20th Century’s Greatest Living Scientist | Sir Roger Penrose

20th Century’s Greatest Living Scientist | Sir Roger Penrose Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal 371K subscribers Join Subscribe 5.2K Share Download Thanks Clip 211K views 7 days ago ✪ Members first Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal Sir Roger Penrose is a renowned physicist and mathematician known for pioneering the theory of twistors and his contributions to differential geometry, which have significantly impacted our understanding of space-time. Roger's work has been instrumental in advancing theories related to general relativity and quantum mechanics, including the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems. … Shop the Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal store We're not fighting - Color Premium Ring-Spun Cotton T-Shirt $25.00 Spring We're not fighting - Color Classic Long Sleeve Tee $30.00 Spring The Voices - Colors Classic Long Sleeve Tee $37.45 Spring Dont thrust your toe - Colors Classic Long Sleeve Tee $30.00 Spring True Nobility Hoodies - Colors Premium Ring-Spun Cotton T-Shirt $25.00 Spring We're not fighting - Color Classic Long Sleeve Tee $30.00 Spring 961 Comments Add a comment... Pinned by Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal @TheoriesofEverything 7 days ago SPONSOR (THE ECONOMIST): As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: https://www.economist.com/toe TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - Intro 01:22 - Cosmology and Twister Theory 15:00 - “Most Significant Thought I Had” 20:45 - “Twister Are Inherently Chiral” 25:34 - Extra Dimensions 27:02 - Algebraic and Differential Geometry 37:57 - Alexander Grothendieck 40:36 - Gravity and Quantum Mechanics 43:00 - Collapse of the Wave Function 53:04 - Gravitational Fields and the Wave Function 01:11:02 - Free Will 01:14:03 - Is the Universe Discrete or Continuous? 01:16:35 - Ai’s Capabilities 01:19:09 - Many Worlds Theory 01:20:38 - Idealism 01:21:35 - CCC 01:23:31 - Roger’s Legacy 01:33:25 - Outro / Support TOE 49 Transcript Search in video Intro 0:00 It's outrageous. The theory is outrageous. Quantum theory as a whole is wrong. It's not Einstein 0:06 was wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong. What do consciousness, the measurement problem, and black 0:14 holes have in common? With characteristic boldness, Sir Roger Penrose outlines his 0:20 controversial views on the collapse of the wave function. The Schrödinger equation, quantum theory as a whole is wrong. The role of gravity in quantum mechanics. The principle of equivalence, 0:31 which is the basis of general relativity, is in conflict with the principle of superposition. 0:37 And his own radical theory of cyclic cosmology. I don't believe in inflation. That is the idea that 0:44 our universe evolved from a previous universe, and gives rise to another, forming an ever-repeating 0:51 cycle. Penrose doesn't just poke holes in existing theories, he offers ambitious frameworks like 0:57 twistor theory that could potentially unify quantum theory with general relativity. My 1:02 name is Curt Jaimungal. This episode was filmed on location at the Math Institute at Oxford, 1:09 directly after our interview at the Institute for Arts and Ideas. It's a rare in-person glimpse into 1:16 one of the most influential mathematicians and physicists of the 20th century. Sir Roger Penrose, Cosmology and Twistor Theory 1:24 it's been a long time coming. I've been a huge fan for, I think, decades. Literally decades. Thank 1:31 you. And welcome. My pleasure. Good meeting you at the Institute for Arts and Ideas. Lots of people 1:38 don't believe some of them. The arts and ideas? What do you mean? Well, the ideas about cosmology, 1:44 which I have, which are... Certainly, people have a lot of trouble believing them. Even though we 1:51 have good evidence. Still, never mind. Is that the torch that you want passed on most? The 1:58 conformal cyclic cosmology? Well, I have a trouble because there's more than one thing. You see, one 2:03 of the things is twistor theory and its progeny. There's been a conference. You see, this is taken 2:10 seriously in the sense that there has been a conference going on, all about twistor theory. 2:16 Not just a conference, but a whole term, I think, dedicated to the subject of twistor theory, which 2:25 is something which I sort of started in 1963, I think it was. And it's had many developments and 2:35 many offspring, you might say. And it's spread out to have interest in different areas. Now, it's one 2:45 of the things that I've been working on for most of my life. And I can't explain it without being 2:50 a little technical. It's just that... You can feel free to be technical on this podcast. Okay. 3:00 It's a bit like... Well, Hamilton discovered quaternions, which was a way of talking about 3:06 the geometry of three-space. And he introduced this thing called the vector product, which 3:12 if you have two vectors... Well, it's really an algebra of vectors. You have vectors and scalars 3:18 mixed together. And if you multiply two vectors, you have this thing called a cross product, which 3:23 gives you a third vector. Now, this kind of notion is coming in at a different level with what I call 3:33 twistors, or now what I call bitwistors. See, the twistors... The subject took ages to develop. As I 3:41 say, 1963, when I first had the concept, which... So I gave a talk in Cambridge just recently, 3:50 where I explained the origin of the ideas. And there was a certain, you might call it, slight 3:57 misconception. There are two different concepts which get confused in twistor theory. And these 4:02 two concepts are positive and negative frequency, and positive and negative helicity. And the thing 4:09 is that the positive-negative frequency idea was something that I learned from Engelbert Schuching, 4:16 who was somebody I shared an office with when I was in a group of people working on general 4:24 relativity in Syracuse, New York State, in the United States. And there were a lot of 4:33 people working on relativity theory there. And this was, I think, in 1962. And I learned from 4:42 Engelbert Schuching two things which I found very interesting. One of them was this question of what 4:50 you mean by... What's important in quantum field theory? And he said the most important thing in quantum field theory is the splitting of field amplitudes into their positive and negative 5:01 frequency parts. You keep the positive frequency and you throw away the negative frequency. And 5:07 I thought, gosh, that's an interesting idea. The other thing he told me was... And he told 5:13 me various things, but these were the things of relevance to what I'm saying. The other thing he said was to do with the Maxwell field equations. Maxwell's equations, which are very important, 5:24 they describe electricity, magnetism, and light. So it's a theory of light, as well as how electric 5:32 and magnetic fields interrelate to each other. Very beautiful equations, which I learned about 5:37 when I was a graduate student. And I was very keen on the Maxwell equations, especially when 5:43 you write them in this formalism called two-spinor formalism, which I can say a bit more about later. 5:50 But the Maxwell equations, he told me they are conformally invariant. So they only depend on 5:56 space-time structure independent of the scaling. So if you magnify the scale up or down, magnify 6:04 the metric up or down, if you like, it makes no difference. That's conformally equivalent. So the conformal maps are ones, or the conformal transformations are ones which can change the 6:14 scale, but they don't change the... Well, they don't change the light cones in special relativity 6:21 terms. So the speed of light is the same. Of course, light, after all, speed of light is the 6:27 same when you magnify and change the scale. But what struck me about this, these two facts that 6:35 I learned from it, is there seemed to be a little of an impasse between the two. I mean, how do you 6:41 decide what's splitting the positive and negative frequency? You look at the individual frequencies, which means you do a Fourier decomposition. And you take each individual Fourier component, 6:51 and you split that into its positive and negative parts. That's not conformally invariant. You do a 6:56 conformal map, conformally scaling, the Fourier decomposition does not go into itself. And so 7:04 I thought it would be lovely to have a way of looking at this, which is, they come together, 7:09 and you don't have this sort of impasse between the two. Well, I was aware, I don't know whether I 7:16 was told or I thought about it myself, I was aware of the fact that if you take the field of complex 7:23 numbers, fold them up into a sphere, so you've got a point at infinity as well, and you take the real 7:29 numbers, and think of that as the equator. So the real numbers go around the equator, and the complex numbers go up and down. And if you have a function which is defined on the equator, 7:40 which extends into one hemisphere, that's positive frequency, if it extends into the other 7:46 hemisphere, it's negative frequency. This is a completely conformally invariant description. You 7:51 conformally invariant the sphere, and it doesn't change the splitting into two halves. So I wanted 7:57 a way of doing this, but globally for space-time. So for the whole space-time, I wanted it to be 8:05 somehow that the real space-time is the boundary between two extensions into the complex. But if 8:11 you just complexify space-time, make all your coordinates complex, you get an eight-dimensional space, not a five-dimensional space. That's no good. It doesn't split it into two halves at all. 8:22 You get a thing called the forward tube, which is a little tiny thing at one side or the other, on which you can talk about things being regular there or not, but it doesn't split anything in 8:31 half in the same sort of way. So it didn't satisfy me. I don't know why, I mean, what was I doing? 8:37 It didn't seem to have any rational reason for looking at this. But it did seem to me there ought to be a way of exploiting this beautiful way in which you do the positive and negative frequency 8:48 without having to look at the Fourier components individually. It's a deeper concept, if you like, 8:54 and it's also conformally invariant. So the scale business that Maxwell theory has, you don't lose 8:59 that. Okay, well, I had this sort of going around in my mind. I didn't know what to do about it. It 9:07 was a very unfortunate occasion because I was in Texas, in Austin, Texas, and I was working with 9:15 various colleagues in Austin, Texas. Engelbert Schucking was running this particular meeting. It was a year-long meeting where people like Roy Kerr, Ray Sachs were there too, and very 9:27 distinguished people working in relativity theory. And there were also people in Dallas, Texas, 9:35 and one of them in particular was somebody I was collaborating on a book. I don't think I was doing 9:40 it at that time, on spinors, and this was Wolfgang Winder. And Ivor Robinson, he was somebody who 9:50 was a very clever fellow, had wonderful ideas. He never wrote anything down. He relied on getting a 9:57 co-author to write the paper. It was all done with words. He had a wonderful way with words. 10:04 The Americans loved him because he spoke in this way that they weren't used to, which the words all 10:10 fitted together in this beautiful way. Yes, he did have a wonderful way with words. There's no doubt about it. Was he the one that didn't write papers? Yes. Well, he was important in another story, 10:21 which is a different story, my story, namely the singularity theorem, because that was walking 10:28 down the street and crossing the road. That's a different story. It was the same person. 10:33 That was Ivor Robinson. Yes. So he obviously was somebody who could take my attention. But what he 10:43 had told me about was he'd found some solutions of Maxwell's equations, which had a very special 10:50 character. They're what are called null. They have points in one direction. You see, usually you have 10:57 these two directions, which are called principal null directions, on the light cone. They're 11:02 light-light directions. And if they coincide, it's what's called null. And these are more like radiation fields. And he found a beautiful family of solutions, which he constructed in the 11:14 following strange way. You take a light ray, one light ray, and you take all the light rays 11:19 which meet it. When I say a light ray, I mean the trajectory of a photon. So in space-time, 11:25 it's the space-time picture of a photon. It's thought of as a particle. So now if you think of 11:31 one light ray, and you look at all the light rays which meet it coming in, then you have a family of light rays. And then he constructs this solution, which is based on those light rays. Now they have 11:42 this awkward singularity, which is the light ray that they meet. Why is that a singularity? Well, they all start coming together, and so they're not... The nature of the solution is different 11:52 when they come together, you see. Okay, but it's of a different sort of singularity than the singularity theorem. It's not a serious singularity. It's a singularity in the maximum. 11:59 I think things become infinite. I see. I don't remember the details of it. Sure. They just become infinite on that solution. Just because the light rays don't make this nice family anymore. They got 12:08 crunched up on the other light ray. But what Ivor Robinson did, he had this clever trick, 12:15 where you just place the light ray into the complex, make it a complex light ray, then you 12:21 can keep the light rays which meet it. There's a family which is still real. So you can see those 12:26 real ones, even though the one they meet is in the complex. And they twist around each other 12:32 in this wonderful configuration. I thought about this before, and I think I knew in detail what 12:39 this configuration was. It corresponds to what's called Clifford parallels. Clifford parallels are 12:47 a beautiful geometrical configuration. If you take a 3-sphere, so that's an ordinary sphere, 12:54 but in 4 dimensions. So it's a 3-dimensional surface in 4 dimensions. So it's a family 13:03 of points which have the same distance from the origin in 4 Euclidean dimensions. I'm not talking 13:08 about space-time now. That 4 Euclidean dimensions. So you have a 3-sphere, and there's this beautiful 13:14 family of circles which fill the whole 3-sphere. No two of them intersect, and they all link each 13:21 other. It's called Clifford parallels, or it has a name which is the topological people like better. 13:31 But it's called the fibration. Right. It's a sphere's worth of circles. It's a very nice 13:39 example of a fiber bundle, and how you have this diagram that people like to draw where 13:45 you have the fiber, which is the circle, and the bundle, the entire bundle is the sphere, 13:51 and the projection down is a 2-sphere. So each circle corresponds to a point on a 2-dimension, 13:57 an ordinary 2-sphere, an ordinary sphere. So the each point corresponds to a circle. 14:03 So it's a beautiful example of a fiber bundle. It's the one most simple and beautiful example 14:09 you can have in a way. I was well aware of it. I just liked the geometry. I thought it was really elegant. And it's the same kind of thing you get with these, except that now you're talking about 14:18 light rays. So if you think of the light rays—not quite the easiest way to say this is—it's now the 14:27 circles correspond to each point of the Clifford 3-sphere corresponds to a light ray, and the whole 14:37 family of them twists around in this complicated way. So I was familiar with this configuration, 14:43 and that this was a sort of way of thinking about a complex light ray. You push it into the complex, 14:49 and you get this real description of it, which somehow feels out this complex light ray, 14:54 but only in this real configuration that you can visualize. So I found this very beautiful. Now, “Most Significant Thought I Had” 15:00 is this any use to me? Well, the occasion that I'm talking about here was a particular occasion 15:08 which was maybe in a sense the most significant thought which I had had, which was that there 15:18 was an event, a very unfortunate event, when Kennedy was assassinated. And this was in 1963, 15:29 and it was in Dallas. And my Dallas colleagues, including Wolfgang Rindler and Ivor Robinson and 15:36 other people there, Schuchart, Pitch Oshvart was there. And they were at a dinner, and Kennedy was 15:46 supposed to go and give a talk at this dinner. And he was awfully late, and they sort of joked, 15:51 well, maybe somebody shot him. Somebody had shot him. And they came, and it was a way of… someone 16:01 said they came. It was just about a week later, I think, when we decided to go to southern Texas, 16:09 to go to a nice place where there was a beach, and people could relax and try and recover from this awful occasion. And do some math? So we went down there. I don't think we taught much 16:19 math. I don't remember. But I remember coming back, and most of the people wanted to talk, 16:25 gossip with each other, including my then-wife. They really wanted to gossip. I wasn't interested 16:31 in the gossip. I just wanted some peace. And I was the one who was committed, more or less, 16:38 committed to be in the car driven by Pitch Oshvart. Now, the thing about Pitch Oshvart, 16:44 he was a Hungarian who did speak English, but he didn't like to speak, even in Hungarian, I think. He didn't like speaking. He was a silent person. Okay, so he was the Hungarian dirac. Yes, 16:56 but he was definitely, he could speak English, but with a strong Hungarian accent, of course. And he 17:03 was the driver of the car when I came. And so this was very nice for me, because I didn't have to make up conversation to speak to him. He preferred not to have conversation. So I think to myself, I 17:14 knew about this Robinson Congruence of rays, which sort of describe a light ray, but which has been 17:20 displaced in this way. And I said, the thing to do is to count, and I thought I didn't say anything, 17:26 to count the number of degrees of freedom this configuration has. How much freedom does it 17:31 have? And I counted them, and it has six degrees of freedom. And that's significant because? Yes, 17:38 this is very significant, because light rays themselves have five degrees of freedom. So 17:44 it's only one. You make your light ray complex in a sense, and you only drop your dimensionality 17:51 by one. It's not really what you do if you're complex around light, where we have five complex dimensions. No, no, this only gives it, drops it by one. Why is that so important to me? Because 18:02 this gives me a picture, the light rays themselves are represented by points on this bound three, 18:10 sorry, this five-dimensional boundary. And the Robinson Congruence, as I call them, these 18:17 twisting congruences of light rays, represent the points. If they go right-handed, they're one side, 18:23 and if they go left-handed, they're the other side. This is the splitting of the space into two halves, just what I was looking for. Only it does it globally for the whole of space-time. Don't 18:33 think of points, think of light rays. And then the complex ones, in this strange contorted sense, 18:40 are only one more dimension. So that was the origin of twistor theory. I went back, got him 18:48 back much earlier than anybody else, because they were still gossiping, I guess. And I went to the, 18:54 I had a blackboard there, and I worked it out in terms of two component spinors. And 19:00 it worked beautifully. And this was twistors. You take two two-component spinors, the way you can 19:07 think of it, see a two-component spinor ordinarily points along the light cone. It has a null vector 19:15 associated with it, and that null vector points along the light cone. In addition, there's a 19:20 little flag plane, and the flag plane tells you its phase. So the length of a, not the length, 19:26 but the sort of extent of the null vector gives you one scale, and the other scale is the phase, 19:36 which is the little flag plane. So you have this nice geometrical way, apart from the sign, which you have to add in addition, you've got the nice way of describing two-component spinors. I was 19:46 well familiar with that. So the thing about the twistors, as you can think of the light ray, where 19:52 does it hit the light cone of the origin? Some point. Then you look at the light ray going up, 19:57 it hits that point. That's a thing I called omega. I didn't call it omega at the time, but it's to do with angular momentum, really. It's the moment of the light ray about the origin, 20:07 and the other is pi. That's the momentum of the photon. So you've got the momentum and the moment, 20:14 and they're two two-component spinors. They give you a four-dimensional entity. This was a twistor. So that was the origin of twistor theory. I tried to talk about it to my colleagues there. 