Roger Penrose | Full Interview | Gravity, Hawking Points and Twistor Theory

I'm Roger Penrose I'm the mathematical physicists I work at Oxford at the unretired actually at Oxford and the Andrew was building [Music] so last year you released some research with which suggested that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmic extinction and rebirth could you explain a little bit about what evidence you found that made you embrace a sequential universe model rather than the Big Bang model one of the main reasons that I took this view that as I say the universe is a succession of what I call eons each of which begins with a Big Bang and ends with the universe expanding indefinitely in this sort of way exponential expansion that we seem to see now I've been troubled by something for many many decades which is the second law of thermodynamics which tells you that things would get more and more random as time goes on and this tells you that the Big Bang ought to be very non-random and one of the most striking pieces of evidence for the existence of the Big Bang is what's called the microwave background this is radiation coming electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions and one of the most striking features of this radiation is that it's in a maximum state of entropy that is this completely random so it's a sort of puzzle where does all this run non-randomness come if we're just presented with randomness and I came to the conclusion that it has to be in gravity that gravity has not been taking part in this it's some one set is a very low value of the entropy is very low right at the beginning and that means for gravity it means it's very uniform so this is a huge puzzle why was gravity behaving differently from other things and I worried about this for a long time I'm thinking that some kind of quantum gravity would have to be a very time asymmetrical theory and that didn't work very well until I hit on this idea but the very remote expansion this exponential expansion expands it gets colder and colder and colder and more less and less dense and black holes meaning most important things around eventually evaporate away by walking evaporation there's just terms in prevention in terms of radiation there's nothing left except it's all spread out now the argument is that when matter is all spread out like this and it's only photons so it's mainly photons that's as particles which don't have any mass they have no way of telling how big they are so it's a mathematical thing but when you don't have any mass big and small are equivalent so the remote future the universe sort of forgets how big it is not a crazy idea of course but that's the concept it doesn't really know how big it is and what about the Big Bang you see the Big Bang is really the opposite it's really hot and very dense and everything like that and you think what could be more different but when you look at it carefully you see the very hot particles running around because they're moving around so fast whatever mass they have it doesn't even count the motion is the thing that dominates the so they in fact have no mass either so both ends you have no mass therefore neither end knows how big it is now you've got to have some equations to make sense of this but the idea is the expanded previous iana sigh call it becomes our a big bang now you have to make equations to make that make sense this is the part that people have great trouble swallowing because it looks so different but when you look at it from the core the conformal point of view that big and small you shapes make a lot of difference but whether they're big shapes or small shapes doesn't make a difference and if you that means from that perspective the remote future looks like a big bang and it also has the feature that all the gravitational degrees of freedom are wiped out right at the beginning so it explains this puzzle I had of the second law of thermodynamics and I don't think of any other theory I've seen explains it there are all sorts of ideas people have but as far as I can see none of them work which this one does at the expense of it being a crazy idea but it's a crazy idea which now seems to have some support well are there were two kinds of support one was I'm trying to think what's the most energetic thing that might come through from one Eon to the next and I thought about black holes supermassive black holes which collide with each other and they send out these very intense gravitational wave signals and they can get through to the other and there is some evidence that for the signals that these would produce the other thing was much more recent this is this year when I guess we've had a year it's really last year I suppose these are the thing we call Hawking points I collaborate mainly with some Polish people and with Daniel and who does a lot of the calculations he he's a Korean who works in New York and they do the hard work on this the idea is that the black holes you see they eventually evaporate away by the hawking of apparition but all that radiation which the black holes go into carry away the entire mass of those black holes and the biggest ones will be about as big as a large cluster of galaxies so all that mass is concentrated into this black hole evaporates away and all that radiation comes through into the next eon and we have very very good evidence that something like that is actually having nobody's seen these you call them some Hawking points or Hawking spots these are little regions in the sky about eight times the moon's diameter sand not that small where