Before the Big Bang 7: An Eternal Cyclic Universe, CCC revisited & Twistor Theory

traditionally we think of cichlid cosmology models as implying the current expansion of the universe will reverse recal apps under its own weight and then bounce back [Music] but is it possible to have a cyclic model from a universe that never Rika lapses and is instead in some sense always expanding Roger Penrose has proposed just such a model in one of our earlier films we discussed his conformal cyclic cosmology but new developments in the field have led us to revisit this fascinating model with some of the scientists who have worked on it including Roger Penrose matcha danowsky priest off Meisner and Palomar offski but for those that didn't see our previous film let's recap what is si si si [Music] conformance actually cosmology or ccc is i sometimes call it is a cosmological scheme which i introduced in about 2005 sometime around then which has i talk about things which are called eons now the yeah present eon would be starting with a big bang the universe expands and then it goes into this exponential expansion which is fairly recently observed and then that goes on forever this remote expansion is physically equivalent to another big bang and our Big Bang was the continuation of the remote future of an exponential expanding previous ear and the idea is eons go on and on and on forever in both directions how can the future of an expanding universe be equivalent to the Big Bang the answer lies in a type of geometry known as conformal geometry conformal geometry is concerned with shapes irrespective of their size so consider a triangle you can say that its angles sum to 180 degrees even if you know nothing of its sides or imagine we stretch this small chessboard so that it's the size of this large one now the chessboard becomes very large but you would still have 64 fields on it and you can say which is first which is second and and the angle if you look at it correctly the angle between the corners would still be 90 degrees even though you've stretched it but this geometry goes part deeper than that what you allowed to do in control more space is to stretch things differently conformal play then it will be like this that you will lose the time of particular move but what you will have you will have ratio of the of the distances between between particular pieces and you will have ratio of times between particular moves chessboard of course is a conceptual thing which could be big or small you see some big ones in park sometimes and there certainly and you see the little tiny miniature set just sits and it's the same game that's the point that it doesn't depend on the scale of the board [Music] conformal geometry preserves angles while losing the notion of scale but what has this to do with the evolution of the universe Einstein tells you that mass and energy are equivalent Planck tells us that energy and frequency are equivalent that tells you that mass and frequency are equivalent through these two very basic laws that basically tells you that any stable particle which has a mass massive particle is a clock so if you want to measure geometry you use clocks okay you have good clocks if you have mass but if you don't have mass you don't have good clocks and there are two places where it can be argued you don't have mass one of them is in the Big Bang so you go back and back in time and you get to the Big Bang now the thing is Big Bang is extremely hot means that particles are racing around at a great speed when they you get nearer and nearer to the Big Bang you find this speed is so enormous that the mass is the pilot was completely irrelevant once all matter in the universe is swallowed by black holes and the particles lose their mass which is one of the assumptions controversial assumptions of the CCC model there are no massive particles left and no M physical clocks and what Roger argues then it only the confirmer geometry which matters to the claim is that the physics in the very future loses track of scale so this big and small become equivalent so that's the things hard to get your mind around see how is it that this very big cold rarefied universe can be equivalent to a very hot dense smaller inner universe but they're physically equivalent if you don't have a scale [Music] Penrose and Hawking had previously shown that given certain assumptions there must be a singularity a point of infinite density and curvature inside a black hole and at the Big Bang if CCC is going to give us an eternal universe it must remove the singularity at the Big Bang Penrose first and then Penrose and Hawking proof together is that these are very generic evolution behavior of any state of of matter whatever you start with is likely to collapse to a singularity but these theorems really assume that you have matter content of the universe whereas what's important in the conformal model is that you don't most important object for to describe the space-time is space-time interval it tells you about distances of events in space day and now this space-time interval mathematicians and physicists encode is something which is called metric of the space-time the metric is determined by ten functions which are ten components of this object which is called metric singularity of a collapsing star is will say much more messy all components of the curvature tensor which measures how curved a the space-time is blow up are infinite in the initial singularity Big Bang singularity only one component does and that can be regular alized fixed by changing to a conformal geometry so what is singular in Big Bang is only this one function which is actually escape but scale has meaning in Lorentzian geometry but it doesn't have any meaning in conformal geometry the singularity the Big Bang is only singularity of one function which is actually not relevant at all to describe conformal geometry so by