20:25 None of them were interested. Engelbert was. He was the only one that was at all interested 20:30 in what I'd done. So it was a little bit of a- Why weren't they interested? Because it wasn't 20:36 general relativity. I didn't know how to do general relativity with twistors. It took me 20:43 decades to find out how to do general relativity with twistors. Do you think twistors will be an “Twistors Are Inherently Chiral” 20:48 ingredient in a theory of everything? So something that combines the standard model? They should have 20:53 a much broader application. But you see, what you have to do is take another step, 21:00 which I sort of made a couple of years ago. I made it in a slightly different way. Well, 21:05 it was a couple of years ago, but in a slightly different way, about six years ago. I wrote an 21:13 article then, which wasn't published until much later. But the article I wrote more recently 21:18 was in honor of C. N. Yang, the great physicist, one of the people who got a Nobel Prize for weak 21:25 interactions and their chirality. I mean, it's quite curious because of that, too. You see, 21:32 you have the chirality. The twistor has a chirality to it automatically, which is 21:40 the way it's described. If you reflect it, it really goes into something else. It goes into 21:49 a dual twistor. So you have a twistor, which is a four-complex-dimensional space, vector space, if 21:55 you like. The dual of that space is the opposite twist. So you have a twistor and a dual twistor, 22:03 and they twist the opposite way, roughly speaking. But this was all to do with... I was trying to do 22:10 positive and negative helicity. I learned not too long after this that you can describe momentum 22:16 and angular momentum of twistors very nicely. And the null ones, if you're talking about light rays, 22:23 this is just a twistor, basically. It's a twistor and a dual twistor together. 22:28 But the nice thing, you can describe the angular momentum. This is the notation I use later to call 22:36 the moment an angular momentum thing. That's the omega. And the momentum is the other one, which is 22:43 the pi part. And that's just the splitting which gives you these 2 interpretations. They're the 22:50 2 parts. These have 2 2-component splinters. And they give you these 2 parts. It's also conformally invariant. The conformal transformations work beautifully. Conformal invariance. It got more 23:01 mixed up with positive and negative helicity. You see, what you really see is that the twistor, 23:10 the positive and negative... You have the space, which is split into 2 halves. The space, 23:16 incidentally, is a well-known space to geometers. It's a complex projective 3-space. So it's a 23:22 6-real-dimensional space, which is really complex 3-dimensional space. So it's nice to visualize, 23:28 because you just think of it as 3 dimensions. And you say, well, it's really complex too. So you can visualize lots of things in there. And it's really 6 real dimensions. And the 5 dimensions go either 23:41 up or down, depending upon what is it that's positive or negative. Well, you look at... It took 23:47 a lot of time to analyze this. But when you really see its connection with angular momentum and so on, it really is the helicity. So the photon is rotating right-handed, if that's right-handed 23:58 or left-handed. So twistors are inherently chiral. They're inherently chiral. So this was where it 24:04 was. I talked about helicity. That's what it was at that time. Whereas the intention was 24:10 this should be positive-negative frequency. So the whole subject kind of got mired, in my view, with 24:18 this confusion. And it got particularly so when one started to talk about general relativity. And 24:25 there were some ideas which came from Ted Newman, who was a close colleague of mine. And he was 24:31 interested in making spacetime a little complex and looking at angular momentum and things which 24:37 come from your displacement into the complex. It was a very deep insight that he had there. And 24:43 I realized that that was the sort of thing I was doing. And one of his ideas... I won't go into the 24:49 details. I realized you could take this and talk about them in twistor terms. And this described a 24:56 kind of twistor, a twistor which actually referred to a curved spacetime. Okay, wait. When you say 25:03 you talked about them do you mean the complex spacetime in twistor terms? Yes. It is a complex 25:10 spacetime. And, you see, Ted Newman didn't mind about his spacetime not being directly physical. I 25:17 don't know whether he minded it or not. He called it H-space. He had a construction which involved 25:23 making spacetime complex and looking at it in this particular particular way that he did. So why 25:30 was that interesting to you? Because when we've talked off-air if I mention the word supersymmetry Extra Dimensions 25:37 there's a grimace on your face. If I mention string theory because it has extra dimensions and maybe some other flavors there's an even worse grimace. I can tell you where the grimace 25:47 comes from. See, all these things are adding extra dimensions to spacetime. Now what I was doing was 25:53 absolutely crucially tied to the spacetime having three space and one time dimension. If you change 26:00 that you wreck the theory. A theory that works in n dimensions especially mathematicians that's 26:06 a feature that it can work in any dimension. And if you say my theory only works in four dimensions 26:13 some people see that as a weakness. You see that as, no, that's a strength. Absolutely. That is 26:18 absolutely the point. I'm seeing it as a strength because you're not looking at mathematics. Okay, 26:25 mathematicians pick up on twistor theory and they generalize it to higher dimensions and all sorts of things. Good stuff, but it's pure mathematics. I'm interested here in specifically the 26:36 mathematics which applies to the physical world. Now that, whether you can generalize that to 17 26:43 dimensions is of no particular interest to me. And if people do string theory initially when I heard 26:48 about string theory I thought it was a beautiful idea. And then when it went and they said oh no, it only works in, I think 26 dimensions originally I thought, okay, that's not okay, you can work on 26:59 that. I'm not going to work on that. It's not physics anymore. So you mentioned C and Yang, Algebraic and Differential Geometry 27:05 you mentioned fiber bundles and implicitly hopf fibrations. Those are differential geometric ideas 27:11 and the standard model and general relativity are based in differential geometry. Standard model 27:18 is not even differential geometry, it's really flat space time really. Do you see differential 27:23 geometry as what will be the language of physics in the next few decades or do you think it, 27:29 you started off in algebraic geometry. Do you see algebraic as the chopped liver that should be? 27:36 You're talking about my shady history here. Now it is true that when I went to Cambridge. I'm going to ask about Grothendieck soon. Well you can if you like. But it's always like saying yes. You see 27:48 when I was in Cambridge doing algebraic geometry I was trying to solve a problem that my supervisor, 28:00 William Hodge, had suggested. He had given a list of problems and said you can work on any of these 28:07 and I didn't understand any of them. Oh the bottom one I can understand. Yeah I'll try that one. You see I think suspect it was the one that he was least interested in. I'm not sure. I think he 28:17 was quite interested in it but it was not part of the march of algebraic geometry and what the 28:27 my close colleague at that time Michael Atiyah would have been doing. He was the real expert on 28:33 these things. I mean all these things are driven by anecdotes I'm afraid. You see Hodge suggested 28:40 at one time. There were various people in my group and for one reason or another they didn't sort of connect with what I was doing. But he suggested well maybe you're not so keen. Hodge 28:50 is suggesting maybe you're not so keen on the subject. I was expressing some disappointment with it I think. He said okay but maybe you prefer to work on one of the other topics. You might like 29:01 to sit in on one of the other graduate students. So I did. I sat in on this class and I didn't 29:09 understand a single word that went on. It was way above anything I knew at all. And I thought this 29:15 graduate student if they're all like that what am I doing here? What I didn't realize is that 29:21 graduate student was Michael Atiyah. Michael Atiyah was later to become a Fields Medalist, 29:28 become one of the first winner of the there's another prize, mathematics prize. Dirac Medal? 29:37 No no it's a play on Nobel but it's somebody else. Abel Prize. That's right the Abel Prize. He was 29:42 one of the earliest winners of the Abel Prize and he became president of the Royal Society. 29:53 Anyway he was obviously not your average student. It's what I mean the fact that he sort of I mean 30:00 he became very important in my life later on by telling me that things I was trying to do were really cohomology which I had no knowledge about. When I found this way of doing integrals 30:10 for finding yes I was interested in this just what I was trying to say in a way. The solutions that 30:18 Ted Newman had found and I tried to convert them into twistor theory which I realized you could do 30:26 in a way but by making twistor theory curved and you can make it curved provided you don't have 30:34 any what I've related called alpha planes. I mean when you don't have beta you have alpha planes. 30:40 I've got said it the wrong way but as long as you have alpha planes. Alpha planes are things which can only exist if half of the conformal curvature vanishes. When I say half it's a bit difficult 30:53 to do that in space time because the signature is wrong. You can do it for the kinds of space 31:01 geometries for geometries that mathematicians like because the signature is right for them. You have 31:07 got all pluses. You take your metric it's all got pluses and they like that and that gives you a 31:13 nice theory and you can make that what's called anti-self dual. If the vial curvature that's the 31:20 conformal curvature it splits into two parts make one part zero and the other part still exists and 31:26 you get these curved solutions. If you try to do that with space times and if they were real space 31:33 times you can't well you can but it doesn't get you very far because the vial curvature 31:39 the two parts one is the complex conjugate of the other. So if one of them is zero the other 31:45 one is zero. So it's not it's conformally flat. It's not interesting as a conformal 31:51 manifold. However Ted Newman didn't worry about these things that was my Pittsburgh colleague 31:58 who I did a lot of work with. He was a very inspirational and inspiring character and he 32:08 had this idea of sort of complexifying space in a way which was sort of half doing it and 32:14 in that half doing it way you could see that you could do what I was trying to do and this led to 32:20 what I would refer to later as the non-linear graviton. It's a complex space time for which 32:27 this vial curvature part does vanish and so you can do twistor theory in it. In this complex 32:33 space time you say what's it good for in physics? Ah well what's complex naturally in physics? Wave 32:40 functions. So if you're doing complex stuff you could be doing quantum theory. So this could be a 32:46 wave function of a crazy sort. So it's what I used to call a non-linear graviton. So it's the wave 32:53 function of a graviton but it's not the ordinary linear wave function. You see normal quantum 32:59 mechanics is linear. You can add one wave function to another and the whole point about, well not the 33:04 whole point, but the big point about quantum mechanics is that you have this superposition principle. You can add states together. The wave functions is a linear thing. You can add them. 33:17 Now this thing was a non-linear thing. You can't add one solution to another. It's just a solution. 33:22 It's a complex solution of the vacuum Einstein equations which has this twist to it and the 33:28 vial curvature vanishes and you have twistors. The kind of twistors you have are a new kind which are 33:35 curved. So you can have these curved twistors. It makes sense. However it's a bit stuck if you want 33:45 to have your physics out of it because it's to do with this conflict or confusion I would say 33:53 in twistor theory. It's inbuilt into the whole subject. You see positive and negative frequency is what I was striving for and I sort of haven't got to that because I got a little confused in my 34:04 discussion here. But you see it does turn out to do positive and negative frequency. It took a long 34:10 time for me to see that. I was driven to positive and negative helicity. They could see that almost 34:16 directly. The photons twist one way or the other way and that's what classical twistor theory does 34:21 for you. But then if you start to do integrals and things like that you can see it's a little bit more confused and then you can see these integral things you're doing are really wave functions. And 34:30 if they're wave functions, then they can have positive and negative separately, frequency, 34:36 the right-handed. They can be right-handed or left-handed depending on whether it's twistors or 34:42 dual twistors and they can be positive frequency as well. But you've got to talk to them about 34:48 complex solutions. So it's this confusion between the two which in a sense limited twistor theory 34:55 to the situations in which you have alpha planes. Now I haven't said what an alpha plane is but the 35:03 vanishing of this half of the valve curvature is the integrability condition for the existence of 35:09 alpha planes. If you have the alpha planes, they are the twistors. So if a plane has alpha planes, 35:16 each alpha plane is associated with a twistor and that's the geometrical description. But 35:21 real space-time doesn't have any alpha planes in it. It's only much more recently I consider what 35:28 you do. You consider what I call bi-twistors. Now bi-twistors I described in the paper which was in 35:36 honor of C.N. Yang. I'm very much delayed with this paper because I was trying to work things 35:41 out. And it came out, well it's in honor of C.N. Yang's 100th birthday I should say. He's still 35:49 alive as far as I'm aware. This was two years ago or something, so it came out. So I wrote this paper which was about bi-twistors and about the connection with split octonions. See I mentioned 36:02 right at the beginning the Hamiltonian quaternions and you have the analog of that when you go up, 36:09 these are things called octonions. It didn't take long after Hamiltonian produced its quaternions 36:15 when various, several people independently discovered this generalization to these eight 36:20 dimensional things which are called octonions. I was aware of the octonions and I was aware that 36:25 there were split ones as well where you have four plus signs and four minus signs. And I thought maybe there's something to do with twistor theory there. I didn't know what it was. That was 36:35 just a hunch at that point? Well this was what this paper was really the result because I could see how to do it. You can actually describe the split octonions. You have to have a product now, 36:46 going back to what I said at the beginning, quaternions you take two, product of two gives you a third. Now it's a product of three things give you a fourth. You make one, you choose another 36:57 element, make it the unit element and then this other two gives you the split octonian product. 37:02 So it does give you the split octonions. I only vaguely thought maybe there's some connection at 37:09 one time and later I see it really does. It gives you the split octonions. But for that you really 37:15 need these things called bitwistors. You've got to combine a twistor and a dual twistor otherwise 37:21 these things don't even exist. There's got to be that combination and you have a bigger space. 37:28 But what's nice about it from the physics point of view is you sort of got rid of this inherent 37:33 twist into the theory. They're not really twistors in the sense that the twist goes 37:39 one way rather than the other. So it removes this awkward confusion between helicity and frequency. 37:49 You see positive frequency and positive helicity are two different concepts. But 37:54 in twistor theory they're confused as being the same. So I want to ask about definitions because Alexander Grothendieck 38:00 when you're an undergrad people tend to think that you focus on proofs and that's what it is to be a researcher. And Grothendieck said that what's more important are definitions. So he 38:11 would say you keep your definitions convoluted and you make your proofs simple. What makes a 38:16 good definition in physics though? Well going back to Grothendieck you see there was this, when I was talking about my period in Cambridge I was really an outsider working on this particular 38:27 problem that Hodge had suggested. Although it was a bit like twistor theory in a way. You see if you want to describe a curve and a twisted cubic is a good example. It's a twisted cubic, you don't 38:36 have one equation for it. You can think of it as an intersection of two quadrics where you throw away a line. The normal intersection is a quartic surface. You specialize it so it's a line and a 38:48 cubic. And that cubic is called a twisted cubic. It's not the intersection of two hypersurfaces. 