the temperature is raised by about 15 times and that we see it's very strong evidence these things are really there so what kind of evidence did you use do it was it telescopes or computer assimilated these are looking at the microwave background and these are the two satellites which went out one of them was called the W Maps satellite and the newer one is called the Planck satellite and we look first at the Planck satellite data now the data looks at all different directions it looks how what's the intensity of that radiation in all directions and so it's in the maps that they produce so you get the maps from the satellites and then it's a matter of doing statistical analysis on and there's this some mass theory to heat that the other the universe would actually die out because of lack of energy or because of heat how would there be a heat wave of the universe before we reach the Eon when the universe would collapse according to notice you see the picture is that as the universe expands it gets colder and colder and colder it doesn't reek elapsed you see many people have produced theories where the universe gets to a certain stage and it comes back that's not the case here this is the only model I know which doesn't do that it's a crazy model you see you think well it gets it is going to get small it's got to collapse but the picture is that when it gets bigger and bigger and there's nothing around which has any way of telling how big it is it's the same as being small and that's a difficult idea to to appreciate it's the same as being small and it has also effect that big and cold is equivalent to small and hot so you get a very very hot Big Bang coming about as being the same physics that's the part that's definitely hard to understand and clearly that's why people are having trouble with the theory but if you write the mathematics now you see that that they're sort of equivalent when you don't have mass around to give you a scale then these two states are really very much similar in fact the same as each other is the argument the remote future with this very spread out universe very cold very rarefied is physically equivalent to early very early stage of a Big Bang what the geometrical implications of this theory well it's a kind of geometry which is called conformal geometry and it has been studied you see people know of Euclidean geometry you have triangles and you've got lengths of size and all that but with a conformal Drummond geometry a big triangle and a little triangle a completely equivalent and you could there's some very nice pictures which I like to use due to the Dutch artist MC Escher and he had some nice things which he called circle limits with angels and devils all interlocking and it looks as though they're getting smaller and smaller as they get to the edge but for them for the geometry that the angels and devils are respecting it's all the same the geometry right up to the edge is the same as in the middle and the edge represents infinity so it's the same kind of picture see the infinity that we are going to reach in the future is really like the boundary of one of these Esha pictures and you can imagine going stepping outside to see what's on the other side and what's on the other side there's a big bang of the next day on so there was one before us it's remote future became a big bang our remote future will become the big bang of another year so on both directions that's the picture what was the reaction you got to this this theory the support and the skepticism I think the huge amount of skepticism we has an awful lot of trouble getting papers accepted and they just don't believe it I guess even with this verse there's no very strong evidence there Hawking points the evidence is about ninety nine point nine eight percent confidence that is to say it could be random but the chances against that on nine nine nine eight to 200 so how do we imagine infinity then it's like this kind of infinitely expandable universe is the same as the small things you you can describe infinity you see this was a trick which I used to use a long time ago when I was looking at general relativity looking at gravitational waves and how do you define the energy in the waves and that sort of thing and difficult problem because the difficult problem because in relativity you don't have a clearly defined notion of energy this is I think one of the troubles people had an accepting that theory in the first place but when you go out to infinity you see what's radiation when it goes out and hours and hours and out and it just keeps going so where does it go well out to infinity so the idea that I had was to use one of these conformal maps which squashers infinity down and then you can see it it's just the boundary to the space and then you can do your calculations on that boundary and it's much easier see if you if you've got infinite you've got to do complicated things taking limits and goodness knows what and I've been like doing it that way I must refer to having a geometrical picture when you squash infinity down as in those Escher pictures squash it down until it becomes finite boundary and then you can imagine going through the boundary then the other side and I kept thinking you know gravitational waves or electromagnetic waves there's no mass things without mass they don't even realize infinity is there they just could go straight through if there was anywhere to go you see so the idea here is that there is somewhere to go and where it goes is the Big Bang of the next you know and it works extremely well remarkably so what