allowing yourself to stretch a metric at the point of the Big Bang you can make it regular what the formal cyclic cosmology model dance is then matches the metric at the end of one Eon to a metric at the beginning of the other um and in a way but the transition is smooth it turns out that conformal curvature of black hole is infinite whereas conformal curvature of BIGBANG is just zero conformal geometry removes the singularity at the Big Bang and allows us to look at what happened before but perhaps its biggest advantage is addressing two mysteries about the entropy of the early universe firstly why was it so low at the Big Bang and secondly when we looked at the oldest light in the universe the Cosmic Microwave Background why is it a thermal blackbody isn't that high entropy now there's a seeming paradox here it's what I call the mammoth in the room sometimes when you go back to where they entropy ought to be as small as it could be you find evidence for the entropy being as large as it can be now it's not a contradiction because this is only taking into consideration the radiation and matter it's not taking into consideration gravity now gravity sort of works in a different way from other fields because you also see from this cosmic microwave background or the CMB that the radiation is very uniform over the whole sky and so that also is an indication of high entropy if you're thinking about matter and radiation but gravity is low entropy because gravity proceeds by say take a uniform distribution mass and then it clumps we produce regions of high concentration and then stars and galaxies and it's this can going towards this lumpy situation which is where the entropy is increasing so the uniformity that is observed means low entropy in gravity if you scale down this remote future you get something which looks very much like the Big Bang which we see now here's the this is the main point of the story is that the way gravity scales is such that it's killed off so that is to say any gravitational degrees of freedom which were there in the previous Eon in this very rarefied expanded case when you squash it down they're not there so the gravitational degrees of freedom are wiped out when I say degrees of freedom I mean the number of numbers you need per point to define what you're talking about and so this scheme automatically gives you the low entropy in gravitation that we need in order to set the second law off in the way that we see it conformal cyclic cosmology can explain then why the entropy of the Big Bang was so low but in order to do this it must assume that information is destroyed in black holes most of the entropy of the universe is contained in these incredible objects and if they destroy information then when they evaporate the information about their entropy will be gone too this seems to be the inevitable outcome of general relativity quantum physicists have another principle called unitarity which seems to point to the opposite conclusion unitarity tells you that probability in quantum evolution has to be conserved so probability doesn't disappear the information loss in the black hole will violate such probability conservation so the particle physics perspective is that there isn't such laws the information is recovered how is it recovered nobody knows there various models being proposed as we speak I think it's the verge of a philosophical dispute whether you regard quantum theory or general relativity as more fundamental quantum effects stretch over huge distances sure they do but there's virtually no mass in any of these experiments if you displace mass you see quantum mechanics says say if you've got a one thing can happen or another thing can happen then you could have this and this happening together sort of waiting factor between the two but they're both there that's the Schrodinger's cat thing you see shredding was pointing out the absurdity of this if his own principle you say you think okay you could have a system where a cat could be dead and alive at the same time that's a load of rubbish there must be something wrong with my equation that's thrillingly so he knows an equation well he didn't quite put it like that but that's more or less what he was saying there's something wrong with quantum mechanics and it seems to me clear there's got to be whenever a measurement takes place in quantum mechanics you throw unitarity out the window you're wheeling something else use that and then we look back and then we in eternity back in again the way you use quantum mechanics is violating unitarity all the time people some teams that were you not really if it must be doing something very subtle instead it's blatantly violating in eternity and for some reason people just don't accept that they just say quantum mechanics is so well confirmed but only at a level where I would say sure we expect unitarity B to be confirmed at these levels yes of course it's not disturbing the geometry enough it's not coming into a place where principles of general relativity are running into trouble if you think that like Roger Penrose does but quantum theory has to be modified in a way which takes mass into account you'll be quite relaxed to let it go and to agree that information is lost in a black hole and that is what the cccc model requires experts in general relativity Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking but quantum physicist John Prescott that information would be lost in a black hole in 2004 Hawking conceded that press Kohl was right that quantum physics could show that the information would be preserved Kip Thorne refused to concede if an astronaut crosses the event horizon he should not notice anything unusual but if the information is preserved it seems he would burn up in a fire wall which violates a basic full of physics known as equivalence this implies that the solutions to the black hole information paradox are