38:53 But can you write down an equation for it? Yes you can. You think of your space of straight lines and 39:01 those straight lines which meet the curve is one condition and that gives you a formula. And this is the Cayley form thing. And that's what I was actually working on. Not that, but how do you do 39:11 that in higher dimensions? How do you work out how things intersect and stuff like that? And it 39:17 got rather too messy. So I had to develop a diagrammatic notation for handling all the 39:22 complications. That's another story too. I won't tell you that one now. But anyway. Grothendieck. 39:31 Grothendieck was the big high priest of all. I think initially it was sort of crept up before you 39:37 got to Grothendieck. He was the real high priest. And that's what people like Atiyah were doing and 39:44 making it more and more abstract as he went on. I was going on a completely different route. I was thinking about, okay. Something concrete? Well it was much more concrete, yes. I mean, I could think 39:54 of light rays meeting curves. No, not light rays. I mean, straight lines meeting curves. That was my 40:02 problem was of that character. But you do that in higher dimensions. Yeah, there's a phrase, abstract nonsense. Have you heard of that? About category theory? Oh sure, that's right. That's 40:12 the whole. That's your feeling as well? The whole move of, you see that. Yeah, that's what they were all doing. To this day? That's what, Michael Atiyah was a great expert in that subject. Oh 40:21 yeah. And Grotendieck was a greater expert. Well he, what was the, there was a sort of 40:28 sub. I mean, Grotendieck was the, well he went off and sort of worked in isolation and disappeared 40:34 from the. Sure. What do you see as the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics? So you Gravity and Quantum Mechanics 40:42 mentioned linear. Yes. Some people think one is non-linear and the other's linear and that's where the tension is. Some people say it's non-commuting variables on one side and then 40:50 commuting variables on the other. There is a big tension. Observable, sorry. But there's a worse tension. You see, there's a tension in the sense that general relativity is not really linear, 41:02 it's non-linear. You see, and people in quantum mechanics, they like linear things. They don't care how many dimensions is there. It could be a million dimensions. It could be an infinite 41:10 number of dimensions. Lots of things are. They love infinite dimensions. That's fine in quantum 41:15 theory. But space-time has got three plus one. From that point of view, it's pretty boring. 41:22 It's only got a finite number of dimensions. But the space-time has, and Einstein of course, 41:30 he was good. He got his Nobel Prize for quantum mechanics, of course. But the photoelectric effect 41:36 was just nothing to do with GR. Some physicists even like to say Einstein was wrong. They like 41:47 to write that on a t-shirt. Well, they were all saying that then. You see, that was nothing new in those days. Of course, it was the Eddington Expedition, which suddenly startled everybody 41:59 to show the bending of light was in agreement with Einstein's theory. And that did change 42:04 things. It made Einstein a big celebrity too. So it was a big thing. But it didn't really make the 42:13 quantum field theory or quantum people didn't like curved spaces because they're all flat spaces. 42:19 They may have infinite dimensions, but they're flat as a pancake. They don't fit in very well 42:27 with the basis of general relativity. And then perhaps you want me to go in that other way, 42:34 because there's another way they don't fit in together, which is another thing. It's not so much twistor theory as it stands, but it's an important thing. Consciousness? Collapse? Collapse. Yes, 42:47 there's consciousness, but that's... Oh dear. There are too many stories here. We're going to 42:52 talk about consciousness as well. Let's stick with the collapse for now. No, the collapse is important. We have to do that first anyway. You see, I always thought that I didn't like the Collapse of the Wave Function 43:03 collapse of the wave functions being... I mean, quantum theory was terribly confused. You see, 43:09 you've got the beautiful... Well, think of the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger... I mean, 43:15 Schrodinger was just confused. I mean, he understood why he was confused. I mean, he was absolutely on the ball, but lots of people were confused. Anyway, let me not go into that 43:25 story. You see, take a quantum system. How do you describe it? You take the wave function or vector 43:33 in Hilbert space or something, isn't it a wave function? You take the wave function. How does that evolve in time? Schrodinger equation. So, it evolves in time, according to the Schrodinger 43:41 equation. Is that the way the world evolves in time? No, it doesn't, because you cheat. You say, 43:48 no, no, you've got to a certain point and you make a measurement. What does making a 43:53 measurement mean? I don't know. People have funny ideas about making a measurement. The trouble is the word observation, I think, crept in there a little too... To sneakily, too early? Sneakily, 44:03 too strongly, I would say. Because people think, as many, one of the big proponents of this view 44:13 was Wigner, Eugene Wigner. And I actually, when I was in Princeton, I did talk to Wigner about it. 44:19 I had a long lunch talk with him, and I talked about this issue of does the wave consciousness, 44:26 if you like, collapse the wave function? Because that was the Wigner view. He was not so dogmatic 44:33 about that view as I was expecting. He was saying, it's a view, but a point of view. I don't think, 44:39 for many reasons, it really makes sense. But it was nevertheless, I think a lot of people, 44:45 even von Neumann seemed to have that sort of idea, too. A lot of people had the idea that it was a conscious being observing the system which somehow changes the rules. You change your wave 44:57 function and write it down in terms of its certain basis, and then you give the amplitudes, 45:06 and then you look at these complex amplitudes, square them, square the modulus, and that makes 45:11 your probabilities. So then what would they say, not to take you off track, but what would they say is what observes the observer? I don't say any of that, you see. I don't care what 45:21 they say. I don't know what they say, because it's not what I say. And I think it's wrong. 45:27 So although I think consciousness relates to it, the question, it's in a completely different way. It's not what collapses the wave function. What collapses the wave function is physics. So 45:40 there is something in physics which collapses the wave function. The Schrodinger equation, quantum 45:45 theory as a whole, is wrong. It's not Einstein was wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong. Now I 45:52 say this very blatantly because it's a blatant topic. I mean, Einstein and Schrodinger were 45:57 much more polite. They said it was incomplete. Okay. Incomplete means wrong. But you're telling 46:05 it like it is. Yeah, you've got to change it so it's wrong. But incomplete is a more polite 46:12 way of saying it's wrong. Okay, they're fine. I should be polite sometimes to quantum mechanics, 46:17 although it's pretty robust as it is. It doesn't mind people like me being rude to it. But anyway, 46:23 so Einstein and Schrodinger both thought that it was wrong, that the theory needed some amendment, 46:33 could be an important amendment, which changes the nature of the whole subject, quite likely. As you know, on Theories of Everything, we delve into some of the most reality-spiraling concepts 46:43 from theoretical physics and consciousness to AI and emerging technologies. To stay informed in an 46:50 ever-evolving landscape, I see The Economist as a wellspring of insightful analysis and in-depth 46:57 reporting on the exact topics explored here, and even more. The Economist's commitment to rigorous 47:03 journalism means you get a clear picture of the world's most significant developments. Whether 47:08 it's the latest in scientific innovation or the shifting tectonic plates of global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage that goes beyond the headlines. What sets The 47:19 Economist apart is their ability to make complex issues accessible and engaging, much like we strive to do in this podcast. If you're passionate about expanding your 47:28 knowledge and gaining a deeper understanding of the forces that shape our world, then I highly recommend subscribing to The Economist. It's an investment into intellectual growth, one that 47:38 you won't regret. As a listener of TOE, you get a special 20% off discount. Now you can enjoy The 47:45 Economist and all it has to offer for less. Head over to their website www.economist.com slash TOE 47:53 to get started. Thanks for tuning in, and now, back to our explorations of the mysteries of 47:59 the universe. So you think both Einstein's, both general relativity and quantum mechanics need to 48:09 be modified, or primarily quantum mechanics and a tinge to general relativity? I would say more 48:15 importantly quantum mechanics. You see, people sometimes say to combine these two great theories, 48:22 you've got to quantize general relativity. Can you explain what does it mean to quantize? You 48:28 mean to haul it into the framework of quantum theory. So you have, you make it into a Hilbert space and operators and goodness knows what. And you sum over metrics, or sum over 48:38 geometries? Yeah, well lots of people were trying to, Wheeler was trying to do that when I was in Princeton. Yeah, lots of people were trying to do that. Bryce DeWitt was certainly trying to do 48:49 that. And so when you speak to string theorists, they would say, well that's quite obviously the approach. We're the only finite quantum gravity game in town. Yes. I mean, there's nothing wrong 48:59 with quantizing gravity. It's just the weak, I don't know what I'm saying. I don't read the 49:06 right adjective. But let me... You don't have to be polite anymore. No, no, I'm not trying to be 49:12 polite here. I'm trying to be more illustrative of what I mean. I mean, I sometimes talk about a 49:20 planet, a distant planet, which has an atmosphere on it. It's a planet very much like the Earth, 49:26 almost identical. And there's a space probe going out to look at it, because it's very interesting, 49:33 because it's just like the Earth. However, there is no life on it. No life has ever evolved on it. 49:39 There are no butterflies to flap their wings, and weather is supposed to be a chaotic thing, and so 49:45 even sensitive to the flapping of a butterfly's wing. There aren't any butterflies on this planet. 49:51 There are no conscious beings on that planet. So all the different weathers that they might have 49:56 on that planet all coexist in superposition. It's a mess. The probe is going out to take a 50:04 photograph of this mess. It comes back to the Earth, and when it's within distance of being 50:10 able to send signals to the Earth, somebody's sitting against the screen, and finally the 50:15 first picture of the weather on that planet, this person looks at it—snap! His consciousness or her 50:23 consciousness makes that world into weather into one weather. What could be more absurd? Absolutely 50:31 ridiculous. It's lightweight, it doesn't have any interest in us. Why does its weather become one? 50:38 Just because this chap isn't taking a photograph of it. Absolute nonsense. I'm just trying to 50:43 emphasize that I don't believe it is consciousness that collapses the wave function. Instead, it's 50:49 the collapse of the wave function that produces consciousness? Well, that's my other story, which I think is another story, and is a story which I also try to pursue to some degree. I don't 51:01 regard it as what I do most in my life, because it's too much biology and things like that, which I don't know anything about. Are you wedded to microtubules being the mechanism or the place? 51:12 Or are you just saying, look, if it's going to occur, it needs to occur somewhere in the brain. This chap named Stuart Hameroff put up his hand and said, it could be microtubules. I found 51:21 this in the brain. And then you said, okay, well, maybe. That's more or less it, yeah. 51:27 Yes, it wasn't quite like that. But I do think microtubules are a good candidate for various reasons. But you wouldn't be heartbroken if it turned out to be some other structure? Heartbroken 51:35 is too strong. I'd be a bit disappointed, yes. Because I think microtubules... No, there are various features of microtubules that I find fascinating. I don't think it's 51:45 a coincidence. Did you see the recent news about the super radiance in microtubules? I did hear something. I didn't see it. It said that there are quantum effects that are 51:57 coherent in microtubules. No, there better be, yes. Do you feel vindicated from that? 52:04 The trouble is, I did look at the paper which was referred... I think it's, if it's the same one you're talking about. I did look at the paper. Stuart is mentioned. There is a reference to his, 52:14 but it doesn't really talk about his stuff. It looks like something else. I don't know. 52:20 I might be connected. Look, I'm not a biologist. So I'm not even a chemist. I find chemists is too 52:26 difficult for me. Chemistry is, it's full of words that I can't remember. Yeah, same. I was supposed to be a doctor. My parents were both doctors. They thought I should be a doctor. They 52:35 were both medically trained. I was the one they thought would be the doctor. They won in the end because my little sister eventually got a doctor and she married one too. So they got two for the 52:44 price of one. No, I disappointed them terribly. I would have been hopeless because I don't remember 52:50 names of these things. You can tell, I forget them immediately. I would have been putting the wrong 52:55 prescription on people's... Well, you invented quite a few. Biotwistors, dual twistors, alpha planes, beta planes. Well, yes. I remember most of those more easily, yes. So I'm jumping ahead Gravitational Fields and the Wave Function 53:06 because the audience is familiar with that gravity has something to do with the collapse of the wave function. Yes, but let me make that a little more specific. You see, I wasn't so clear on that until 53:16 much more later. I think just a little before the turn of the century. I can't quite remember then. 53:23 It took me a little while before I actually wrote the paper on it. I wrote a paper on it which was to explain a conflict between the two basic principles, one of general relativity, 53:37 the other of quantum mechanics. What's the basic principle of general relativity? It's the 53:43 principle of equivalence, which Einstein admitted. He didn't give Galileo credit. I think he should 53:50 have given a reference to Galileo. I'm not sure he did. Because Galileo already noticed the principle 53:57 of equivalence. And he talked about... I like the one of the fireworks. He describes his fireworks. 54:03 Go out and they make this beautiful sphere of sparks. As it falls, it remains a sphere. You can 54:10 get rid of gravity by free fall locally. He's very explicit. Not just the big rocks and the little 54:18 rocks and why the feather doesn't because of air resistance and all that. I mean, he was right. But 54:26 of course, you needed special relativity and make that into a four-dimensional space-time 54:34 as Minkowski did, and then bend it as Einstein did. So the collapse and gravity come in? But 54:42 my argument is that the principle of equivalence, which is the basis of general relativity, is in 54:49 conflict with the principle of superposition. And the argument... is more or less this. I say, think 54:59 of an experiment done in a lab on a tabletop. And you want to take the Earth's gravitational 55:06 field into consideration. Now, there are two ways you might do this. The way any sensible physicist 55:12 would do it, you put a term in the Hamiltonian. If you don't know what that means, don't worry. Put 55:17 a term in the Hamiltonian for the gravitational field. And just chug away the usual procedures. 55:23 Fine. Then you notice that Einstein's sitting in the corner, or Galileo even, and say, no, no, no, 55:30 you shouldn't do it that way. The gravitational field of the Earth is locally just like free fall. 55:36 So you can consider your lab, your coordinates are falling, and the lab is just accelerating in this 55:44 thing. And there's no gravitational field. Okay, you do it this other way. It's a different way. 55:49 Different coordinates, you do it a way. And you come up, eventually, you come up with almost the 55:55 same answer. The key, of course, is in the almost. The wave function you get is just the same, 56:04 except for the complex multiplier. The phase factor, if you like, which people would quite 56:12 like to discard, because when they're going to measure anything that you observe, they're taking amplitudes, you take squares and moduli. So you don't worry too much about that. Until you look 56:21 rather too carefully at this actual factor, which is different between these two procedures, that 56:28 actual factor involves the time, an exponential of the time cubed. And that is not, that's serious, 56:39 if you really think of it. If you're thinking of quantum field theory, that's serious, because that's telling you that's a different vacuum. You're actually working in a different vacuum. 