do you think it takes until your skeptics are going to be convinced it'll take oh I have no idea I haven't I used to be much more optimistic that people would pay too you see we I had a paper with an Armenian colleague we published in European Journal and some polish colleagues of mine had theirs published in the Royal Society eventually published after many many complaints from referees and goodness they finally got published and Christophe asked me you see what sort of attention do you have I guess it's zero so I asked him what about you zero it's not as there people say oh this is a load of rubbish this is completely wrong for this reason that reason that's just silence eerie sort of silence is that because it's just too shocking and they can't take it or is it because everyone's so concerned with their own theory that they aren't open to like changes of kind of paradigm well we'll have to see whether this these new talking points we've taken a lot of care to make it sort of observational you see these things are things we see and then there's explanation well from my point of view this conform exactly because mark does actually predict these things but we have to they've got to explain them and they go against inflation it's very hard to see how the current view of cosmic inflation which is supposed to take in place in the first fraction of a second which is 1 over 32 digits a tiny fraction of a second the whole universe was supposed to expanded by a huge amount it always seemed to me a pretty crazy idea I mean just no more no less crazy than mine as far as I can see but it's it's sort of become accepted and that's the standard view so if you're going to upset that view you've got a lot of people to turn around so how long do we have until the next big bang then well it's really infinity you see that's that's the strange thing he says but infinity to admit to a thing with no mass isn't all that long see if it was mass around where you see that the mass there is a mass which sort of fades away and you have to so there was a there was an age you could give to it but I haven't worked that out it's not like it's not a consistent age as everybody would agree on so I think infinity is a better answer because that's clear that's what the Masters okay thank you my final question will be related to your interview with David David Malone earlier when you said that you're not opposed to free will and I was wondering what that means to you on a scientific level but also what it means to you on a personal level well I've always been troubled by free we went over the other and there are experiments people do which show that some part of them you try to make a conscious choice about something and there's some evidence of a buildup of signals which tells you that some part of the brain knew which choice you were going to make but all these things not what you'd use free well for you see it's not quite particularly because I had experiences when I was young you see let me give you this my younger brother used to there's this game scissors and paper stone you know that way and there are three things you do added the scissors or the paper or the stone on you and you don't reveal it until the last minute and he used to wallop me at this game consistently and I thought I was using free will you see to decide which I'm going to do how does he know you know is it some mystery predicting the future or something so what I did I went to a table of logarithms you know it's only about seven or something he was spending about five I can't remember and I used the table of logarithms and I just worked it out you know seven means Stone eight means scissors or whatever it was and all the way through you see so I take these digits and I would play this game reading off the digits and then I broke even so it was as though my free will was not really much of a free will you see I was just doing which sort of came easily to me at the moment and that kind of thing okay maybe you can make predictions about what people are gonna guess next and it's not really a free will is freewill for a purpose you're doing something because it means something not just because it's a random choice so but I I don't know I will always be in two minds about that and you see physics you might think well it's all determined and so what you do now is determined by what happened yesterday if you knew all the details of how all the particles are moving but this isn't quite true as things go because you have this curious thing within quantum mechanics you have the collapse of the wavefunction that the Schrodinger equation chugs along and says what's going to happen suddenly it doesn't it's something that's it jumps to this or that and people usually talk this and talk about this in terms of measurements my view is that it's happening all the time and you have just lots of particles and when they get up to a certain mass level then it does one thing or another and whenever those choices are made you see Stuart Hameroff and I have built up this idea about consciousness and we consider that consciousness comes about when these collapse wavefunction things happen now the question is does it collapse in a way which is random that's the that's the way physics works now you consider it to be quite random well if it's maybe entangled with all sorts of other things and the decision about what it makes this or that has some kind of content to it some mental content which is not altogether random and that would be where the freewill plays its role so you know maybe that's controlled by some