not quite as sound as with thought okay if they run into firewalls well yeah I told you sir I'm now I didn't tell him so because I didn't think about firewalls but I mean it's the sort of trouble you run into if you insist that unitarity should hold that level if ccc is right and it solves a deep mystery as to why the entropy was so low at the Big Bang but many people have quoted Roger Penrose as implying that this is the most extreme example of fine-tuning cosmologists Sean Carroll has argued that it is not fine-tuned for life it's pretty gross course tuning the the entropy in the gravitational field is ridiculously small compared with the entropy in matter it's there's nothing fine tuned about it's just huge absolutely agree with yes the entropy could in gravitational field could have been far larger without disturbing life as far as I can see si si si implies that the low entropy of the Big Bang was not chosen at random but forced into a low state by conformal transformations removing the gravitational degrees of freedom of the previous er in order to demonstrate how unlikely it was that the entropy was chosen at random Roger Penrose has been quoted as saying this now tells how precise the creator's aim must have been namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120 third power unfortunately some people have taken this a bit too literally I hope it was if people read my book properly they would have thought I necessarily believed in any being who created us I don't think that helps much I mean a being in the sense of a conscious being or something something that the word God has applied to it's not the view of the child - I mean that's just a metaphor I'm using a picture I like to draw this picture of this there was a nice story about that I given it a lecture with this creator picture that I using the emperor's new mind and somebody in the question time said in your picture of God why did you depict her with a beard so I said I brought my picture up again said well if you look carefully at this picture you will see that there are two interpretations of that beard one is it's a beard and this is a man sort of guard the male guard or that this is hair coming around and it's a female guard I was completely neutral about which which gender that creature was but to say it's a being of any sort that's a joke I mean there I like to draw these pictures and have his image is a very useful one and I'm amused when people pick it up and tried to say this is that I'm claiming that there is a creator out there that's not my view at all even if the low entropy state of the universe was not fine-tuned for life many have argued that other constants are in inflationary cosmology this can be solved because it seems to generate a multiverse but si si si is an alternative to inflation so how do its proponents respond to the issues of fine-tuning so one view is that okay there are lots of these parallel universes and in each one of them you've got different constants of nature and okay the ones with the constants nature just coming out right okay that's where people are so you have beings if I can we know in this universe but not in that one and the reason we're in this universe because we're people and people have a have to be in the universe that they could be and you say well sort of tautology well si si si is a different picture it's a sequential you say they're different eons one after the other but not next to each other in this other sense and one possibility might be that in the eons of si si si these numbers have different values and there's this thing called the anthropic principle which might say well we're only in that eon where these numbers have exactly the right values where life could come about and if you changed monkey with these numbers too much life wouldn't happen now I think this is a bit of a dangerous argument because we have no idea what life would be like even with these numbers we don't know enough about life to know that it would never necessarily come about with the numbers that we see we don't know enough about it to say it wouldn't come about with other numbers so I think it's a dangerous argument to use there may be another reason why they have these values which is purely mathematical we just don't know so there are big questions here which are interesting to talk about but I don't think you can make any big conclusion from them and it's certainly quite a possibility and it's what emotionally I would say I would like the best that somehow there is a mathematical reason that the universe as we know it comes about because these numbers have those values mathematic we have absolutely no clue whatsoever into why the constants are what they are no clue whatsoever I would rather think that they are solution of some equation that we don't know and they have to be what they are at some point and not that they are randomly chosen because then I would fail with this extremely bizarre that they do not change within our universe I would love if any theory makes the observable physical constants necessary and not accidental that's absolutely plausible option and I would be absolutely happy to see such a theory formulated the standard model of particle physics is incredibly successful in describing the structure of atoms but astronomers tell us that most of the matter in the universe is not made of atoms instead it's dark matter which is nowhere to be found in the standard model another potential strength of the CCC model is its ability to address this mystery these days worried but these two things one dark energy and the other dark matter both are very bad terms in my view dark energy particularly because it's not dark it's invisible and it's not energy it goes the wrong way because energy is attractive and this is repulsive so it's it's funny kind of energy but never mind the dark matter is only it's matter all right but it's