56:50 So you might say, well, you still might say who cares, because you say stick to your vacuum, and 56:57 you get the right answer at the end. Okay, so I'm going to change the problem a little bit, rather 57:04 seriously, actually. I'm going to say that in this experiment, there is a lump of some sort, which 57:13 is put into a superposition of two locations. So it's a little stone, which goes into two places, 57:19 a little bead or something, which is part of the experiment. Now, I try to use the Einsteinian, 57:26 Galilean Einsteinian perspective, and I ran into trouble, because as I get close to the bead, 57:32 I see that whether it's here or here, I can't get rid of them both at once. And that's, of course, 57:38 the Einstein problem, which is a general relativity. I can't get rid of them both at once, 57:43 by free fall. So what do I do? I do what any sensible physicist would do, I cheat. I say, okay, 57:51 I know I should be using the Einstein perspective, but let's just try instead, measure the mistake 57:58 that I'm making by adopting that, by the Newtonian perspective. So I adopt the Newtonian perspective, 58:05 but keep track of what might be a little error in doing it. Then I integrate that error over space, 58:13 and I do a little integration by parts and some little bit of fiddling around with it. And I get 58:19 with an answer, which looks like a uncertainty in the mass of a system. It is the mass of 58:28 the system, but it's not the fact that it's a superposition that gives me an uncertainty of that 58:36 mass. Now the thing is, that's a bit like particle physics, where if you have a decaying particle, 58:46 its mass is not completely well-defined. It has an error, a fuzziness in its mass, which is given by 58:53 the Heisenberg time-energy uncertainty principle. So its lifetime, if it's an unstable particle, is 59:00 inversely related to this sort of fuzziness in its mass. Now here I have a fuzziness in the energy of 59:11 the system, the mass energy of the system, so I say that's the reciprocal of that in natural 59:17 units. When I say natural units, I mean making all the things equal to one that you can do, 59:24 as Dirac sort of pointed out, I guess. And I get the formula, which Diosi had already discovered 59:32 a couple of years earlier than me. Right, for different reasons. I didn't know he'd done that. It was a different argument. But I thought this was a nice argument because it just revealed the 59:42 tension between these two very basic principles, the principle of equivalence and the principle of 59:48 superposition. And they're a bit in conflict with each other. And the resolution of this 59:54 conflict comes through allowing your unstable state to collapse into one or the other. Now, 1:00:03 what you only get from this way of looking at it is an uncertainty in the mass. And I 1:00:09 know that Ivette's looking directly at this thing rather than looking at the collapse, which is a powerful thing to exploit. And just for people who are wondering about Ivette Fuentes, 1:00:20 there's a podcast on screen right now where we go into two hours in depth into this topic. Now, 1:00:26 do you have a mechanism for why or how gravity collapses the wave function? Or do you just say 1:00:32 it has to collapse? I said that's where the new theory has to come in. I'm just saying, 1:00:37 look, I have a problem. I need a theory. No, all I can say is that it tells me how big the factor 1:00:45 should be. It tells you, you can measure this uncertainty. And it's not so hard. You just think of the bead that I was looking at. Imagine the two copies of the same bead. And I move it into this 1:00:57 superposition. And I ask, how much energy would that cost me where I ignore all forces except 1:01:04 gravity? Very tiny usually, but it's nevertheless. It's enough to collapse the state for any, even a 1:01:14 flick of dust will collapse in a very short period of time. So it gives you that much. I mean, it's 1:01:19 the same as Diosi. It's the same formula. It's not a theory in the sense that his was. I mean, 1:01:25 I think his ideas got, as far as I'm aware, rather shot down by the Gran Sasso experiments, 1:01:33 was it? They took this thing down a mineshaft or something. No, it's to do with the heating. They 1:01:39 anticipate bodies spontaneously heat, which I don't want. That shouldn't happen. But that's 1:01:45 because the collapse has a very curious... You see, if you want to make it consistent with special relativity, don't worry about general relativity at the moment, you're really already 1:01:54 in trouble because you imagine a body going, splitting. It's the superposition. It's not 1:01:59 two bodies. It's one body, superposition of here and here. They get very far away from each other. 1:02:04 They haven't collapsed yet. And now they're going to collapse. One goes. In whose frame does that 1:02:11 happen? Is that the frame you should be talking about? How do you make that consistent? Well, 1:02:18 what you've got to do... I mean, I worried about that. Lots of people seem not to worry about that. 1:02:23 I worried about that. You say, okay, the only thing you can do, which is relativistic... I mean, 1:02:29 there are other wrong routes you can take, which I won't go into because it's quite a bit of a more story than I'm making out here. The only route you can take is to say the collapse actually 1:02:39 took place right back to where the split initially took, and then there was only one route. But what 1:02:46 about the other route? Well, what I have to do is to describe things in terms of two different kinds 1:02:54 of reality. One of them is quantum reality, and one of them is classical reality. So one doesn't 1:03:01 give rise to the other? They're actually separate? Well, it's the quantum reality, if you like, which does give rise to the way that the classical reality behaves, but it does it in 1:03:10 a kind of retrocausal way. So that's what's so confusing. In a kind of retrocausal way? Or is 1:03:16 it retrocausal? It's kind of retrocausal. Okay, explain. I'm saying this deliberately because it's 1:03:23 only quantum reality. You see, this is a puzzle I had, and you can resolve this in a rather peculiar 1:03:32 way. You might say, oh sure, if it was retrocausal and it went back to the beginning, then how do 1:03:40 you... what am I trying to say? You can travel faster than light. Yeah, you can travel faster than light or backwards in time or something. Sure. So I've got to tackle that problem. Or you 1:03:50 can signal backwards in time, that's the thing. And you were trying to retain special relativity 1:03:56 before? I'm just saying you can't do that. Think of Alice and Bob. I had this in some notes which 1:04:04 I circulated, but I don't think it was actually published. It's sort of pseudo-published. You see, 1:04:10 I have a book. The book I wrote, which was with the Princeton University Press, called Fashion, 1:04:19 Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. The fashion was about string theory, 1:04:26 which I'm not sure was still so fashionable now, but it was then. Faith was quantum mechanics 1:04:31 at all levels. And fantasy actually had to do with cosmology. It was to do with inflationary 1:04:38 cosmology, because I simply thought inflation is much too fantastic. That's another story. 1:04:44 But the fashion... so I had to write this new preface. I think it's almost out now, 1:04:51 a new printing of Fashion, Faith. I wasn't allowed to change anything in the book, but I was allowed to write a new preface. And I do give an outline of this idea. I think I 1:05:01 do. The retrocausal thing. You see, the thing is, think about the standard EPR. So you have a spin 1:05:09 zero state, splits into two halves, spin half, and Alice takes one off in the spaceship and Bob takes 1:05:18 it up on another half. Alice makes a measurement. What do I say happens to the quantum reality? It's 1:05:26 a quantum measurement. Quantum reality propagates along the past light cone. What could be crazier 1:05:33 than that? The backwards way, along the past light cone. It hits Bob's world line way earlier than he 1:05:41 does his experiment. So his state is already changed into the one which is the opposite of 1:05:48 Alice's state. Bob makes his measurement later. He doesn't know what the state is. 1:05:56 Alice can only communicate classically with him. This is a quantum information. Now, 1:06:04 quantum reality information. Quantum reality, you cannot measure, you can only ascertain. 1:06:11 Explain the difference between ascertaining and confirming. Because when you were on stage with Sabine Hossenfelder, you said you can confirm, I think it was the classical level, you can confirm, 1:06:22 whereas at the quantum you can ascertain. Like you can ask a question. That's right. Well, you see, it's really Einstein. It's Einstein's fault. Because he was saying, I think a lot of 1:06:36 people were worrying about the reality of the wave function. Is it real? Is it really there? 1:06:43 Not real, it's complex, you see. It's not real in the sense of real numbers, but is it really there? 1:06:50 And Einstein produced the statement. He said, well, a concept of reality isn't introducing, 1:06:56 which is if you can make, if there's a measurement you can make on the system without disturbing it, 1:07:02 and which with 100% certainty gives the answer yes, then that measurement is revealing an element 1:07:09 of reality. So he says that the state, the quantum state is real in that sense. What he didn't say, 1:07:17 as far as I'm aware, is that is quantum reality. It's not classical reality. Think 1:07:23 of the spin of a spin-half particle. I always like spin-half particles. Sure. Spin up and spin down, 1:07:31 if you like, or spin right and spin left. Suppose its spin is about that way. If I know through its 1:07:39 origin, where did that spin come from? Oh, yes, I know. Oh, it should be spinning that way. Wait, sorry. Is this a hidden variable that it's carrying with it? No, no. It's not hidden 1:07:46 variables. Forget about Bohm. Forget about Bohm. You're not a fan of Bohm. I had arguments with 1:07:54 Basil Hiley on that topic, and I prefer not to go back there, when I was at Birkbeck College. 1:07:59 All right. Let's not talk about hidden variables. If you can call them hidden variables, you can, 1:08:05 but that's not my idea. It's not that. Got it. It's quantum reality. So the state is that, but 1:08:12 it has a quantum reality of spinning right-handed about that particular direction. And we know it 1:08:18 is because we've set up and we've produced it in that state. You could do that by some experiment, 1:08:25 and it comes out in that state. Now, I'm going to use Einstein's criterion. I can measure the 1:08:31 spin in that direction, as long as it's got a magnetic dipole or something. I can measure it, 1:08:39 and I can... If I've got it right, every time I measure it, or I can measure the same experiment 1:08:46 many times over, 100% certainly, that's real. That's what Einstein said is his element of 1:08:53 reality. I'm just slightly modifying what he said. It's an element of quantum reality. It's 1:09:01 not classical reality. I can't say to the state, hello, state, which way are you pointing? Just 1:09:08 looks at you blankly. It says, I don't answer questions like that. Give me a better question, 1:09:13 you see. If I say, are you spinning that way? It can say, no, or yes. If you say, 1:09:19 which way are you spinning? It doesn't answer that question. That's a quantum reality thing. Quantum 1:09:25 reality doesn't. You can't ascertain it. That's why I say you can't ascertain. You can't ascertain 1:09:34 which way it's spinning. However, you can confirm which way it's spinning by the Einstein criteria. 1:09:40 I see. Now, if Alice and Bob, you see, if Alice propagates back in time, Bob's state is already, 1:09:48 in a certain sense, the opposite of what Alice is going to measure, but Bob can't ask the state, 1:09:57 which way are you spinning? If he could, then you could send signals faster than that. The 1:10:02 whole of special relativity goes down the tubes. The whole of modern physics does. So that's not 1:10:08 a good idea. So quantum reality, sure. Bob can't say, hey, can I ask it? His spinning state says, 1:10:17 don't ask me such a question. I don't answer questions like that. Suggests a direction. So he does. He suggests a different direction. He has no idea what Alice has spinned. I did 1:10:27 worry about this quite a lot by saying, can he ascertain which way Alice is measuring it, 1:10:33 and even if you don't know which answer she gets? So there's a bit of a subtlety there, because she 1:10:38 might orient her apparatus in some way, and does that information somehow, you want to make sure 1:10:45 that can't be ascertained by Bob either. Uh-huh, that she's free to choose independently? She's free to choose. She says, yeah, but she might say, oh, I think I'm gonna choose that direction 1:10:55 because Bob's keen on that direction or something, and that will tell me I'm happy. No, she can't do 1:11:01 that. Have you thought about free will? I've thought about it. In fact, I thought about it Free Will 1:11:08 even quite recently. First of all, I think it's a useless kind of thought because even though, 1:11:14 you see, Stuart is very keen on free will because he says that this theory of microtubules and all 1:11:21 that stuff gives a room for free will. See, maybe it does in a way, but you see, often people say, 1:11:29 well, it's all determined anyway, and so I think people get a little bit confused. You see, 1:11:37 going back to my experiences I used to have when I was very young, and my younger brother was even 1:11:43 younger, and he could always wallop me at this game, scissors, paper, stone, and I thought, how 1:11:48 can he be walloping at that game of chance? Right. So to make sure it was a game of chance that he 1:11:53 couldn't wallop me at, I went into my father's study and I got out a book of logarithms and went into the middle of it and got out the string of numbers and produced which way you went by the 1:12:02 string of numbers, followed it very carefully, and he couldn't beat me. So I thought, thank goodness. 1:12:09 He's not reading my mind. It's just that he knows, that's recognizing patterns and things like that. 1:12:15 He's good at that. Maybe even unconsciously, he recognized these patterns and he knows which way 1:12:20 I'm going to do next because I'm not really being random. So it's not randomness. Yes. The free will is not randomness. So what is it? You see, maybe I thought, I think it's probably, 1:12:36 you're free to do something which may be very well determined. You see, you might, do I take course A 1:12:44 or course B? You may be in some meeting, you see, which is making decisions about some big plan. And 1:12:50 you want to know, what is the consequence of doing A or B? Well, then you rely on your understanding 1:13:00 of which is the right thing to do. So free will, it might be the same as somebody would do just by 1:13:05 chance. That's not the point. The point is that you've used your consciousness as something to 1:13:13 employ in making your decision. So that's what free will is for in a sense. I don't know if I 1:13:22 can say much more. And I also get impressed by things when I hear things about bees and 1:13:27 they're unbelievable. Yeah. And they seem to play. They're unbee-lievable. Unbee-lievable. Yes, well, 1:13:34 they sort of, even they play football. There's some, see, they were telling me about little, 1:13:41 they're not trying to hunt for honey. They do things in little balls and they kick them 1:13:46 around. There's some kind of football that they play. Why are they doing that? For fun? That 1:13:53 would mean they have to be conscious, doesn't it? Maybe they are. I don't know. I don't have a view on this. I do believe that consciousness goes way down in the animal kingdom, sure. Is the universe Is the Universe Discrete or Continuous? 1:14:04 discreet or continuous? I used to be very keen on discreet. I did, yes. People tell me, oh, 1:14:10 I got to go into anecdotes. I'm too old. I just talk about anecdotes in the physics. Okay. If you want an anecdote, I can give you an anecdote. I used to be very keen on discreteness. There were 1:14:20 two things in mathematics that I thought, oh, these are the nice things for physics, ultimately, to be based on. Combinatorial things or maybe complex numbers. I think I sort of, 1:14:31 at that time, thought combinatorial things. I'm surprised. If you came from algebraic geometry, 1:14:36 that you would be more keen to the finite side, the discreet side. I probably was at that time. 1:14:43 You see, I had this sort of gradual conversion. I think the conversion came with David Finkelstein. 1:14:50 When, as he said after his talk, he gave this talk that Dennis Sharma took me to when I was 1:14:55 a research fellow at St. John's in Cambridge, and we drove to London to hear this lecture given by 1:15:02 David Finkelstein, which was on the Schwarzschild horizon, which is not a singular, it's a horizon. 1:15:09 Sure. And he described that. And I found that amazing. I thought it was very beautiful. At the end of the talk, I had a long chat with him about spin networks. So I described the spin networks to 1:15:19 him. And he told me afterwards that this meeting, we swapped subjects. I did gen relativity from 1:15:26 then on, and he had been doing GR. He swapped on to combinatorics. I consider I got much the better 1:15:31 deal. But that's, you see, I was thinking about combinatorial things. Spin networks are very much 1:15:38 that kind of thing. Can you not think about the complex numbers which give you the directions of spin for a spin-half particle, or do you instead think about this network, which is really the 1:15:48 important thing, and the direction comes out of the network? I was playing with that idea. 1:15:56 You said you've changed your tune now to be on the more continuous side, or continuum side. Well, 1:16:01 the power of complex analysis was the other thing which has impressed me. And it's more drifted onto that side. Do you think the continuous lies at the classical level, and then 1:16:11 the discreteness lies at the quantum one? Do you think that's the way to quote-unquote unify them, 1:16:17 or harmonize them? I wouldn't say anything like that. I mean, maybe. Obviously, there's something 1:16:27 discreet in quantum mechanics. I mean, something which people used to think was continuous, shock, 1:16:33 shock, is actually discreet. Now, speaking of what people used to think, you used to think Ai’s Capabilities 1:16:39 that AI couldn't do what mathematicians do. Do you still hold that view because of their limitations, 1:16:47 their formal systems? In a certain sense, yes. I mean, you've got to be a little careful about these things. But I was hearing just recently, I think it was on Zoom talk. Yeah, 1:16:57 the remarkable 01 model of ChatGPT. What would be an example of something mathematical that 1:17:05 you think a computer could never do this? Well, it doesn't do anything. You've got to tell him. Well, 1:17:12 even if you put it on play, you just press play, and you say, generate for me some math. Because if 1:17:18 it's the autoplay that's the issue here, that's easily solvable. I mean, there's a confusion, 1:17:23 I think. I mean, it's also important to me. See, because one of the talks that I attended when I was a graduate student at Cambridge, nothing to do with what I was doing, was a talk by a man 1:17:33 called Steen on mathematical logic. And I learned about the notion of computability. I learned about 1:17:42 the Gödel theorem. I found it stunning, because what it told me, you want to prove something in 1:17:49 mathematics? How is this statement? What the Gödel theorem says, it says, I am not provable by your 1:17:56 methods. Yet, I know it's true. Why do I know it's true? I know it's true by virtue of my belief that 1:18:05 the proof procedures only give you truths. There is the idea that people can brain upload. That is, 1:18:12 they can take your consciousness and put it onto a computer? No, I'm saying no on that one, definitely. If a computer, when you say the word computer, you have to be saying what I mean by 1:18:23 a computer, and what Turing meant by a computer, which is a computational system. So if it's that, 1:18:30 no is the answer. If you're talking about a physical entity, which is not an animal, or not a living being in our ordinary sense of the word, maybe. But it has to take advantage 1:18:40 of what we're taking advantage of without even worrying about it. Which is, presumably, 1:18:48 here I'm going way outside of what I know, but I'm saying it's whatever the physics is which 1:18:53 governs the collapse of the wave function. Right. Now that is not quantum physics, because quantum physics doesn't have an answer to that question. It's this physics which combines GR with quantum 1:19:03 mechanics. Maybe it used multi-twistors for all I know, I have no idea. It would be very nice if it Many Worlds Theory 1:19:09 does. Do you think if quantum theory was not to be modified, then the many worlds interpretation 1:19:15 is the way to go? It would just be wrong. I'd say it could be any way people believe in. Stick to 1:19:23 quantum mechanics, that wrong theory, then they would have to go that way. But I don't want to go that way, because I want to go the way that the world goes. Oh, what I mean to say is, do 1:19:32 you think quantum theory as it stands implies the many worlds theory? Quantum mechanics doesn't say 1:19:41 anything about the many worlds theory. Yeah, in a sense, yes, because it says all these things are in superposition. But I'm not quite sure what the many worlds theory is, because it can't be just 1:19:51 that. Otherwise, I wouldn't see just one world. So what is the rest of the theory which tells me that 1:19:57 I only see a limited proportion that may be there in superposition, but not many? Certainly not as 1:20:03 different as they could be. I don't see all these alternatives. Now, is that to do with this little 1:20:10 creature crawling through this multitude? Now, why doesn't this creature going off in another 1:20:17 branch? It doesn't explain anything. Recently... I'm just saying it's wrong. You're trying to say 1:20:25 if I believed in quantum mechanics, yes, but then I can believe in a wrong thing and I get another wrong answer. I'm just being my rude self to say that quantum theory is wrong. We like that on 1:20:36 theories of everything. So, you were recently speaking to Bernardo Kastrup about idealism, Idealism 1:20:44 which is about consciousness as fundamental. So maybe you don't recall, but it doesn't matter. The point is some people believe consciousness to be fundamental. Was this a video thing? Yeah. No, 1:20:54 I think I did recover that. Okay. Yes, I think he was saying things which seemed to me orthogonal to what I was saying. Okay, so please recount your views on is consciousness 1:21:06 fundamental? Yes and no. How's that for an answer? A superposition answer. It depends at what level 1:21:16 you're asking this question. I mean, if there were no consciousness, I can't see... You see, 1:21:28 a question like this has to have a framework. You see, I'm talking within a certain framework 1:21:34 of theories. What's something that you used to be dismissive of when you were younger that you used CCC 1:21:41 to disregard, repudiate? Many-worlds theory. As you're older, that you're more open to it. Oh, 1:21:47 I see. Oh, no, no. I'm worse. I've got more narrow-minded as I've got older. Interesting. Oh, 1:21:54 yes. I'm terribly narrow-minded now. I'm prepared to listen to other things, sure. But I... No, 1:22:02 I think CCC is right. I think that collapse of the wave function is right and it's a gravitational effect. Can you talk about that, about the CCC? Now? Yeah. Just briefly, if you don't mind. Sure. 1:22:15 Well, it was one thing when I was saying fashion, faith and fantasy. The fantasy was inflation. See, 1:22:21 I don't believe in inflation. Right. The current view of cosmology is that the very early stages 1:22:26 of the universe, first tiny fraction of a second, there was this inflationary phase. 