that is inherent to almost every field in science where the prevailing view has certain tenets, if you like, the violation of which amounts to heresy. For context ,they are talking about the big fire-wall debate here and Sir Roger calmly demolishes his blatant bigotry. Mr Guth came off as dismissive and arrogant the entire duration of this interview anyway. Shame that someone as influential as him falls into such garden variety traps of ego. But we are all human after all. We should take his contributions to sciences with genuine gratitude while also being able to dismiss his faults when the situation merits it.
@@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.
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.
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.
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?
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
The moderator's work is truly commendable
thanks
Listen for transitional words to move the discussion along…well done
*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
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!
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.
Great conversation and interesting hypotheses! Love both of your work and thank you :)
Thank you
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
Guth won this by submission
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.
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
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!
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.
1:03:51 - Sir Roger went towards the window and fine-tuned the Cosmological constant to its present value
lol
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.
So great to see Skydivephil active again. Thanks!!!
you are welcome
Thank you for bringing alan guth
thanks
What an absolute delight to be able to listen to this discussion! Thanks to all involved!
glad you liked it
Dang impressive friends you have! Awesome stuff
thanks very much
This discussion was a captivating intellectual delight, enhanced by the intelligent and pertinent contributions of the moderator.
thanks so much
Great discussion! Thank you
you are welcome
I'd like to see more debates like these in the future.
lets see if we can make it happen
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.
Thanks! Best physics debate I have ever watched. Fantastic, competent moderator moderator.
really appreciate your comment , thanks
Outstanding interview Phil, thank you so much for organising and producing this!
you are very welcome
You deserve way more subscribers
Seems to me like Alan Guth is really a humble man. Genius and humility - Nice combo! :)
hes a class act for sure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The modern legends and having discussion with them and hear them is like a elixir for the world
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.
Amazing to see these two giants together in 2021.
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
How marvellous! Thankyou so much!
you are welcome
the fact that this video exists is amazing
thanks
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.
Outstanding job by all involved.
@@williammceuen8831 thanks
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
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
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.
This was fantastic!
thanks
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.
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”
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
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. :)
What an achievement to get these two titans together. Well, well done mate. Remarkable and brilliant. Thank you!
thanks
Excellent! So glad to see this my friend!
Thanks Martin, thought you might like it. Hope you re well.
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.
Awesome, thanx guys... really enjoying this video
you are welcome , glad you liked it.
Big fan of Penrose. I was so excited to see a new video!
I hope it met your expectations
The answer is both. Multiverse deals with the higher dimensions, whereby the internal mechanics of decisive paths are distributed between each slice of timelines, of which cascade into n series fractal into infinity, into infinity etc etc. The cyclical part of the universe deals with the frequency state of total energy of the universe from 0 to 1 to 0 again, if not in total, in partition of. IE in one series of cluster universes x[1010010001010] and so forth. As one timeline reaches its final energy state, it becomes anywhere and anywhen, the same as a singularity. This is the reset as described by Penrose. So there are in fact 2 levels, the level at which is the singular digit, and the level of the total[series]. That means there is s potential of infinite series of top domain universes, below that infinite/finite timelines as phase.
Magnificent. I get the feeling that Sir Roger is much closer to the truth.
thanks
Much closer
Why did you say "we're running out of time"? It's the internet, let these 2 talk for 5 hours
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
Thank you for collaborating two great minds together to give a priceless discussion piece
You are welcome. Thanks for your comment
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!
Take note David Gross, this is how two civilized people argue: like gentlemen.
Wonderful. 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.
1:22:46 - So the disagreement between inflation and CCC as regards the validity of Sir Roger's "circles in the sky" (as evidence supporting CCC) comes down to a disagreement over the meaning and application of "random" in characterizing the quantum fluctuations that give rise to the temperature variations in the CMB.
Specifically, Alan is saying that the fluctuations predicted by inflation follow a "random Gaussian field", which includes correlation between points in the field, and their relative distances, and that the circles represent a "clumping" that is normal, expected, and actually _predicted_ by inflation. Therefore, the circles do not constitute evidence for CCC and against inflation.
Is this a mere semantic argument over the usage of "random", or is there a fundamental difference in how it applies to Sir Roger's and Alan's respective arguments? Alan says that Sir Roger is ignoring (what Alan claims is) a crucial distinction in their respective meanings of "random".
It seems to me that they need to resolve the disagreement over the meaning of "random" in order to reach any mutual understanding of their respective cases. It has been asserted elsewhere in this video's comments that further discussions between Sir Roger and Alan ensued. Does anyone know whether they addressed this issue in subsequent discussions they've had?