not dark either it's invisible okay fine that's just equivalent when you do this to go from your remote future of the previous eon squash down to the Big Bang of the next and you write down your equations you find that there has to be a new material which is a scalar that means it's doesn't have a direction quality it doesn't have any spin it's a it's a just a number which tells you how strong it is and that field has to be there now you don't want the stuff to build up because each time you go through a cycle you produce some new stuff so this means that it has to decay so right from the Big Bang it starts to decay away and decays away until it's all gone behind the infinity of that Eon now in its process of decaying it would that's what we consider is the source of the fluctuations in the spectrum the people see in the people in the eon after ours when they look back and see their Cosmic Microwave Background they will see we see this scale invariance and so on as we do and the scale in various according to me is this I should say this is a scheme worked out between Christoph Meisner who is Polish scientists who's been working on CCC for a lot and he's a colleague command and we've have this idea that it's this decay of the dark matter you look how curvature just before the bank is expressed by the curve and address after the bank or you can do the opposite see how curvature after the Bank is related to a curvature before the bank and that depends very much of what these conformal factors are these stretching factors what miracle seems to be happening and a combination of these conformal factors and technically speaking you have to divide one by another satisfies the equations one would expect from a scalar field modeling the dark matter so they really arise very geometrically from conformal geometry conformal changes of the Aeons this was proved by Paul taught in the last four years Dark Matter seems then to be an inevitable outcome of CCC and Roger Penrose has dubbed associated dark matter particles era bonds after the Greek god of Darkness Erebos now it's appropriate because not only the god of darkness apparently but he is a primordial God so he's right there at the beginning so this is just perfect as far as I can see so these particles I call Arab bonds they would have something like a Planck mass to within a couple of orders of magnitude I don't know to be quite sure about this and a decay time of something like decay 10 to the 11 years so a half-life of something like a 10 to the yellow at 10 to the 11 years so that's a bit longer than the current age of the universe but even that's an awful long time since these particles dominates the matter in the universe there decays you should be seeing them now so my view is that the era bonds are behaving like classical particles and so when they decay the signal that they emit would be basically a classical wave now this wave would probably have some kind of very high frequency because of this very high frequency all you would see would be the energy content in this wave so it would be like an impulse which could in principle effect gravitational wave detectors recently it's been claimed that the gravitational wave detector LIGO has detected something that might indicate the existence of era bombs I just gave him my talk in Vienna and mentioned possibly that LIGO may be in its rubbish bin would have evidence of signals of this nature I hadn't gone through it I calculated what they might see or not but it was just a suggestion and then very shortly after that I was told that there had been a bit of a controversy because people in Copenhagen who grew up there they what they did is they looked at the little pieces of data which have been released which was only adjustments around the the actual signals but if you look at the noise in those signal it's not the single itself but they are love things which are considered to be irrelevant just some kind of noise they find evidence for correlations with the same time delay in the noise so that night I find myself having difficulty getting to sleep because it seemed to me possible that what they are seeing is not just some artifacts which doesn't mean anything but maybe the Arab on decay from the galaxy in which these black holes are I submitted an article to the archive making this suggestion which I wasn't really sure about that seemed to me an interesting thing to pursue and there was a little bit of a discussion by this in the blog by Sabina Hassan Felder and she she likes to be critical of people's theories and I think very extensively often and so she made some comments about what I'd said quite sensibly I think where the signal is strong enough why doesn't want CDs from our own galaxy for example I thought about that a bit and what kind of signals are you seeing are they strong enough from a distant galaxy and I said well no you're probably what you'd have to see is some kind of average effect but some kind of Wiggly random shape which you might correlate between the two things and see and then she got back to me so you mean hbt and so I got myself I don't know what's hbt so she got back to me and said oh Henry Brown Twiss ah Henry Brown I knew as a scientist he there's a very interesting series of measurements on stars to measure their diameters and what he and twist did was to look at electromagnetic signals and they're looking at them quantum mechanically so these are individual photons and they are looking at the correlations which you tend to see and could they get any information from these interference and they got a lot of trouble from a lot of famous physicists apparently so no no you can't get interference between different photons the photons only interfere with themselves and they said no no way this is what we're seeing and it turns out they were right and so Henry Brown and twists were using this effect to measure the diameters of