1:22:31 Which was supposed to smooth out the universe and that's why it seems so uniform. Now, it's a load 1:22:37 of poppycock as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about that word to use here. It's probably poppycock's early mouth. Because if you reverse time, it gives you the wrong answer. I mean, 1:22:49 black hole singularities are... I mean, any theory which would iron out singularities should iron out the singularities in black holes. They're completely different. The singularities 1:23:00 in black holes are absolutely wildly diverging via curvature. The singularity in the Big Bang 1:23:10 was an extraordinarily special event. I haven't seen any explanation of this. I had various wrong 1:23:19 explanations of my own. I thought maybe quantum... Yes, when you have quantum theory, I was trying to 1:23:27 say that singularities had to be one way around. What would you like your legacy to be? It's really Roger’s Legacy 1:23:35 fairly equally split, I think, between CCC on the one hand, the cosmological picture, and well, 1:23:43 the wave functions. You see, the theory there is not developed enough to anything there. It needs much more. You see, the theory, that's more twisted. twistors and their offspring. 1:23:55 And I'm hoping that... You see, when I talked about... I talked to too many people today. Did I 1:24:02 talk to you about the product of three vectors? I did, didn't I? Yes. Yes. You see, you multiply... 1:24:08 In twistor theory, in bi-twistor theory, you have a product of three things gives you a fourth. And 1:24:15 this is useful if you want to talk about split space. But there's another thing which might be useful for. Those three... It's really the span of those three things. It's like a vector product. 1:24:25 It's not your... It's you lost the vectors. It's really the span of the two. It's the way you talk 1:24:31 about the plane. So with the three things, it's the way you talk about a three space. Now that's 1:24:37 awfully tempting to me to think that that might have something to do with strong interactions. 1:24:44 That it's the SU3. That's where the SU3 resides. See, in one of my conversations with Feynman, 1:24:51 they're all stories, and each one is a nice story. But I had a conversation with Feynman, which 1:24:57 Stephen Hawking had organized. And he was a bit grumpy because Stephen had disturbed his holiday. 1:25:05 But anyway, and I was trying to describe twistor theory to him. And then I was trying to describe how you might describe particle physics in it. And he said, don't follow that route. He said, 1:25:19 what I said about twistors, it's very interesting. Yes, keep that going. But don't try to follow that 1:25:24 particular route towards particle physics. That's wrong. That's not a fruitful route. And he was 1:25:31 completely right. That was wrong. It was much too early. So we tried to do particle physics with 1:25:38 twistors, putting a few of them together and all that. And I think that was wrong. I think he was 1:25:44 right. He was right that I was wrong. However, it doesn't mean that the thing with bi-twistor, 1:25:50 it's much more like what, it's more like SU3 because you really don't care where the 1:25:55 vectors are. It's the space. And it's a way of attributing another entity to it. I don't know 1:26:01 if I can say what I mean. It's a bit more like the other exact gauge theory there is in physics, which is electromagnetism. And you do have a thing like this in Biotwistor theory as well. 1:26:11 You have this thing which I call multiplying by I. I needed that as well. So it's another, it's a circle. So you have this circle and you have this three-dimensional space. The question is, 1:26:24 what do you want your legacy to be? Well, I say it's a twistor theory, you see. But CCC is quite 1:26:30 a good one for a legacy, I guess. Because it does change our picture of cosmology completely. 1:26:37 Do you believe it to be the case? Or do you just posit that as a possibility? Look, it's a completely different story. In this case, there is strong evidence that nobody pays any attention 1:26:48 to. But I say nobody, not quite anybody. About conformal cyclic cosmology? We see these signals. 1:26:55 I mean, there isn't a nice wrongness about them, too. Okay. But the wrongness is just a factor of 1:27:02 two. I mean, all these are anecdotes. As I say, I'm too old to do physics. I just do anecdotes. 1:27:09 No, I had Zoom, not Zoom. This was just email communication with Alan Guth about… Cosmology? 1:27:19 Yes. That's right. And he was telling me about… I'm giving him all the credit. He put our boots 1:27:27 on and followed exactly what we should do in our calculations. And he said, your calculation of how 1:27:34 big the Hawking points are, these are spots which we claim are there in the… They're observed with 1:27:41 strong observational 99.98% confidence level. Particle physicists tell me that's much too 1:27:47 small. You need much more confidence level than that. It's only about three sigma or something. I don't know what all that means, but that's what they tell me. But still, for cosmology, 1:27:57 that's a pretty confident level. And these spots are there. They're all the same size. They're all 1:28:07 about eight times the diameter of the full moon. Alan Guth tells me, you're wrong. They should be 1:28:14 four times the diameter. He doesn't tell me the diameter. He tells in terms of radians or 1:28:19 minutes of arc or something. I forget what that means. So I'm used to the full moon. I'm using my 1:28:25 low grade… They're only four times. He said they should be four times. So I email Christoph and I 1:28:30 say, look, Alan Guth tells me that we got the wrong size. They're not eight. They're only four times. Christoph tells me, no, that can't be right. I go and check. But sure, 1:28:39 he's just made a mistake. He comes back to me. He's right. They should only be four times. So 1:28:48 we have to do something with our theory. We have an idea what you should do. It doesn't change the 1:28:54 whole scheme. I mean, ordinary cosmology doesn't get them at all. Getting just a factor of two 1:28:59 wrong is mild. It's minimal. And they're seen both in WMAP and in Planck. I'm only counting the ones 1:29:07 which are strongest and which are the strongest ones, which are the same ones as seen both in 1:29:15 WMAP and Planck. There are five points. When I say points, there are these little spots in the sky, 1:29:21 five of them, which we see in exactly the same places in WMAP and in Planck. Confidence 1:29:27 level calculated by Christoph, because I don't know how to do that kind of thing, 99.98% confidence level. People contact me and say they don't believe us. Well, people say, no, 1:29:40 I've done the calculus all by a different way, and I only get 95% confidence level. Okay, well, 1:29:46 you could use your method if you like, but that's not interesting to me. You just outlined how you'd 1:29:52 like to be remembered in physics. And I'm curious how you'd like to be remembered as a person. As a 1:29:59 person? Not too much of an idiot, I hope. Well, look, there's a book coming out any minute. I'd 1:30:05 better read it first. And I'll see how it tells me how I might be remembered by people. I don't 1:30:11 know. Who's taking on the torch that you're passing? Who are the people? Yeah. And what is 1:30:21 that torch? Briefly speaking. Well, there's more than one of them, you see. There's one in twistor theory. I don't know who's carrying it on twistor theory, because it's gone. You see, if I'm talking 1:30:32 about twistor theory, there's three versions. No, the answer is there's pseudo-twistor theory and 1:30:39 twistor theory and pseudo-twistor theory. And then pseudo-twistor theory done by the mathematicians, 1:30:45 which is all positive definite space. The pseudo-twistor done by Ed Witten and company has 1:30:50 got two time dimensions and two space dimensions. Those are pseudo because the dimension is wrong. 1:30:57 Mine has got one time and three space. So I'm calling that the real twistor theory. Now, the 1:31:02 number of people doing real twistor theory is not very big. The ones who do pseudo-twistor theory is 1:31:07 quite huge, particularly the mathematics people. It's quite a big subject now. But it's not my 1:31:13 twistor theory because it's still pseudo-twistor theory. What's your advice to students who are 1:31:19 getting into the field of theoretical physics? And what are your views on academia as it stands now? 1:31:27 I think there's probably too much domination by things you do on computers. I'm not quite 1:31:34 sure what I mean there. I don't know. I mean, I don't really, I don't know most of what people 1:31:40 do in physics, and I can't really comment. So I can't be rude about it. It shouldn't be rude about things I don't know. I think it's difficult to shake. I've noticed that in cosmology. You see, 1:31:51 this is a scheme. I'm talking about CCC now, which is not taken seriously simply because it's too 1:31:59 outrageous. It is outrageous. So if somebody had mentioned it to me before I thought about it, I 1:32:04 might have thought it's not worth thinking about. I did even have a session with Stephen Hawking, me and Stephen and nobody else, and I described CCC to him. I don't know what he thought of it. He 1:32:15 came away without saying a word. Though he asked me one question which showed he didn't completely understand what I'd said. So I tried to get that straight. I don't think he believed a word of what 1:32:24 I said. What do I do? Well, it's outrageous. The theory is outrageous. I agree with that. Doesn't 1:32:31 mean it's wrong. There's evidence for it. Then it solves the problem of the specialness of the 1:32:37 Big Bang. Nothing else does that I've seen. Now just imagine you're speaking to students 1:32:43 and they want to know what advice do you have, sir? I think when people ask me that question, apart from being completely flummoxed, I say do what excites you. I mean, you have to concentrate. 1:32:55 In doing physics or research in general, you have to have your area which you concentrate on, 1:33:01 but you've also got to have a broader area. So it's a bit like a funnel like this. You go way down deep in the area you're interested in, but you should keep an interest in what's going on 1:33:11 all the time as well. So don't shut your eyes to what the rest of the world. Then you may see a connection which nobody else has spotted. Thank you, sir. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. 1:33:24 Also, thank you to our partner, The Economist. as it sounds like. Secondly, if you haven't Outro / Support TOE 1:34:00 subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, 1:34:06 each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself, plus it helps out Curt 1:34:12 directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, 1:34:18 which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc., it shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube, which in turn 1:34:30 greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, there's a remarkably active Discord and subreddit 1:34:35 for Theories of Everything where people explicate TOEs. They disagree respectfully about theories 1:34:40 and build as a community our own TOE. Links to both are in the description. Fourthly, you should 1:34:46 know this podcast is on iTunes. It's on Spotify. It's on all of the audio platforms. All you have 1:34:52 to do is type in Theories of Everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gain from re-watching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments that, hey, TOE listeners also gain from replaying. 1:35:02 So how about instead you re-listen on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use. And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like 1:35:12 this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com slash CURTJAIMUNGAL and 1:35:18 donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal. There's also crypto. There's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind it's support from the sponsors and you that allow 1:35:28 me to work on TOE full time. You also get early access to add free episodes, whether it's audio 1:35:34 or video. It's audio in the case of Patreon, video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more 1:35:43 than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much. Opportunities in a New Era o 10 replies @pandabearguy1 7 days ago Pretty crazy to be this sharp at 93 years old 442 Reply 37 replies @ElephantWhisperer222 7 days ago One of the last standing mainstream scientists who isn’t dogmatic to scientism and who isn’t afraid to say “I don’t know”. Pumped to listen to this! 343 Reply 39 replies @juaneliasmillasvera 7 days ago Penrose has the mental agility of a person half of his age and the wisdom of a wise men, this is impressive to watch. 95 Reply 4 replies @johnashton4086 4 days ago 40 years ago I was in Cambridge having lunch... My colleague was a PhD in Theoretical Physics and I asked him if he had met other geniuses. There was one at the table he were sitting at... I expected to hear Hawking but he demurred saying he was not in the category. He mentioned a name that was unknown to me ' Roger Penrose is genius' he said. He had worked with Rhys person. And Abdus Salaam... And also the person sitting at our table. He was right. 8 Reply @dandeeteeyem2170 3 days ago Today I found out that Roger Penrose has integrity, dropping truth bombs and setting the record straight while he still has the stage. I hope this inspires the next generation to forge a different path, and question past assumptions 14 Reply @bokchoiman 7 days ago There's something comforting in the way Roger communicates his ideas. A very humble man indeed. 6 Reply @je25ff 7 days ago (edited) I don't have the math to follow Penrose in most situations but, for whatever reason, I can visualize what he says. The Emperor's New Mind was such a great read when I was younger. Great interview, Curt. 97 Reply 6 replies @pookz3067 7 days ago I love Penrose’s aversion to feel like an old man telling anecdotes even though they’re fascinating. He wants to live in the present and continue talking current math and physics. As an older guy myself, I always shared this discomfort about slipping into one of my stories when I met people because it kind of always felt like a crutch to me where I didn’t have any interesting new ideas to talk about… :(😢 64 Reply 11 replies @Goat-e3g 7 days ago (edited) Once I had an opportunity to talk with Roger and Micheal berry was also there. Many in public community and Physicists think Roger's idea (0:34) on intercession of Equivalence principle and Quantam superposition are dump. But Michael berry mentioned it as a profound and important thing others forget. Roger is 93. But still this age haven't affected him intellectualy. Hope he stays with us forever ❤❤ 52 Reply 2 replies @Ian_Paq 7 days ago He is a window on the universe… From cone of light to tensors and consciousness… A delight… 2 Reply @lastchance8142 6 days ago It just blows my mind that we are so privileged to be alive and in the presence of an historical figure, a genius of the highest caliber who will be discussed for an hundred years to come! 8 Reply @brandonb5075 7 days ago Awesome discussion, thank you both! Sir Penrose’s greatest gift is his ability to NOT remember arbitrary terms…I can relate. His ability to communicate complex ideas in relatable terms/examples is under appreciated imo. Have a great weekend All!✌🏼🤙🏼😊 29 Reply @plasma6996 6 days ago The best interview of Roger Penrose I have watched - so very clear and historically absorbing. 8 Reply @bencarignan2711 6 days ago Roger has such a great mind. He's amazingly humble considering how brilliant he is. Love him for it. 15 Reply @rishabhprasad5417 7 days ago (edited) The man the myth the immortal Roger Penrose🙏🏻.... looking forward to savour this podcast 37 Reply @NomenNescio99 7 days ago This was the video that tipped me over to become a paying member. This is so awesome. 85 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 7 replies @Dean-to7bk 7 days ago No idea what Roger is saying, don’t care. Love this guy. 46 Reply @CunningLinguistics 4 days ago What an absolute honor, Penrose is amazing 2 Reply @sonlyme4445 4 days ago What a pleasure to spend an hour and a half in company with a mind like Roger's. Thank you Curt. 7 Reply @kagannasuhbeyoglu 2 days ago Congratulations and thank you very much for the most successful Roger Penrose interview I have ever watched on YouTube. As far as I understand, breaking taboos in physics is much harder than splitting the atom!! Penrose openly states that he does not believe in some of the mainstream theories and hypotheses that have been told to us for years. He presents his own arguments. He is still working and thinking tirelessly. Respect to the great master. 