OMG.. this is gold
love this channel. Internet was invented for exactly this
The cyclic universe theory makes me think of Isaac Asimov's dated but still relevant famous short story 'The Last Question', where the now merged and universal ancient human consciousness, seeing the dead universe around it, decides to restart the universe in order to experience it all over again.
"The consciousness...encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.
And [it] said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
And there was light --"
yes I recall that str story too
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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.
An uncommonly superb moderator!
thanks a lot
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 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.
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.
I wish this was 3 hours long, please do a follow up and don't worry how long it is!
This is GOLD
couldn't agree more
Thank you very much.
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
@skydivephil These are four questions about three-dimensional universes (hologram) and the problem of the
cosmological constant in superstring theory
Are Ads/CFT correspondence and mirror symmetry able to unify loop quantum gravity theory and
superstring theory? The second question about quantum loop theory of gravity and superstring theory
Is the unification of the two theories will give a (positive cosmological constant)?
The third question about the transition of the hologram universe from the system of qubits to bits
Has the universe moved from a two-dimensional system to a three-dimensional system by (Ads/CFT
correspondence and mirror symmetry in superstring )?
The fourth question about the problem of superstring theory between the positive cosmological
constant and the negative cosmological constant
Is one of the theories (Matrix theory and F-theory or Theory of supergravity from the eleventh
dimension and Supermembranes ) able to give a positive cosmological constant in the spaces of
superstring theory?
We ask physicists to solve the cosmological constant problem in superstring theory and publish the
correct answers to these four questions on Wikipedia.
Send these questions as well as the request to theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists
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.
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.
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.
Wow!! Bringing out the "heavy hitters" today!!
Just subscribed.. two great minds!
Edit: Excellent conversation and the interviewer asked them both good questions too.
thanks , do check out the playlists on the channel, Im sure you will find other films that will be of interest to you
@@PhilHalper1 I’ll definitely be checking them out thanks, when the house is quiet later on so I can get right into it. 😁
Only just discovered this channel, what a gem!
thanks so much, hope you like our material
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
The best minds coming together to discuss this is a historic event. Thank you for posting this excellent video sir!
you are welcome
Great discussion - thanks
Wow this is THE debate I've been waiting for!
hope it was worth the wait, let us know what you thought.
@@PhilHalper1 Certainly was worth the wait. You did a sterling job at reformulating the positions of Penrose and Guth for a lay viewer like me. For example, finally someone who pins down a physicist to define "degrees of freedom" !! I've been trying to get my head around that oft-banded about term for ages. Thanks !
I'm not at all qualified to give a scientific appraisal and both theories are magnificent though I do give CCC a wafer thin edge on a purely intuitive layman's perspective. The notion of cycles just seem more plausible than the inflation field and multiple-universes. It also covers more ground by giving an idea of what came before the big bang rather than just describing the aftermath. But I'm also biased due to my own admittedly unscientific reservedness to what I detect as a certain culture of conformity in the scientific community around inflation. Much like with string theory, I find this somewhat troubling given that it is yet to be proven. That isn't a slight on inflation itself, rather a symptom of its own success and to Guth's credit, he acknowledges the healthy need to have challenger.
On the other hand, CCC for me lacks clarity on the cyclical cross-over from one aeon to another. I understand his point about having no clocks or distance when there is no matter left and only protons. But is that enough to "squash down" (Penrose's own words) this radiation and create the dense heat and energy required for a new cyclical "bang" or "propulsion" towards a newly expanding aeon? Is there actually a "squashing" process or is this just a conformal sleight of hand much like Escher's illusions and the impossible triangle much referenced by Penrose ?
Sorry for the long reply, and thank you so much for this thrilling debate. I was waiting to see these two great men face one another off. At the risk of baseness it was the scientific equivalent of Tyson versus Muhammad Ali, without the insults lol
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.
Thank you for your videos and this one in particular!
you are most welcome
49:08 Alan Guth demonstrates here the narrowmindedness that is inherent to almost every field in science where the prevailing view has certain tenets, if you like, the violation of which amounts to heresy. For context ,they are talking about the big fire-wall debate here and Sir Roger calmly demolishes his blatant bigotry. Mr Guth came off as dismissive and arrogant the entire duration of this interview anyway. Shame that someone as influential as him falls into such garden variety traps of ego. But we are all human after all. We should take his contributions to sciences with genuine gratitude while also being able to dismiss his faults when the situation merits it.
Been waiting for this channel to get going again, love your docs
thanks very much
Outstanding moderation, Phil. Seriously well done.
thanks very much
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.
Cyclic Universe!
It makes much more sense and comes much closer to known realities.