stars and they did this very successfully they were able to measure the diameters of quite a number of stars in these old times when people had no very good measurements of this nature and but this is the Hanbury Brown Twiss effect and what you tend to find is that the bosons coming from the star this photon coming from here and this one comes from here they are entitled in a way and it makes them the signal compeer than it would be otherwise but if the hamburger Brown Twiss effect is operative here quite possibly and you would be able to see a signal which you would be a random signal but the same random signal seen by the two detectors now I'm still thinking about this I have no clear idea whether something like hamburger on twists is actually what's happening here Roger Penrose in behaviour Audion claimed to see circular structures in the Cosmic Microwave Background they suggested this was caused by gravitational radiation emitted from black hole mergers in our previous Eon many CMB cosmologists said this was just noise it's this that Christophe Meisner and Pavel Moravsky have addressed in order to check if it is statistical fluctuation or not I should have another maps of cosmic microwave background radiation but I cannot have another maps because we have only one universe so there is only one map so then the question was how to create such maps that imitate the universe and I didn't know how to do it and I have no idea and I met my friend Christoph Meisner who told me that he was actually thinking about such a problem for totally different physics in related to actually searching for Hix ball so he had similar problem in particle physics and he actually said that he knows how to solve we created one thousand artificial Maps that reproduce these general statistical features but of course that we are sure that there are no link type structures that are encoded into those pictures into those images because they were purely statistical in that way we compared this 1,000 artificial Maps what is the probability of finding of a given ring type structures on maps that we know do not have encoded link type structure then we looked with the same algorithm on the actual true real Planck map it turned out that the one that the 999 months performed worse than the real map so the probability of finding structures there only on the one map out of a thousand it looked like had more ring type structures than the real map statistics is a tricky business if the circles on real maps were statistical fluctuation they should behave like on statistical models but they don't so I would say that they are real we have not only one system one map so it is different from particle physics because in particle physics if we want to check something then we collide the proton with proton billion times if we are not yet convinced we currently collided for another billion or three billion times and so and so on of course the the the invoice comes with billions of Swiss francs but at last we can be convinced with arbitrary statistical precision it is not the case here we can we have here only one map and it is slightly a matter of prejudice whether we say that 999 maps which perform worse than the real map is some kind of a quote unquote proof that these ring-type structures are there as real structures or not one can say ok it may happen that purely statistically real map performs in such an such way but it's purely statistical so there are no means of actually convincing someone who has the primordial assumption nothing is there it's purely statistical pure legal Gaussian whatever you see is purely statistical you cannot produce one million other real Maps to say look what that's what we have but one has to be careful if we imagine that someone comes to the earth and makes one photo of the night sky and comes back to some Alliance civilization and shows with this one photo there is one circular object shining on this on this photo and if someone said if there are two or three then we would believe but since you have only one photo with one circular object probably it's the statistical slog that would mean that they would miss the moon they have different definition of the circles so they are talking about different things than we are talking they are using different different statistical Maps we actually we wrote two papers at all these things about searching for the circles the first one was were using our created Maps our statistical maps which we believe are absolutely beautiful that's that's that's a work on its own that we just found our own method of creating these maps then we were criticized by astronomers that actually we should use statistical maps that are every astronomer is using because otherwise we cannot compare our second paper was using statistical maps as astronomers they use so it is daily maps and we still have our conclusion there is a paper a Canadian paper where they repeated the analysis that for girls and girls again and I did on the W map data and they do find pretty well exactly the same patterns that we claim are there so you see concentric sets of low variance circles in the same places in the more or less the same numbers that we found so that seems good evidence they do in their paper the Canadians claim that this is probably just a random effect and not anything to take seriously what they don't comment on though hi is the very very strongly anisotropic or inhomogeneous I should say very highly in homogeneous pattern in the sky so you see certain regions the Centers of these circular rings are clumped in very particular regions and this is very hard to see how anything like that could come about from the conventional explanation because the conventional explanation for variations and temperature in the Cosmic Microwave Background random effects the what they call the in photon field which is what makes inflation go and the inflationary