🙏🏻🙏🏻 CCC, Twistor, Orch OR are all hypotheses open to development. And they may turn into generally accepted theories in the coming years... Thank you so much Curt Jaimungal. 2 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @OblateBede 6 days ago Subscribed. This is a great interview. I met him once. I doubt that he would remember. It was a very small meeting with some physicists and grad students. We were told to keep his presence at the university a secret in order to avoid a huge crowd of people showing up. 😅 As you can see from the interview, he is very good at giving a pedestrian description of rather complicated ideas. This is an incredibly valuable skill, especially to people, such as myself, who are not up on the fine details of twistor theory. 5 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @TheEarlVix 7 days ago Thank you Curt for recording this epochal blip in all of time with Sir Roger Penrose. I'm sure future generations will watch this with delight! 9 Reply 1 reply @mathiasmas 2 days ago Even for an amateur like me, interested in the topic from a philosophical standpoint, it's remarkable that the simple reassurance Penrose gets in the beginning from Curt to not shy away from being technical makes way for a surprisingly comprehensible conversation. Indeed, most of the technical stuff I don't understand but when he arrives at topics that are somewhat familiar to me, his views of what he thinks is fundamental are very fruitful. Good work! 3 Reply @theophrastusvonhoenheim4022 7 days ago (edited) You should get "It's okay to be technical on this podcast" on a T-shirt with how many times you've had to say that these past few months. 83 Reply 2 replies @alhassani626 4 days ago To interview Both Chomsky and Roger Penrose. Glad to be one of the earliest subs. 3 Reply @slother93 6 days ago Sir Roger Penrose is a global treasure. 3 Reply @photographyandthecreativeyou 7 days ago I don't know if I understand 10% of what Roger Penrose says but I always like listening to him. Thanks Curt! 8 Reply 1 reply @lennysinner15 6 days ago Curt: "You can feel free to be technical on this podcast" Penrose: Hold my beer! n++ TOE episode for the Re-Re-Listen category 🥳 Well done Curt 🙌👏 Roger Penrose is a blindingly brilliant gemstone of humanity and represents all the qualities a Master Theologian/Physicist/Scientist should have: Adogmatic, collaborative and truth above ego/correctness! I'm conflicted between wishing he would focus the remaining, hopefully decades, of his still razor sharp cognition either; A) Getting full funding for a mass-collaborative, Penrose owned, effort to finalize/refine his TOE (including the consciousness tubulars aspect) B) Doing back-to-back-to-back long form podcasts/panel discussions explaining his views on div. theories, both foreign and his own. What prompted them, how and why they have evolved and the real life circumstances/historical events that may have influenced these. Such an inspiring and enlightening way to convey knowledge! One can follow along and semi-visualize his explanations, despite lacking many of the theoretical concepts mentioned. At the same time it supplies a "shopping list" of concepts to learn or brush up on before the next Re-listen Absolute treasure! 3 Reply 1 reply @adamalex7402 7 days ago (edited) And probably one of the smartest humans so far 60 Reply 5 replies @ShaifBasier 6 days ago This dialogue is a true treasure trove. 4 Reply @benedictmartin9708 7 days ago You did it man. You finally landed the big one. So happy for you. 2 Reply @Murlur 7 days ago Amazing, thank you Curt! Looking forward to listning to this. Sir Penrose 93 is years old, and still the most inspiring scientist alive for many in younger generations. 6 Reply 1 reply @MrEiht 7 days ago He is SOO funny. He has such an amazing humor. 33 Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago You are definitely on the right path here. It’s good to see that the theory from 1963 is finally seeing the light. Thank you so much Roger Penrose for your contribution to the entire world of mathematics and higher level thinking. You are truly one of the greats. 1 Reply @StoccTube 3 days ago I understand 0% of this, but I love listening. I’m hoping something is going in. Always feels like a privilege to live in a time where I can just listen in free to the great minds of our time. 4 Reply 1 reply @luigicantoviani323 7 days ago Penrose is Indeed the greatest theoretical physicist alive. A true marvel of nature. 21 Reply 5 replies @kdalkafoukis 6 days ago Congrats man. I’m really happy you managed to talk to penrose 4 Reply @Steve_V1066 5 days ago "I can't explain it without being a little technical" What an adorable little understatement. 2 Reply @mattkinard3702 7 days ago Yooooo so excited to watch this 47 Reply @ferrinheight 3 days ago Gravitational Fields and the Wave Function was mind bending. Needless to say so was the rest of this conversation. We are lucky to be alive to be listening to such a brilliant person! 1 Reply @Billybo121 6 days ago I listened to a bunch of podcasts with Roger Penrose in the last 6-7 years, and I honestly think he was somehow the most relaxed and himself in this one, which is a sign that either he ran out of fucks to give, or he likes you Curt =) Great pod - I laughed when he admitted at his age he doesnt do physics, he does anecdotes. This man has forgotten 100x more than any of us will ever learn in our lifetimes, and I think at this point he is left with grand ideas in his head rather than exact formulations of things. Loved this episode, especially the second half! Thanks Curt 5 Reply 1 reply @rsc4peace971 7 days ago I have followed Penrose since I finished my PhD in chemistry and material science bak in the 80ties. It is fascinating how he is forthright and explains why his ideas are better and humble enough to say what he does not know or is wrong. He belongs to the great minds of our time, and I hope his CCC theory is proven right 1 Reply @Jacob-Vivimord 6 days ago CCC is brilliant. I hope the physics community delves into it appropriately. 2 Reply @ShiftyGeeza 7 days ago I could listen to Sir Roger Penrose talk all day. Literally. As a someone who isn't a mathematician, physicist or cosmologist and pretty much just a fascinated village idiot on this subject, I've always found him somehow accessible and easy to understand and his explanations to be intuitive and logical. They just often seem to "click" with me. Not that I fully enderstand everything Sir Penrose talks about. Far from it. Also Sir Penroses' willingness to say "I don't know" when he doesn't know something just makes me respect him even more. String theory was always utter gobbledygook to me and the conventional view of the Big Bang being considered the beginning of "everything" has always troubled me especially with respect to how everything in the universe arose from nothing. Increasingly the explanations given by most experts ends up relying on a complete speculative redefinition of "nothing" to fit the Big Bang which I find intellectually lazy. Similarly the other cheat code used is the concept of "well since even time didnt exist before the Big Bang there was no such thing as a before the Big Bang". The total lack of time would suggest a static state which would remain in the same state forever. Without time how would a state of absolute nothingness even move to the Big Bang? The biggest problem I have with traditional physicists is their reluctance to consider an infinite universe. It's like they have an almost pathalogical fear of infinty. I don't see how the universe can be anything other than infinite in one form of another no matter how difficult it may be to wrap our heads around it. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our limited understanding. When I first heard Roger Penrose discuss his CCC theory with each cyclical universe described as an Eon it just felt far more logical than anything I'd heard before. Like any other pre-Big Bang model I'm certain these models and theories will never definitively be proven but for me Sir penrose's CCC model sits better than anything I've heard since watching Carl Sagan back in the days of Cosmos. I'd love to have heard his opinion on it. 1 Reply @tonywestbrook9876 7 days ago Great job. He was agile and comfortable in conversation with you. Tomorrow is my birthday. I consider this interview a nice prebirthday surprise. 🥳🎉 6 Reply @BoRisMc 6 days ago Congrats Curt this is an amazing thing you’ve managed here. More than well deserved success. Thanks 🙏🏻 3 Reply @perhammer-t3y 6 days ago (edited) amazing talk with Penrose. Curt Jaimungal is a brilliant interviewer! 4 Reply @InsideGreatness-gh8wc 5 days ago As soon as you said it's okay to be technical, he started straight spittin for 80+ minutes. awesome talk 1 Reply @hubrisnxs2013 8 days ago This is greatly appreciated. Glad I'm a member 29 Reply @OfTheVoid 6 days ago I love Penrose. I wish more people knew of him and gave him the listening time he deserves and earned 2 Reply @indogyrsimdead 7 days ago Sir Roger Primrose has a fascinating mind He blends logic and insight To imagine wondrous theories of the cosmos And be able to articulate them back to the starving minds of a lost generation of thinkers We need more minds like his in physics 8 Reply 2 replies @edgaraguilarcamacho6708 5 days ago Nos hacia falta una entrevista como esta, en la que podamos conocer a Roger, y no solo su ciencia. 3 Reply @PrathameshJakka 7 days ago Ever since I saw your post with Sir Roger Penrose, I was excited for his interview with you. 12 Reply @neilrichardson7454 19 hours ago A living legend. 😊😊 2 Reply @MEZBAHN 7 days ago This video will be played times n times again to understand where we are in the main stream research to find a theory of everything, TOE. Really greatful to you for bringing this video, you are also leaving your legacy for letting Sir Roger Penrose speak the hard physics on your podcast. It is highly useful in many ways. Thank You, Curt.❤❤❤ 5 Reply @reggiedixon2 4 days ago Has there ever been someone else so intellectually brilliant in their 90s? 1 Reply @ShaifBasier 6 days ago Thank you Curt, for you decency, openness and respect for the required scientific rigor and willingness to make deeply technical interview videos. It is so refreshing and really what we needed as modern evolved humans living in more evolved times. Please continue and do let us know if you require any assistance in your endeavor. We are all getting lifted by your work and helped to build further. 6 Reply @josejrtuti 6 days ago Superb interview. So nice to watch him explaining his concepts in technical terms. Thanks for producing and sharing it. 3 Reply @slavinicus 7 days ago THIS IS THE BIG ONE! 12 Reply @eliaperli2485 7 days ago Gosh I am so pleased by this conversation. Thank you very much 1 Reply @BreeeYT 6 days ago Roger is the man!! My logical and intuitive sense say he is on the right path 4 Reply @zathrasyes1287 6 days ago Sir Roger Penrose is one of the most brilliant thinkers of mankind. It's such a great pleasure to listen to him. He is so clear and visionary at the same time. 1 Reply 1 reply @everton1869 6 days ago I love Rodger. As a biologist a lot of this is way outside of my understanding but I find Rodgers theories fascinating. Thanks Kurt 5 Reply 1 reply @81Treez 6 days ago What kind of monster would give this video a downvote? Thank you for this...He is an absolute legend. Reply @karlsanders6552 7 days ago I'm a simple man. I hear mr.Penrose, I listen and absorb. And yes inflation is a model that will expire. I believe the knowledge is all there, yet academic acceptance is not 39 Reply 2 replies @beardmonster8051 6 days ago What I like best about Roger Penrose is how he just goes with his ideas even when they clash with established views. Even if he happens to be wrong on his most controversial ideas, I think people with the guts to make outrageous claims are absolutely necessary for reaching new foundational understanding about the universe. We need some people willing to work within established paradigms too, of course, but I don't think there's a shortage of those. Reply @Mikeduffey_ 7 days ago The biggest legend there is!!! And he’s sitting next to Sir Roger Penrose. Jk Penrose is top tier 16 Reply @miltoncaramcaram3630 3 days ago I adore this man. I could watch him talking eternally. Reply @petebop 7 days ago Wow. New to your channel and was, quite literally, just searching through your backlog, hoping you had a chance to pick more from Penrose's impressive grey matter. Wonderful timing. 42 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 5 replies @nayanendumisra6764 1 day ago I am not a Scientist but what I like about the speaker is his English pronunciation and his clarity. I salute Roger Penrose. ❤❤🎉🎉😂 Reply @TheLivirus 7 days ago (edited) Penrose believes he has terrible memory. Neil Turok implied that this is a common trait among physicists. I wonder if poor memory can be a feature, because it encourages the mind to compress information using simplifying rules: patterns, abstraction, generalization, analogy, models, etc. 32 Reply 19 replies @las97531 7 days ago It's interesting to hear Sir Roger Penrose making reflections about his early life. 2 Reply @the.trollgubbe2642 7 days ago Wow, fantastic talk. 12 Reply @ovidiulupu5575 6 days ago You dialog with sir Roger îs gold, pure gold. 2 Reply @deanchadwick7443 7 days ago What a great man Sir Roger Penrose, brilliant thinker and alongside Stephen Hawking my two favourite human beings. 1 Reply @nogo4u 7 days ago Great interview! A living legend! 2 Reply @fredmuellerphotographer4532 2 days ago There is a great humanity about this man ... would that the gods could give this man another 10 years so he could come to conclusion about his insights. Curt - you lucky fellow - the in person format is just so special, and your guiding questions; brilliant and effective. Reply @quantumbitz3473 6 days ago Every now and again very special people are born. God is good. 5 Reply 3 replies @MirzabekBotirov-gu4qs 2 days ago I dont have capability to understand professor but it is good that he has a new idea 1 Reply 1 reply @rudypieplenbosch6752 7 days ago One of the greatest , thanks for the upload. 10 Reply @folgsam 6 days ago you have come a long way, brother. 2 Reply @fisheromen18 6 days ago just a pro tip: do not have your laptop flipped up in between you and Penrose. have it off to the side with nothing in between you two 6 Reply 2 replies @PetraKann 6 days ago (edited) Roger Penrose is amazingly sharp as a tac. The first book that I saw in a Book store many years ago that I thought there is no way that I can read this: "The road to reality". A massive telephone book text book. Roger clearly put his views on paper in this book and he really didnt appear to care who read it or who could read it. All 1136 pages😁 1 Reply @ravenecho2410 7 days ago I could not believe this was the penrose in my books i had to google, its like if ur next talk was with gauss 6 Reply @agentk4257 7 days ago Must’ve been so amazing to interview him in person. I love his theories in relation to time and black hole locations. 1 Reply @Advaitamanta 7 days ago Oh man. This one gonna be fun 22 Reply @parva777 6 days ago A small suggestion: When conducting an interview, avoid placing an open laptop between yourself and the person you're speaking with. The screen can create a physical and psychological barrier, disrupting the flow of communication and making the interaction feel less personal. If you need to use a laptop, consider positioning it to the side or slightly out of direct view. This simple adjustment can make the conversation feel more open and respectful, allowing for better engagement and connection with your interviewee. It's a subtle but important way to show attentiveness and foster a more comfortable atmosphere. Reply @nunomaroco583 7 days ago Amazing talk, Penrose one of the best, super intelligent in is subject,i really appreciate CCC. 9 Reply @Ai-he1dp 6 days ago That was quite a Twister. Imagination is the key to all understanding. 1 Reply @crouisk 7 days ago Roger is the man 4 Reply @suryavaliveti8355 5 days ago Hitting like before watching the video. Only for Sir Roger 2 Reply @dunt00 7 days ago What a treat 10 Reply @Boulos-cb2un 6 days ago Hail Sir Roger Penrose 2 Reply @jimwolfgang9433 7 days ago Iconic chat! Wonderful to hear two wonferful conveyours of ideas. Thank you 😅 3 Reply @Welcometotheshow 7 days ago We gravitate towards knowledge 2 Reply @zemm9003 7 days ago This is gonna be awesome. 4 Reply @juggy-ik7qy 7 days ago (edited) Penrose is to me in physics what Stan Lee was to me in comics. I'll shed tears when he passes. 1 Reply @jasonshapiro9469 7 days ago You made it to the top, good work 3 Reply @Havre_Chithra 6 days ago (edited) I was in university and had no idea of Penrose... I had a similar line of reasoning with microtubules and quantum mechanics. The brain is a complex reflection of the entire universe. Each neuron is like a tiny galaxy with a black hole/wormhole (microtuble) at the centre which (using quantum mechanics) transports that information instantly to another glaxay across space, like a ripple. This was sophmore year and my biological foundations of psychology professor just looked at me and said we don't entertain those kids of inquiries. Reply @andresandinach2614 7 days ago 1:08:24 the sound FX ❤ 4 Reply 1 reply @akumar7366 2 days ago As always Sir Roger Penrose is brilliant. 1 Reply @Time-Shepherd. 7 days ago Great episode, Kurt ❤️‍🔥 3 Reply @nerd500011 6 days ago I needed to pause and open 5 tabs every 5 mins to even try to understand what was going on for the first 30 mins. But I think I learned one thing. 1 Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago Wholesome guy, creative and fun mathemacian, and has the right basic ideas i think. My preference for how a cyclic model comes about is a bit different but the basic picture is the same. Not entirely sure whether twistors vs normal qft is a shift in representation space, or not, but its all nice anyway. 6 Reply @jaazielgarcia3938 6 days ago One of my heroes 🌌 1 Reply @curtishorn1267 7 days ago This is the way. We also have an experiment showing where the low energy linear domain of QM ends. 4 Reply 1 reply @dfas1497tcf3 4 days ago Professor Penrose's theory on quantum consciousness is a fascinating perspective that challenges conventional thinking. Although it has not been scientifically proven, his willingness to explore non-traditional paths in physics and seek new possibilities is truly admirable. His insights may very well inspire future scientific breakthroughs. After all, science is constantly evolving. Thank you for sharing such a thought-provoking video! 1 Reply 1 reply @daviddikeman7423 7 days ago Excellent Curt! Thank you! 8 Reply @Hotsource 7 days ago (edited) Would love to hear Edward Frenkel and Roger Penrose have a discussion - that would be something, especially to hear them talk about SU(3) 1 Reply @GardenLives 7 days ago Suppose I have an identical twin who gets into a rocket ship and travels at 99% the speed of light for 10 years. Given that we were born just minutes apart and share the same genetics, how come he's an astronaut and I'm such a failure? 