deterministic laws which go deep within the laws we know now or is there some actual freedom you know what happens in the operation of the universe I'm not making any sitting on one side or the other here it just seems to me look quite appealing that there is something in a choice which is not actually determined by the other laws of physics and it's it's something more much more subtle than than being random it would have to be something which has a God goes beyond computation and that's what I claim is involved when we make conscious choices but whether it's how free it is I don't know I wouldn't like to make a strong claim on that but this room there's room for some kind of a thing that you might call freewill there yes you just never stop well there's so many interesting things going on you know I'd be quite happy to go and sit and watch the television or something but there are so many ideas like this see see see the conformal circular cosmology which you know this is only just a year old that's basic me talking points and that's it was something quite new I had worried about it before but I just thought I couldn't face it in a way because it's quite different you see the whole big black holes hang around for ages and ages and it is a very big ones you have to wait for something like a google yes that is one with a hundred zeros yes where is everything else interesting is long gone eight years ago and these black holes are just sitting there gradually gradually very very slowly evaporating away by Hawking evaporation so I'm accepting all that I think that's correct yeah we do that right away and it would take something like 10 100 years but the big really big what maybe longer because there's some really walking ones that we'd end up used huge galactic clusters most of it going into a black black hole and I have no idea how they were long but last they were long long they would last but this is very exciting and this is just new stuff and where they're worried about it before when when we Christophe Meisner my colleague polish colleague said well look we seem to see these very strong signals she we originally they were looking for the other signals more the collisions between black hole signals that but then he said look there's a much stronger signal feasel of us not maybe they're the Hawking points it's thick because that's what you would expect that the radiation would be concentrated it's a really huge explosion right in the middle of the Big Bang all right you see current theory says inflation takes place but I can't have inflation in my skin it would ruin it so there's a sort of inflation which was the exponential expansion of the eon prior to our so you look back it looks rather like an inflationary period but it's not before not after the Big Bang it's before it and right in that final stage the Big Bang would not it's pretty uniform but they're little spots in it where these Hawking points are which is completely crazy and you should be able to see I'm not sure how many but we see about 30 of them let's say we see five which are very well established because receiving in both the W map and the Planck data they're completely different satellites and they both see them in exactly the same places so the evidence for them is pretty convincing now maybe there are some inflationary arguments somebody will produce it's going to be something quite new it can't be in the theory they have now but they're predicted by this theory I didn't kind of face up to the prediction but yeah that's what you'd expect you've got this points much stronger sources of radiation these individual points and then do you have to work on this more oh are you moving close to the next radical theory well there are other things going on too because there's twister theory now you see that's I don't usually talk about it in interviews because it's hard to explain but that's an idea which I had a lot of people working on when I was at my graduate students had a lot of graduate students and many of them work on Twista theory which gives a different different point of view how hard to do view physics if you like see usually we think of space time when space is 3 dimensions and then time is another one so you've got this space time which is a four dimensional structure and the basic thing it's made of are these little points we call them events you see no no dimension in space no dimension in time the but you see like that those are the points in space-time of events now you see you twist a theory that's not the basic structure the basic thing is basically but something like a photon it's it goes along with the speed of light and you can identify the points because you have a family of them going through that point it's sort of it's a kind of geometry which turns the ordinary way of looking at physics inside out some things are more difficult to do something is a lot easier to do and what's a lot easier is to describe feels like the Maxwell feel for radiation the gravitational field in fact gravitational field well there's a story here you see photons can spin left-handed or right-handed and you can describe the wave function of a left-handed or right-handed one and usually you add them together because they both spins combined together to give you the linear polarization so things you know polarized glasses you have they let the light through one way and not the other way and these and you add to what right-handed and left-handed together to get the linear polarized then they're different ways of doing it anyway that's the way photons work now we see in