scheme you have random quantum effects completely random and these to produce these temperature variations now that means that it ought to be random over the sky why are they concentrated in very very localized regions like we didn't expect that either and this would mean that in the previous iam according to see see see in the previous Eon there were very very SuperDuper clusters of matter which are not very uniform now these would be clusters of galaxies which have big or lots of supermassive black holes in them maybe there's something else which concentrates them in some regions but the most natural explanation is that there's more matter there since we made our first film on si si si a telescope at the South Pole claimed to have found a type of polarization signal known as primordial be modes these are claimed to be a smoking gun for inflation however further analysis showed that the signal was ambiguous and could simply be from dust in our galaxy but many scientists are looking for these B modes what if they are found now when I first heard about the bicep2 observations I was a little bit worried because it seemed to indicate as they claimed the presence of primordial gravitational way so gravitational fields in the very very early universe without a source in the ordinary sense now CCC doesn't want that because CCC claims that the gravitational degrees of freedom are essentially wiped out the evidence that the bicep2 people have claimed seemed not to be as strong people say well no the evidence seemed to me it could have been dust or something which is creating the effect they see I think the argument at present is that it could have been dust but it's not clear whether it was dust I have a colleague Paul Todd who was very central to the development of CCC it was one of his ideas in fact which started the whole scheme off he put to me at one stage would it be possible in C CC for magnetic fields to get through from one Eon to the other and I say yes certainly magnetic fields that's photons that is massless things they wouldn't even respect the scale and change they wouldn't even notice so there are regions in space where there are no galaxies they're just empty space one can see and in these empty regions there are observed primordial magnetic fields and where do they come from so they presumably came way back from the very very early universe so there is some evidence that magnetic fields have been around for quite a while maybe they could have been there from the previous year and if magnetic fields around in the early universe they could also produce these B modes which things that the bicep2 people claimed to see in our previous film we presented Sir Roger with criticism from philosopher William Lane Craig Craig was recently named eleventh most influential philosopher in the world Craig claimed that CCC is a multiverse model with parallel universes emerging from a single point Sir Roger said this is false the CCC model is not a multiverse model and is likely eternal into the past dr. Craig devoted an entire podcast to respond claiming that it's meaningless to say that one Eon is before another so let me quote you the credit criticism that we've read you can't really say that these universes that are stacked up are sequentially ordered in time rather there is time in each universe that runs from the Big Bang to infinity and there isn't a kind of hyper time in which these are all then sequentially order he was very interesting in the interview with Penrose did you notice what he said he said as you go into the past there becomes a time at which mass first becomes relevant then he says before that mass was not relevant and so there was no time on the face of it that is logically incoherent it is logically incoherent to say before that there was no time so how do you respond to that I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding I think that this misunderstanding no this criticism is based on some misunderstanding it can form a picture there's still a notion of before and after it the the causal relationships are unaffected that to say if a is before be onset thanks their world line then that means suppose you have a particle and this can it could be a photo even and then the photons history you think of as a line in space-time you it still has a notion of which is prior which event on that world line is prior to which other event so there's an ordering there isn't a scale which tells you know how many seconds there is between this and this there is still a temporal ordering so I think the criticism is simply a misconception here I don't think that's a valid criticism let me explain why in geometry and relativity we talk about something we call the causal structure that tells us what happened for what happened after which events can cause other events the way this is described in special and general relativity is by a notion of a light comb see nothing can move faster than light so we could only have been causally affected by events which took place in our past light go you don't have to think what happens with the light comes in conformal geometry well what happens is the following the notion of distance or time is not really there however the light cones haven't changed that's the whole point of conformal geometry but but they don't null surfaces trajectories of photons stay the same although the geometry inside the light cone and outside the light cone have been disordered it's still because of continuity of space-time meaningful to say in conformal framework that something was inside or outside the light cone so the causal relations haven't been distorted I think we can go it further than that it is claimed in the conformal cyclic cosmology models that some events which took place in the previous Ian directly affected what happened in higher other in our u so conformal geometry while as it gives up a distance it has still