15 Reply 3 replies @bishalbanjara2891 2 days ago The man I believe over the range of Feynman! The top most scientific criticizer all over this century. Hats off! Reply @matteogirelli1023 7 days ago Finally! 10 Reply @zardracing 6 days ago Always impressed by the quality of the guests and your interviewing 1 Reply @user-bv1qy9ck2k 7 days ago Standar cosmological model + "kerr to Schwarzschild to white transition during the thermal death" = CCC 4 Reply @sat25940 6 days ago Great podcast, as evidenced by Penrose talking about things he doesn't ordinarily discuss in interviews. As an aside, The Road to Reality IMO is the greatest book of the 21st century - it certainly lives up to its title. 1 Reply @harrybarrow6222 7 days ago Penrose wrote a book in 1989, “The Emperor’s New Mind”, because he believed that AI was impossible. In the book, he even showed a “proof” of impossibly, using Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. But his “proof” was flawed for many reasons. One reason is that in AI, we are NOT relying on mathematical logic all the time. For example, in computer vision, speech understanding, and neural networks, we use numerical computations, not logic. We also perform Bayesian probabilistic reasoning rather than logical reasoning. Another reason is that Penrose seemed to have not understood Gödel’s theorem properly. The theorem applies to any system of mathematical logic, including the whole of mathematics itself! If you believe that the theorem applies to AI, you must accept it applies more generally to mathematics. But not to worry. We just carry on and can still derive many useful mathematical results. The theorem really says there are some (peculiar) things that you can state, which are true, but you cannot prove true; you can do an infinite amount of reasoning and not reach the conclusion you seek. But we are used to things in maths that can be stated but for which we do not (yet?) have a proof. It took centuries to find a proof for Fermat’s last theorem. Oh well…. Penrose has also made a weird conjecture that quantum mechanics, consciousness, and the cytoskeleton of cells are somehow related. He took three things we do not fully understand, packaged them together, and claimed they are linked. 3 Reply @XRP747E 4 days ago (edited) Extraordinarily interesting. Sir Roger's humility in light of his own prowess is interesting when comparing its absence in certain pockets of the scientific community. For me, this is a priceless asset in any human endeavour. Reply @ronrice1931 7 days ago The cult of Roger Penrose is alive and well and living on YouTube. 3 Reply @akirasthecat 6 days ago (edited) WOW!!! And I like the way he laughs... 2 Reply @randomchannel-px6ho 7 days ago (edited) Alright if you can get Penrose you can get Witten, what a channel! One of the reasons pretty much everyone believes our current model of QCD is incomplete is it does not predict regge phenoma, which if we are to presume that doesn't exist it would mean our entire mathematical understanding of scattering amplitudes is wrong, which wouldn't make any sense. That observation, called the Veneziano amplitude, was original made upon a four tachyon amplitude in bosonic string theory. I think we need to revisit the concept as there's been many stubbornly ignored arguments made over the years that the physicality of such fields would not in fact violate casuality or relativity. Specifically the tachyon doesn't actually cause faster than light phenoma but rather destabilizes branes. Ashoke Sen has made the bold proposal the tachyon field may be related to time itself. If you think about it, I think that fits the picture of holography that's emerged in recent decades, and fits penroses CCC model. To me I think the most exciting ideas to consider to seek a breakthrough in physics are really more from the 60s 70s and 80s than the last 30 years (besides huge advancements in mathematics), there's so much that gets overlooked where our modern consensuses were really arrived at much more conteniously than is often presented 6 Reply 4 replies @solimanherrera 3 days ago Sir Roger Penrose is the GOAT!!! So freakin funny, unworldly intelligent, and spell binding way of mixing anecdotes and theory, makes me want this interview to never end. 👏❤ Reply @feynmanschwingere_mc2270 7 days ago Brilliant mind 👑 5 Reply @NatureShortsShow 7 days ago (edited) At the start of the video, I am hoping you get Penrose right. He is my favorite scientist of this age Edit: He was allowed to talk. Nice.. you have a new subscriber Reply @piscator_M1-17 7 days ago I think this Laureate has another novel price to receive before he is no longer with us 4 Reply @user-cg3tx8zv1h 7 days ago (edited) Such a brilliantly beautiful mind. I can't help but wish he weren't so much rooted in materialism....He beautifully explains things visually and then he embellishes them with great stories. For a hack like me, this is a feast. I can only imagine how amazing it must be for physics students and beyond. And I won't even comment on Curt and his role in all this... Reply @Axiomatic75 7 days ago I have long felt that something is fundamentally wrong with quantum theory. Good to see I've got such prominent backing. 8 Reply 3 replies @jacksourlis4151 3 days ago It was a privilege to watch this podcast. Awesome I would love to hear what Sir Roger would say in respect to the topics in this podcast if asked…. What implications or insights do you see from an idea of a state of universal entanglement brought upon by a Universal Wavefunction collapse? (Also on wave particle) 2 Reply @monkeyjshow 7 days ago Yes, please be technical. I will catch up where I need to. If I can do it, so can anyone 17 Reply @bjornbecker1816 7 days ago For me as an ordinary human, it took rather seconds than minutes to fry my brain. Then i Had the freedom to listen Peacefullly for the rest of the Interview. 1 Reply @jimwolfgang9433 7 days ago Can I politely, humbly suggest that the back of an open laptop screen could be ever so slightly, even subconsciously, off-putting. 17 Reply 2 replies @versionoriginal 5 days ago Please, Netflix, a film about the life of Sir Roger Penrose!!! Reply @SetemkiaFawn 7 days ago (edited) My personal belief is that all this discussion of collapsing the wave function is a failure to understand what it means to observe or measure something. To measure something we have to interact with it. Either we receive and record radiation from that and as radiation is spewed outward and we receive it and it's losing momentum and if it's not radiant then we have to send in a particle like a photon to interact with the quantum cloud and it causes a change. You cannot get a measurement without causing a change. That is what is resulting in what we call the collapse. 4 Reply 5 replies @rosskirkwood8411 6 days ago Helicity in physics is a property related to the spin and momentum of a particle. Here's a detailed description: 1. Definition: Helicity is defined as the projection of a particle's spin along its direction of momentum. Mathematically, it can be expressed as: [ h = \frac{\mathbf{S} \cdot \mathbf{p}}{|\mathbf{p}|} ] where: - (\mathbf{S}) is the spin vector of the particle. - (\mathbf{p}) is the momentum vector of the particle. 2. Values: Helicity can take on the values: - (+1) for right-handed particles (spin aligned with momentum). - (-1) for left-handed particles (spin opposite to momentum). - (0) for particles with no spin or when the spin is perpendicular to the momentum direction. 3. Conservation: In massless particles like photons or neutrinos (in the standard model where they are considered massless for simplicity), helicity is conserved. This is because for massless particles, the spin is always either parallel or antiparallel to the direction of motion, and there's no frame where this changes. 4. Distinction from Chirality: While helicity deals with the spin direction relative to momentum, chirality is related to the transformation properties under parity inversion. For massless particles, helicity and chirality coincide, but for massive particles, this isn't always the case. Chirality does not change with Lorentz boosts, whereas helicity can change for massive particles when viewed from different inertial frames. 5. Applications: - Particle Physics: Helicity is crucial in understanding interactions involving weak nuclear forces where only left-handed particles (and right-handed anti-particles) participate. - Quantum Field Theory: In QFT, helicity states are often used because they simplify calculations, especially in high-energy physics where particles can be treated as massless. 6. Physical Significance: The concept of helicity helps in classifying particles and understanding their behavior in collisions and decay processes. For instance, in high-energy physics, knowing the helicity of particles involved can predict interaction outcomes more accurately. 7. Example: Neutrinos, if considered massless, are always left-handed (or right-handed antineutrinos). This property has significant implications in neutrino oscillations and interactions. Helicity provides a deeper insight into the intrinsic properties of particles, particularly in how they interact or are detected, making it a fundamental concept in both theoretical and experimental physics. Reply @zelfjizef454 6 days ago (edited) My studies were in engineering so I'm familiar with math and physics, to some extent,. but I could only pick up one sentence here and there that I was able to understand in all this. Makes me wonder what the audience of this channel is made of. 400k subscribers and counting for something as technical as this seems strange to me. Perhaps it's people who admire physics from a distance, like a beautiful painting, and don't try to understand any of the details ? Or is it mainly physicists, actually ? I wonder. 3 Reply 4 replies @szilardoberritter4135 1 day ago man! Been following you from early on, and it’s great to see how far this podcast made it! Congrats and never stop! 1 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @Doozy_Titter 7 days ago Oh shit 11 Reply @Chesterton7 6 days ago Brilliant interview. 2 Reply @BLSFL_HAZE 6 days ago My respect for Mr Penrose is immeasurable, but I'm afraid I can't make heads or tails of what Twister Theory is supposed to imply about nature (my own failing, NOT his). Can anyone try to sum up the implications in extreme layman's terms for me? 3 Reply 1 reply @Dinofood117 6 days ago (edited) Another incredible video, you got skills best editing best interviewing skills.. been hear for years 1 Reply @Killer_Kovacs 7 days ago Can dual twistors be used to describe the duality of electromagnetism? 3 Reply 1 reply @BlueGiant69202 4 days ago It's a good interview. I would love to see a categorized, question-based indexing of it that allows one to get an idea of what is in it but doesn't spill the beans as to answers given. It would basically be a nonlinear pre-formed, simulated text chat. The transcript can be queried with chatGPT but not everyone is good at thinking up a good question and this way the text of the question can be seen rather than just an empty text chat input box. The provided timestamps are one step closer. I don't know how to solve the ad and time-watched problems except perhaps with a premium version of the video. Eventually, I would like to ask several of Curt's guests the same question and get multiple video clips back as a response. I would like to see Curt's entire YouTube channel and videos indexed in this way so that the gist of the content of a video is clear but the actual content is not revealed. It could even be done the old-school hard sell way with a question followed by the timestamp or next to the timestamp rather than a book page number. Regarding QM and GTR, I was very much reminded of Dr. Mendel Sach's views expressed in his books and papers such as "Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity". I was also reminded very much of the work of Dr. David Hestenes. 1 Reply @SONALI-w2s 7 days ago Interesting!! 4 Reply @bitsmart... 1 day ago I don't get much of what Roger is talking about, but i like this guy and his way of telling the whole story, he just makes it interesting listen to him Reply @rotatingmind 6 days ago I wonder what is Roger's diet, that his mind can be that sharp at that age. 3 Reply 2 replies @llhpark 7 days ago As a boy of 7 or 8, one summer evening, skipping stones at my nearby pond, I heard a splash off to my left, I looked but it were too late to ascertain, and I was the only one there to ask. My right hand readied, my arm at which point warmed, flung the stone and its first skip honed at an angle showned , which spoke of promise of which seemed unrivalled, by that point yet. As it rose up from the surface, no exaggerated height, the oddest thing, most unexpected, would overtake its flight. Beneath the surface, but rising up, perhaps at the same angle as the stone did take, cresting surface, before it knew what hit it, sank the headless snake. The simulation is not half assed. I've come to accept the one way glass, though I shudder the thought, how lonely it ought, were it just the quantum I, who was watching. Reply @charlesbrightman4237 7 days ago The one singular ultimate answer to ALL questions in existence, including questions never even asked is: "It Does Not Ultimately Matter", or in today's vernacular "IDNUM". (OSICA) 5 Reply 4 replies @CarlosManAl 6 days ago Thank youy very very much. Penrose!!! 2 Reply @davidjones3226 5 days ago (edited) Yeah you get the sense that NO ONE really understands what is going on. I wonder if endlessly playing with funky math is the answer. 3 Reply 1 reply @boazsaraf 6 days ago Thank you Curt❤ 2 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @charlesbrightman4237 7 days ago LIFE ITSELF: It just was what it was while it was. It just is what it is while it is. It just will be what it will be when it will be. And one day, all of life itself will be no more, at least on and from this Earth. It does not even ultimately matter that life itself even actually existed in the first place, much less however it existed while it existed. One day, there will be no more life left to care. * Or so the current analysis indicates, subject to revision as new pertinent information might dictate. 6 Reply 3 replies @barrypickford1443 7 days ago I love how math extends into another space and visualises something out here in reality. Like the origin of quadratics- a video by Veritasium got me onto that thread. Reply @Trailerpark-sodapop 7 days ago Katie let DAMION see his baby 4 Reply @janschneider8647 5 days ago (edited) It is incredible how one of the most intelligent human minds ever created answered: "not too much of an idiot, I hope" when asked how he would like to be remembered. Reply @plugplagiate1564 6 days ago quantum mechanics is not einstein, it is planck. and what is wrong with statistics? nothing, it's mathematics. the interpretation of the results is wrong, mr penrose. 3 Reply 1 reply @woodycat4 6 days ago Roger Penrose is authentic. He is the real deal. A super intellect. This is unlike all those pretentious people who frequent the podcast world. He is also an artist. To me he appears to be more impressive than even Einstein. He would have discovered relativity if he was born before Albert I’m sure. Reply 1 reply @tortysoft 7 days ago (edited) I am 40 minutes in so far. I have not understood a word yet, but I'll keep going for some reason. .... Later- I grasped stuff once he stopped talking math ! So irritating he didn't dig in to the consciousness area more fully, nor CCC ! Twisters are a closed book to me. Help, what a brain - too old to do physics, just anecdotes now - Ha! 9 Reply 1 reply @vickiecarnes8372 6 days ago Really admire sir Roger he’s a great scientist 1 Reply @peterchindove7146 6 days ago I wonder what physics one would get from interpreting complex spacetime as the world we live in? How does one decide which degrees of freedom are complex? Or what basis is a complex basis? Apart from calculational value, as in String theory, at what point does an observer see/measure a complex quantity in space or time or spacetime? With what device does one measure the imaginary component? Is the imaginary component a real, physical field? 1 Reply @joshuam4993 6 days ago How bout this. Both Einstein AND quantum mechanics is "wrong." 4 Reply 2 replies @jimjarmusch4652 6 days ago Just posting again that I really dig this cyclic universe and Penrose doesnt get enough credit every time 1 Reply @guycomments 7 days ago First 3 Reply @Onzinintoneindige 6 days ago Verry good you did this interview. Thank you 2 Reply @irinalitvinova7823 7 days ago (edited) Not, Penrose, of course, a genius, but his attempts to find confirmation of his cosmology in the CMB failed miserably. + quantum mechanics together with general relativity, (where Penrose's maximum achievements - that is, in the model of the general theory of relationality) are the two most advanced and most confirmed high-precision mathematical models for describing the universe or the universe whether it is singular, plural or oscillating, as in Penrose's. All this interview with a mysterious title is quite vicious. His great diagrams mainly play a role in the problems of causality role. The rest, unfortunately, is just fantasy. 3 Reply @maynardtrendle820 5 days ago This is absolutely amazing. 1 Reply @Jamex07 7 days ago Quantum mechanics IS wrong. Mass is defined wrong and that's why Yang Mills theory doesn't correctly predict the masses of S(U) 3 unitary particles. But Penrose also isn't qualified to be talking about consciousness. 3 Reply 6 replies @danielackles4265 5 days ago This is so sick... If I met this man I think I would cry and hug him. Thank you Sir Roger Penrose for being a truth seeker. glasses-purple-yellow-diamond 1 Reply @FrancisFjordCupola 6 days ago 27:40 or so in, "I was going to ask about Grothendieck soon..." "Don't." I just love how that went. Especially because that comes on the back off the grimaces involving all the extra dimensions. I love how energized and essentially human Penrose is there. I also keep objecting to the whole notion of consciousness. The wave function is a human description of human knowledge of a certain state of the system. Once you do "measurement" you bring in more than the original described. Imagine the measurement being taken on a photo-sensitive sensor. Are all the quantum parts of the sensor described in the wave function before the measurement? No. Then of course the wave function collapses because things are brought in of relavance that were not there before thus the outcomes cannot be anything but different. Also, my pancakes object to the notion of "as flat as a pancake". They have substance and depth to them. Reply @fattyz1 19 hours ago One of my phavorite physicists 1 Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago Hopefully I won't have to think about how to remember him for quite some time :). Thank you for the show, always a pleasure to listen in. 1 Reply @aniksamiurrahman6365 7 days ago (edited) I wish, someday, I get to see this legend in Person 😊 1 Reply @JJEMTT 5 days ago I'll be needing a 10 hour translation of this video, thanks. Reply @ximono 6 days ago (edited) I'm here for the anecdotes. I'm not able to grasp all the physics, but I do enjoy listening to Sir Penrose talking about about how he came up with his theories. 