twister theory it's very peculiar you have a two different formula one which works for the right then one which works for the left hand and for the gravitons that is the particle of gravity if you like again you do this but you see with gravity you want to make it fit in with Einstein's theory so change your space spacetime is changed by the gravity and then you find you can do it and you can do it for the left-handed ones but not for the right-handed ones and this was a great puzzle to me because what twister theories got a twist to it so it's left analyze are not quite the same in the theory and you could do the left-handed ones are not the right-handed ones and I used to call this the googley problem because in cricket you see a ball a cricket ball and if it spins what's the thing called a leg break then if it spins left-handed that's a leg break if you're very clever many people can do it you can make it spin looking as though it's got left-handed but actually spins right-handed and that's what's called a googly so we call this the googly problem because you're trying to get the right-handed graviton in the framework which does the left-handed one and that was a stumbling block which took about 40 years and only fairly recently I had an idea with some help from Michael attea who have got ideas from write often and I had sort of part of the idea and I can quite understand the other part which he explained and even then it took another five he has to make it work but I think it works so this is a way of describing physics in this unusual way and if you can spin both the writing like that after you can do also there the particle interactions the strong interactions and the weak interactions and you can put the lot right and the left together and I haven't done any of this but it's a potential way of looking at physics in a completely different way well some of its being looked at already people people have picked up on twister theory but not on this latest idea they use it for scattering problems the massless particles and things but not to the extent that this would be a global theory which should be able to translate physics into this other language and it has sort of features which I appeal to me very much one of them is the use of complex numbers you see usually people think of numbers are the integers 1 2 3 4 fractions which are 7 over 5 or whatever it is or real numbers which you write by decimal which goes off to infinity so you tend to think of physics in terms of real numbers they're called real numbers they're not real in the ordinary sense of real but they're real but they're no more real than some other kinds of numbers but the things called imaginary numbers or complex numbers are things were you allowed to have take the square root of minus 1 and that's the key thing you allowed to have a thing you call I and that's the square root of minus 1 once you put that into it you have a whole new but not that new it was many centuries ago when the idea was introduced but it's a whole different way of looking at the world and the thing about it is quantum mechanics already looks at the world that way quantum mechanics the states in quantum mechanics involve these complex numbers so the idea is that you bring that kind of complex number geometry into the real world in the classical world and it's somehow the quantum the classic will get all mixed up and it's a different way of looking at things and there's very beautiful mathematics in the complex world if you like which you don't see in the real world and it's and it's something which when I was an undergrad and mathematics undergraduate I was absolutely stunned by the magic there is in these complex complex number means got a real number and imagine your number together in the same number and the algebra and the analysis and all that stuff and the geometry of these numbers has an elegance which you don't see in the real number geometry so it always struck me as you know wouldn't it be nice if somehow that was what governed the world and that's what twister theory does it gives you a complex number picture real and imaginary together picture of the world which involves quantum ideas as well as classical ones but the new idea where the googley problem seems to be solved I haven't had a chance to look at it very seriously that's your next challenge yes the next problem yes when I give up on cosmology well I don't do the birth it was that there's so many new things in the cosmology that need to be thought about well you see they there's going to be a talk tomorrow I guess on what's called the invisible universe remember watch this the universe is there something that's to do with the thing called the people called dark energy and I call it Einsteins cosmological constant he introduced this term admittedly for the wrong reason in 1917 he introduces and then took it back because he didn't like it it was the wrong reason but it's there we find it is there and it's absolutely crucial for my cosmology it depends what infinity looks like you see infinity is the wrong shape if you don't have the cosmological constant it's the right shape when you do have it it's the same shape is a big bang it takes a bit more explaining there but it is essentially bang and that's because the cosmological constants there and there's the other kind of mysterious invisible stuff which is called dark matter now this scheme has a candidate for what dark matter is in fact it's got to be there the equations don't make sense if there wasn't dark matter so this is not the same as what they called dark energy