this causal structure preserved and you can make sense of before and after so to say that there is no time so we cannot say whether one is after or one is before it's a misunderstanding because in the next year massive particles would look for backward into light cones backward light calls and would see suddenly the traces of a collision of a black hole so the notion of time is very well let's say settled on the main criticism if I use the word no time what I meant is there's no scale of time it's not there's no time there is another point I should make though it's quite useful to talk in terms of a conformal time see there is a way of introducing a pretty good notion of time which is not the ordinary scale of time but it's the in a conformal diagram you you you scale everything so at the speed of light it's drawn in the picture is that lines which 45 degrees and and then you can measure up in this picture and and that's useful to say when something happens on this conformal time so the conformal time is is not measured in seconds but it's a measure there's a there is a way of doing it in a perfectly good mathematical sense so so this if there's nothing wrong with what I said it's just involves notions which you can't just dismiss for saying oh there's no time so it means nothing I'm afraid it's it's misconceives matcha danowsky investigated CCC looking for something called cosmic jerks and snaps when the CCC model came about I was interested in how observable or in principle observable quantities which one can measure how they change from one yuan to another what are these observable quantities cosmic scalars as we call them I mean the standard cosmology and which is accepted both by inflation models and by CCC consists of a very simple solution to Einstein's equations which which we called frw space-time and what in f/w space-time is is a sequence of three-dimensional spaces with some time-dependent scale factor what Einstein equations then though it's very tell you how this scale factor changes now out of this scale factor you can construct objects which you could measure and some of them have been measured you can see how it changes in time that keeps you was called Hubble and measurements Hubble constant was one of the milestones of general relativity the next one mathematically the second derivative of this scale factor it's called deceleration so ever we decelerate or accelerate faster you can then ask about a higher derivative so how a deceleration changes in time and that in mechanics phase is called jerks or a jerk is a change of acceleration well if you have you will jerk you might go on and the next one is snap there are some estimates now on how jerk changes in the universe we think that jerk for our universe our matter model is very close to one and snap hasn't been measured either moved on to compute these cosmic scalars for the simplest case of conformal cyclic cosmology model just before the Big Bang so at the light state of the previous Eon and after the Big Bang and I compute how we change and amazingly by all change together in a way which makes the conformal Einstein equations invariant in agreement with Rogers proposal in one of our previous films Stephen Hawking and colleagues explained how introducing complex and imaginary numbers for example the square root of -1 leads to changes in how we understand the physics of the early universe sir roger has also been fascinated by these numbers which led him to the development of twister theory I was amazed when I first heard that quantum mechanics does involve complex numbers square root of minus 1 and all that at a fundamental level and that's involved in this idea of the superposition principle in quantum mechanics this is Schrodinger's cats but just think of my glasses they could be here or they could be there now I'm classically you think ok here or here that's an or but quantum mechanics says it can be in a state which is partly here and partly here at the same time and the different ways there's a whole lot of different ways that can be here in here and all those different ways that can be here in here involve this complex numbers Penrose is motivation for twister theory is to formulate classical physics in a way which uses essentially these complex numbers and in doing so he produced M what would call the non-local Fury let me explain that of physics it's M perhaps the more far-reaching departure from a notion of a point or an event as an elementary objects in physics what you doing twister for you assume that space-time points are not elementary by are derived objects what instead is fundamental are light the twisted theory brings together ideas from quantum mechanics and those from relativity and the basic thought is ok so what happens when you're looking at the sky well it's a light ray coming and hitting in your eye so one moment I look out the sky and it's all the light rays coming into my I imagine I could see all the way around myself then that light cone as its called let me think of those light rays instead of points as being the basic thing the light ray is the basic thing so I think of a space whose points are the light rays I have to do a bit more and I have to think of those light rays having a spin as well which photons do they spin about their axis and there's a little more to the story but what it turns out is these complex numbers describe that geometry completely points and events in space-time corresponds to extended objects terms in the twister space and conversely points in twister space corresponds to light rays or null services in space-time so it's a very non-local theory at the point is not fundamental so what you find is amazingly and this is really a remarkable thing that these the geometry of complex numbers describes this relativity picture in a beautiful way and then you go and see how can you describe fields Maxwell's beautiful equations for electromagnetism gravity at least in limited weak fields the physics behind twister theory despite some spectacular development in the last 10 years is still not clear what is the case is that there's been unexpected spin-off in in applications to pure mathematics that is that's what made me interested in twister fior you can solve many pure mathematical problems which the first sight don't seem to have anything to do with physics solve nonlinear equations build curved geometries you can do it using this twister language so it might be but there will be a connection between twister theory and cosmology CCC model that hasn't been yet made clear but it is fair to say but the development in conformal geometry in pure mathematics would make confirm a cyclic cosmology possible was driven by the early work on twister theory it was during the 60s 70s when pure mathematicians started learning from Annerose theoretical physics ballooned it to understand boosters because they realized how useful a technique it is for them there is this union between the idea of the complex numbers which come from quantum mechanics and feeding in to the structure space Sun and that's what twisters do for you twisters this is basically the twist that you get from the pattern when you consider spinning photons if you like that's what it comes from far from being a quantum gravity theory it's not that it's a way of looking at current physics which is there's a lot of work in high energy physics now which use uses twister theory but I think there's a lot more in twister theory which has not yet been exploited and which I hope new ideas in that area will enable it to be exploited the subject to be exploited better and there are ideas about how eventually you might do things like quantum gravity but that's that's a long way off for the moment most cosmologists think that in order to understand the Big Bang we need a quantum theory of gravity the CCC seems to sidestep this demand it's still classical geometry you don't have to think about quantum mechanics and people would say well she only the curvatures get so big that the radius of curvature gets most small that you're in this quantum gravity regime but then I say I say no that no it's not that because there are two kinds of curvature one of the curvatures is what's called Ricci curvature RICC I and that is the curvature that matter directly gives you according to Einstein's theory if you have matter there you've got this Ricci type of curvature that's ten numbers per point ten components per point there's the other part it should give you the other ten if you like which is called the viol curvature Weyl now vile Hermann von was a very great mathematician who got into studying general relativity very early and made something very important contributions that contribute to particle physics and certain he's really a pure mathematician but he understood about the curvature in conformal geometry so when your geometry is the stretchy squashy kind of conformal geometry there's the curvature is just in this vile part so what I'm saying now is that the Ricci part doesn't count once you're looking see the gravitational field is in the vial part and that as you go near to the Big Bang it goes to zero so it's not as though it's huge curvature and in the back bang it's gone to zero it's nothing so it's very classical from the space-time point of view if si si si can resolve the Big Bang singularity can also resolve the singularities in black holes no I mean this is this is a remote you see it's it's the it's this whole thing I used to say the difference between the singularities was to do the vile amateur you see the the Big Bang was very particular as a singularity think of that place where curvatures go to infinite if you like and and general relativity breaks down but only mildly at the Big Bang because it's only the Ricci part which goes infinite you can scale that away with the conformal scale now in the black holes it's completely the other way around that is to say it's the viol part which goes infinite goes wild and that's you can't do anything with it stretching you that isn't do anything it's it's a mess it's a conformal curvature its the curvature of conformal geometry and that's what goes singular so in the black hole okay maybe you need quantum gravity in the black hole yeah but then what do you do with it because it's just it doesn't go anywhere so it's a little disappointing from the point of view of quantum gravity because all it even if you had a good theory of what happened in the black hole you'd be stuck because it doesn't go anywhere it goes essentially this black hole disappears my Hawking evaporation goes off with a pop and it's gone maybe you could study the pop at the end yeah by not using quantum gravity CCCA marks a radical departure from what most cosmologists think is needed for a theory of the Big Bang but when dealing with the origin of the universe maybe a radical departure is just what we need [Music] you

Channel: skydivephil

Views: 637,496

Rating: 4.6923485 out of 5

Keywords: cosmology, time travel, relativity, physics, sceine, astronomy, stephen hawking, roger penros, inflation, mulitverse, multiverse theory, cosmic microwave background, cyclic universe, hindu cosmology, big bang, big bang theory, brian cox, neil de grasse tyson, string theory, parralel universes, universe, cosmos, before the big bang, what happened before the big bang?, william lane craig, richard dawkins, sam harris, creation, atheist, atheism, god, debate god, evolution, nasa, esa, wmap

Id: FVDJJVoTx7s

Length: 55min 25sec (3325 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 08 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/jackosan]

Check out Schauberger's Cyclical Spiral Space Theory ~ mentioned in 'Living Energies' by Callum Coats ~ available in pdf online (will edit link in here later)

I think it's better.