that matters stuff it's stuff which you can see it gravitates and galaxies you can see this most galaxies are predominantly made of dark matter so you don't see it but it just interacts gravitationally it doesn't shine with light or anything else and this scheme says you've got to have stuff like that which doesn't show and it doesn't interact any other way apart from gravitation and it would decay with a lifetime of something like 10 to the 11 years that is to say well what people thought well a hundred thousand million years long time but that's the decay rate of these particles but you might be able to detect them because there's a predominant material in the universe and so maybe the decay can be detected all sorts of interesting questions that this scheme raises observational things that maybe people might look for so I'm not going to give it up easily so maybe you know could become a book I had a book already which is called cycles of time which didn't do terribly well I think people for you know the idea is too crazy and it's I don't know it didn't sell as well as most of my other books but I'm going to have to bring up probably a new edition and it's completely changed because all the experiment all the observations none of those were in the book and now we've got only both kinds of observations the black hole collisions which is pretty good evidence for and the Hawking points much bigger evidence for so I think that if people don't you know they're gonna have to think of other explanations for these things they haven't bothered to do so just yet but the paper is not out yet on the talking points we had an earlier version which was rejected by Physical Review Letters but we have a much better version knowledge I hope so do you do you get a sense that like you have stuck to a lot of course of the same questions throughout your career and like you get a question and then you come back to it yes he decades later I think I guess I'm awfully stubborn that's what you're trying to say I know I don't give up on these things that's true no like me no well the second law thing the second or philatelic see where it comes from a chair had to change my mind at one you know seriously changed my mind about that was it difficult psychologically no it wasn't that difficult because I didn't really see what to do with the older I yes well there were two changes of mind well if you like it's the same part the same thing I mean the big cosmic law the the exactly call model conformal cycle as long as you see it says that the Big Bang was not the beginning whereas I had these theorems well Stephen Hawking I had the theorem about black holes so when they collapsed you've got to have a singular point in the middle I was thinking a place where you think us go wrong and you can't extend the solution and you go back in time when you get to the Big Bang and then Stephen Hawking did most of that stuff to show that these kinds of theorems extend to the Big Bang - so that's the beginning and you can't get through it but then you see I have a different view it's because of the conformal picture you see we were doing it not looking at that way so did you you don't it's a long story but you see this it's really an evolution which is initiated because we had these singularity theorems I mean as I say I have one with the black hole Stephen had one with cosmology then we got together and had a combined theorem which really proved all the others but all the time there is this worry that although that was sort of the same ones in the future where things go singular in the future and the others where they go singular in the past but there if in detail there mattingly utterly different and this is where the second law of thermodynamics comes in the Big Bang is all very smooth you think of it as a horrendous violent thing but it's extremely the whole and you don't get that from inflation it's it's something which is there in the beginning other ones in the singularities in black holes an incredible mess I don't know what they look like there's some Russians who have some ideas about that maybe they're right but it's whatever it is they're completely different absolutely different and I used to think well they've got to be quantum gravity quantum gravity is how you get rather singularities that's what everybody thought that's what I thought and then I thought well they're so completely different it's got to be a theory which is quite different in the future from in the past time asymmetric theory and that's horrible if you if you know about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory things like that it's it's horrible so this conformal scheme says it's different it's not quantum gravity it's some conformal trickery seeing physics upside down it's one of the reasons to people don't take me seriously you see because they said no we know Big Bang has got to be kind of gravity and so on okay so this idea was not original there a well-known physicist called minutes ya know Gabrielle availability ah no and a colleague produced a model a bit like my cyclic one with a pre Big Bang and compression was something which happened before the Big Bang so they had a model a bit like that not in detail very different but it had some of those ideas already so you've got a good crowd outside like nice people well I think people pay attention but the experts it takes it's difficult to turn people around you see because they've where you see I was a conference in Poland not in Warsaw it was in another place forget the name of it now and there were lectures on various things and there was a lecture given by a young chap Polish chap which was a having a very good lecture and it was about in flow you turn off inflation you see inflation is this enormous expansion supposed to happen and then he's supposed to turn off and it's the they have ways of making you do that and it's called the graceful exit it's got to turn off in just a waitress doesn't cause chaos you see there's a graceful exit and he was talking about there that and had all sorts of problems to do with particle physics which I had never heard of all sorts of new problems that it raised and and he has some way of getting around them managed at the end and at dinner afterwards I was sitting obviously at dinner that was a very nice talk you know I really very clear I appreciate that but don't you sometimes get the feeling with inflation is something easy for you and he looked at me and he said all the time you're working so hard at these things to get it to work to make it work so why do you think scientists or physicists thing in this particular case I'm also resistant to new theories I think I would tend to be conservative in the way they don't I don't know if that means anything but no I think part of it is cosmology is a big trap for nothing nutcases you see there are many many nasty theories which I think inflation is a bit know but you see it's got lots of clearly they're trying to do serious science so that I shouldn't call it put it in that category but there are a lot of theories which are completely off the wall and so you know if you're gonna have to look up all those one after the other you wouldn't be able to spend your time doing anything serious I don't know if that can't be a real explanation because whatever they think of me Kristof nice in there as well he's really a particle physicist this is the my main colleague in Warsaw and he's a really good physicist really appreciate it he's a particle physicist mainly but then he sort of went off into this area so I'm sure he's respected so I'm not sure I don't I think it's just that the idea takes getting used to it's I mean there a lot of other ideas we've seen much crazier than this you see inflation leads you into these bubble universes you see there could be inflation taking here and it's just the probability of it happening there it's very very tiny the argument goes but it might and so this point would explain if later you see and there are these things called internal inflation and they're pretty uh Turley crazy really in my view but you can see why they're driven to these ideas because they're trying to solve this second law problem and how do you have an initial state which is smooth enough to inflate and to me that's completely wrong way of looking at it but they you can see there's a thread of logic in what they're doing and I can see why they go in certain directions even though those directions seem to be much crazier than anything I say but today my guess mine son crazy that's right like I used to give lectures on this calling it I called it crazy outrageous you see and I call it crazy meaning because they've got one to get in there first before other people said it you see actually in the early days I would have given it about fifty percent chance of being right even though it was quite crazy but it's so it's all that this problems that I've been worrying about and then when the observations came along I gave it good good deal more than 50 percent many other people accept me seriously so what's the percentage when I say my percentages now yeah well if I take the actual examples of national figures it's 99.99 point nine eight eight percent confidence that's in the paper that's in the paper these signals because it might not be inflate it might not be a CCC it might be something else so what that 99.98% is says is that these signals are genuine so if the signals are genuine it's pretty hard is greater than average inflation because you've got to have them at the graceful exit point they've got to be just when inflation is turning off and suddenly bang it's got to be like that okay maybe they'll think of a way it does that and it wouldn't really pass them there will be inflationary versions of this where the Hawking points are talking points they're explosions and the Big Bang I don't know explosions in the graceful exit don't ask me thank you so much for more debates talks and interviews subscribe today to the Institute of Arts and ideas at IAI TV you

Channel: The Institute of Art and Ideas

Views: 67,734

Rating: 4.8796659 out of 5

Keywords: gravity, quantum, hawking, hawking points, big bang, big bang theory, sequential, twistors, twistor theory, physics, science, newton, einstein, thermodynamics, conciousness, free will, freedom, cosmology, roger penrose, think, learn, talk, education, interview

Id: 9Gl8pwY2kW8

Length: 43min 14sec (2594 seconds)

Published: Fri Jun 28 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/womerah]

He's gone crackpot.

[u/repsilat]

So, I guess he's saying that after the heat death of the universe, if you throw away all of your rulers and replace them with much larger ones, and you throw away all your clocks and replace them with much faster ones, the universe looks like it did just after the Big Bang. All those left-over photons look much more energetic and closer together, basically.

Is it really right, though? Don't some constants (or phenomena) not scale with that change of units? Like, are the left-over photons ever likely to make new black holes? If a cesium atom ever forms, isn't it going to oscillate too quickly?