1:13:23 I'm a beekeeper, and to me it seems that bees have consciousness. Not to mention an amazing hive mind made up of those little consciousnesses, but each individual bee has the hallmarks of consciousness. More basic than ours, of course, but consciousness nonetheless. The football story is true. However, the bumblebees were trained to play football by researchers, they don't play five-a-side in their free time. The award for scoring a goal was syrup, so in a sense they were still hunting for nectar. What's more interesting is that some bumblebees on the sidelines began to play around with the balls without having been trained. The researchers carried out a different experiment and found that younger bees engaged more in spontaneous play than older bees, and males more than females, just as in humans and other animals. Amazing little creatures! Reply @m1b175 6 days ago I don't understand hardly any of this, but I like to listen to smart people talk. On the side, I googled looking for the center of the universe, and apparently, there is not a center. If there was a big bang, you'd think there'd be an originating point. 1 Reply @Wesinhuman 6 hours ago What a radiant beautiful soul... I love you all. 1 Reply @4ndrebass0 2 days ago (edited) i've watched so many of your videos Curt! this is one of the best.. Sharp minds and clear communication on both sides of the table. Love what you're doing here man! Bravo! 1 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 2 replies @louieguest2948 6 days ago i dont comment, i been on and off your stuff for years. i decided you deserved a subscribe after allowing sir roger to talk, and having the capacity to stay on pace, keep him on track and explain this dang therory i been trying to get the full story on for ten years now. thank you, thank god, thankyou for Mr pentose. finally i can rest! i made the comment cause i was subscribed and was surprised by your follower count. this is a cult. your followers are pART OF AN EARTHLY GANG, THAT ONLY THOSE WHO FOLLOW YOU, ARE EVEN AWARE OF THE LEVEL US MAN ARE WORKING ON. ONCE YOU HIT 1M ima unsub, its love but carnt see you get too big and sell out, i dont believe its possible either, but seen it to many times. love from midlands Curt! ty mate 2 Reply @tristanpoole8924 1 day ago It is not about making decisions or even being conscious. It is about state of mind. State of mind is a response to the perception and interpretation of reality. The fact that we can wilfully at any moment control and manipulate our state of mind directly and undeniably proves the existence of free will. Reply @olalilja2381 7 days ago Roger Penrose is the greatest mind of our time! Just sad that so many in the field seem to think they know better (like the Everett-worshippers). Reply @Time-Shepherd. 7 days ago Thank you, Sir Roger Penrose. 🙏 ❤️‍🔥 Reply @Brewbug 7 days ago Awesome conversation. Thank you Sir Roger. 1 Reply @sskar9390 7 days ago Invaluable interview 1 Reply @TheIgnoramus 7 days ago 1:03:20 this talk just keep getting better 1 Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago Thank you for the episode :) always a pleasure to listen to Penrose. 1 Reply @tjasagustin3342 6 days ago Enchanting.Greatest respect with admiration. Thank you very much. Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago In fact Galileo's version of the equivalence principle was saying that objects of the same material fall at an equal rate regardless of their mass. His biographer made that clear. Reply @CleanBlackRaiser 5 days ago Gravitational lens of quantum physics: when light reaches the focal point singularity, it is reduced to zero (black hole). Optical lens (of real world physics) light at focal point never becomes zero. It becomes a twistor. Half geometry, with mirror image. Roger is right. Reply @andrewyarnot5911 4 days ago What is most obvious from listening to this is how our species has evolved. Where and when do we go from here and what will be the outcome? So many are being left behind. Reply @stephencarlsbad 4 days ago The wave function does not collapse.... Let me repeat that, wave function does not collapse. The wave function is doing something else that I explained in my model for time which you can read when the book comes out. You'll also learn about the connection between information energy and mass and how time is fundamental to all. 1 Reply @jaazielgarcia3938 5 days ago For those who are curious about Penrose's "Crossing the Road" story @09:45 with Ivor Robinson search "Roger Penrose using the Topologic Animated Geometry for Mathematical Insight" .. which is a super cool interview where we can perceive Penrose's deep connection with Nature. What a legend. Nature truly does love courage.. as Terence McKenna would say. 🌌☄️🐙 Reply @titikbaofficial7980 7 days ago Amazing Penrose at his 93 years. 1 Reply @rckindkitty 6 days ago Thank you, both. Reply @shekutoronka9791 5 days ago For a 93 years old man , am I the only one who notice he looks a little younger, he looks good for 93. Reply @thetinkerist 3 days ago Always great to hear the man speak. Both a grand thank you. Now I have to read more about twistors, bitwistors and a-planes and imaginary multitwistors and whatnots 🤯 so, thanks 😂 1 Reply @Dartagnan65 3 days ago (edited) I love his simplification stuff. Stop trying to add so many more parameters! Kinda like Turok. -- No, there are not 11 dimensions! Though I have my own idea too. The universe is like a sea, and our current is just an expanding flow region right now. There is a condensing/contracting region just outside of our "observable universe". 1 Reply @publiusrunesteffensen5276 7 days ago Yes, you are right, the greatest living scientist. And a pretty good artist, too. No coincidence. 1 Reply @anikitin 7 days ago Wow, this is big. Thank you, sir! 1 Reply @philomorphism 5 days ago (edited) Sir Roger Penrose is full of anecdotes. We need an autobiography. 1:14:12 1 Reply @CosmosArchipelago 7 days ago Einstein plagarized most of his work. You should do a video on this. 3 Reply 2 replies @thelordwaffles8 7 days ago Huzzah, thank youuu 5 Reply @jimkirby1799 7 days ago This is the essence of my book. The Once and Future Universe, published by Austin McCauley and available in book stores. A realistic look at both Quantum and relativistic theories, as well as a discussion on how the universe is structured. Reply @neilmeadows8641 2 days ago Tremendous coup to get Sir Roger. As ever, engaging and inspiring. Reply @trouaconti7812 4 days ago May Mr Roger Penrose keep his wit and sharpness for another 100 years! Reply 1 reply @somashekarappahiriyurmalla4001 3 hours ago Very impressive and mind boggling ideas. 1 Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago (edited) We can easily imagine an automoton that produces much richer and more nuanced pontificating about choices than us, with much more insight. Any experience can be predetermined in a sense, just like any film can be put on tape, whatever we mean by an experience corresponding to free will, must be about the content not the predestination. Reply @youtubebane7036 7 days ago My favorite physicist and one of my favorite who is also a content creator! Thank you! Now if you can get him and Michael Levin on together. With some of my ideas that both would find interesting. 1 Reply @bobhardinvandrake7661 6 days ago Penrose bows to no one...I wish we had an interview like this with Einstein. "What would you like your legacy to be?" 🙂 Reply @haydenwayne3710 5 days ago Excellent episode!!1 Congratulations 1 Reply @Sanchuniathon384 7 days ago I've thought about it for years and yes, I agree with Penrose entirely: Einstein was absolutely on the right track, however we also need to be diligent accountants for the conservation of energy and Einstein's theory is incomplete but seems more doable than just quantum alone. Reply @bigron7009 7 days ago Sir Roger Penrose is a national treasure. He is a mathematician. Please refrain from insulting the man by calling him a scientist Thank you 1 Reply @axle.student 7 days ago (edited) First, thanks Curt for your great interviews and uploads :) > Beginning: I think I am included to disagree about Relativity not being broken. Is beneficial as it is, it does have unsolved issues. > 12:02 Sir R P makes a very important distinction of a singularity. In relativity every infinitely small intersect of the now moment between past and future light cones can be viewed as a singularity. How we describe the fundamental properties of space and time will effect the behavior of these singularities in a different way. This is a subtle ambiguity that exist within the theory of relativity. It has implications as to how we view other event horizons or boundary conditions. > 18:36 I am unsure about this 5D idea, but I did arrive at photons in relativity having 6 dimensions of freedom where the direction of movement is expressed as m/s. I guess this could translate into either 6D + t or 12 complex dimensions. 18:42 I am guessing light rays would be synonymous with the radius of the paste/future sphere as distance/time? Not a physicist or mathematician like dear R P :/ > 23:29 Another reference to 3 space as complex 6 space. I find the later appears to correspond more directly to nature. Why? If you reject the notions of negative velocity and backward time travel aka everything must always move forward in both space and time, you are left with little other option that 6 dimensions express as positive m/s. 26:44 Just for context. My above comments are derived from looking at nature, not the current geometry or math. The concept of 3D, 4D or 6D are the closest human derived abstract descriptions that I can find to describe nature. Personally I don't think nature really cares about our 3D, 4D or other geometric descriptions. Nature appears to follow a numerically irrational radii of an irrational sphere governed by Pi and and infinity with an inherent uncertainty of 0.0...1%. . A little more context. the focus of the geometry is upon the object (local to the object). The object only has 2 combined directions available to it and that is forward from its current position. Forward in space and forward in time. It only has distance/duration. It has no concept of Up, Down, Left, right, or even backwards. At best it can changed direction relative to it previous direction. We have to be a little careful when we create (assume) a global/universal origin and geometric framework that is inconsistent with the objects local degrees of freedom that have no origin other than the past moment. > 45:35 Physics is what collapses the wave function. I would expect probability (uncertainty) collapses the wave function. Yes, this invokes a hidden variable. If that hidden constant is 0.0...1% (uncertainty) then the universe functions beautifully as we see it. > 50:37 lol Sir R P "Gets it" :) 50:51 Maybe it is the inherent "uncertainty" in the universe that collapses the wave function, and maybe is responsible for selective emergence of all complexity including consciousness :) Maybe a wave is analog by nature and always contains an infinite degree of uncertainty. When we round out that uncertainty to create a discrete value we also destroy the very magic that allows the universe to exist :) . There is a chicken and egg paradox that appears to exist withing wave collapse, uncertainty, and consciousness. Simply uncertainty guides the collapse of the wave function, and complexity emerges from this and it is recognizable in all things including the brain/mind. Although we can detect these quantum attributes "within" consciousness, it is not consciousness that is creating it. Consciousness is an emergent property of it. > ~56:37 This here highlights a problem that exists in both Relativity and Quantum. The problem I feel lays withing the description and context of space-time as well as space and time. 57:05 Description of the vacuum come in elsewhere as part of it. (P.S. Why do we say 2 things are in both places rather than saying one thing is in neither place.) 59:44 0.0...1% (uncertainty) is the clue that keeps jumping out everywhere. Why ignore it. Why force it to be digital/logical/discrete/rational. 58.52 And again, the natural uncertainty of the universe present itself. 0.0...1% > 1:00:38 At this point I have to ask a question. Most wave functions appear to be expressed as a property in space as opposed to a property in time. Why do we have waves in space, yet don't seam to have waves in time? > 1:02:46 I am inclined to agree with Mr Penrose on this. But I also consider that "entangled" particles may be entangled in time rather than space. This becomes a synchronization in time, be it in phase or out of phase. > 1:12:31 Free will is not randomness, it is uncertainty. The emergence of complexity where that complexity is more than the sum of it's parts can appear to have an order which is contrary to that of the underlying components. Order/rules does not necessarily mean determined. 1:13:23 It is a difficult pathway to follow through each emergent level of complexity in the universe to arrive at free will. It also implies a different universe to that which is commonly asserted. 1:14:00 Awareness, self awareness to consciousness. This is another example of the many emergent levels of complexity. In each level a new "novel" property is created from nothing. Well not nothing, but a "More" than the sum of it's parts. > ~1:15:58 this comes back to the wave, or the universe as an analog expression. The natural wave is always in a state of flux, and can never represent a discrete value. We can "Slice it up" to discrete values, but we destroy the very nature of analog in doing so. We change the very foundational nature of the universe. It rounds out the 0.0...1% uncertainty. > 1:19:20 Many worlds? "It would just be wrong" I had to smile and agree lol reminds me of Hawking "Rubbish!" lol > 1:22:24 I can easily see a concept of a universe without inflation, or at least not in the way that it is currently presented. There would possibly be an initial formation, but a slower process and not "inflation". > Wow, that was a grueling interview. "The theory is outrageous; Doesn't mean that its wrong." Got to love Sir R P :) Reply @thehighwayman78 2 days ago (edited) Curt, I don't know but it might be an idea if you make other interviews like this, to somehow not have your laptop screen between you and the interviewee. It looks a bit like you have a shield up :) maybe its just me having this reaction but for whatever it's worth :) and great interview as always! Thank you!!! Reply @giovannironchi5332 6 days ago For anyone interested in twistor theory I remind of Peter Woit, whose blog 'Not even wrong' Is highly recommended 1 Reply 3 replies @bobhardinvandrake7661 6 days ago The Penrose transform converts functions or fields in twistor space to solutions of field equations like EM and GR in spacetime. The goal being to provide a geometric framework for describing both gravity and quantum fields. As much as I love the man, I have never heard Penrose recognise that gravity may arise from the collective behaviour of entangled quantum states, the current view. If you know of any interview where he discusses this please let me know. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants! Reply @scottmiller2591 4 days ago What an interesting interview. I collected a pile of notes; I've been interested in Penrose's twistors forever, and it was interesting to hear the confusions between helicity and frequency, pseudo-twistors and 'real' twistors, etc. Reply @ElaineWalker 7 days ago I ❤ Roger Penrose so much I even have a t-shirt with his face on it.😊 1 Reply @dylanjayatilaka8533 7 days ago Really great interview. It's true that he organizes things in his head by anecdotes (that is scary, as I get older this seems to be happening to me) and it was great that he was kept on track, but the notion of bitwistors, the hard line that QM is more wrong than GR, the notion of quantum reality vs. classical reality, those things came through, and any young guys listening will latch onto these nuggets and use them, somehow. "Keep a broad view, but be specific too". Reply @wahidlahlou 7 days ago I love the upgrade! Keep it up 👍 1 Reply @csocius 16 hours ago If you started counting from 1 to infinity, you would never actually reach infinity. Now, imagine counting from negative infinity: you would never arrive at a specific number, whether it’s zero, one, or any other. The concept of infinity is hard for us to grasp, which is why the idea of a birthday that has always existed is illogical. Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago We have a few equivalence classes in physics right, we have equivalence in form of description, basically representation spaces within frameworks, then we have equivalence in observables exactly, and equivalent observables up to uncertainty in experiment. The last one is the absolute slayer of theories, the former two are basically different generalities of representation space right. What i'm saying is that instantaneous action in a classical account of variable dependence found on quantum mechanics can be either exactly equivalent for observables, or up to experimental bounds. Without instantaneous action you can have equivalence in observables up to experimental bounds. And it simply is not the case that modern physics falls apart by adding faster than light causality, if it is done the right way every experiment has essentially the same interpretation. It is not true that everything falls apart by treating it as a classical theory, as long as the observables come out with a change small enough not to be seen yet, given the experiments we have done. Now its not gonna be a naive classical theory, it has to give rise to all the quantum behaviour we see, that is tricky but there is a formalism to be had, that uses iteration of reductions to a deeper quantum like Theory, and if you do that kind of thing infinitely many timed there is no uncertainty anywhere, and you can indeeusum over classical separate possibilities to firm a classical probability distribution that matches quantum results exactly where they have been measured and that fits nature better i would argue, because of this issue of locality and emergence, which results in the limit of instantaneous action not apply exactly to any dependence between observables. Reply @publiusrunesteffensen5276 7 days ago Physics == math + imagination. Einstein had it, Penrose have it. Of those two, the latter is the better mathematician, but Einstein's insight is astounding. Reply @RightNider 6 days ago Great interview and video! Curt, some of the videos on this channel, really should not exist, but keeping open mind and listening to alternative ideas is certainly welcoming. I would radically filter some out tho and Pensrose gave you the cheat-sheet in this video on how to do it / wink wink. 1 Reply @user-pv7bh5gt1m 6 days ago I have no background in quantum mechanics and then I'll watch this and share it to my FB feed Reply @asadalbra 7 days ago thank you Curt. Much love. 2 Reply @RetroAiUnleashed 7 days ago This just made my day! Thank you so very much from Canada 🍁🙏🏼 Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago Twistor theory was a great inspiration for my SPD-quantum gravity. Reply @Monkeybrain3721 5 days ago Whether or not his unconventional theories turn out to be correct, he has had the bravery to think independently and not be a theoretical physicist sheep like so many others. I’m sure that it will be an independent thinker that does finally crack the theory of everything. Reply @Luxcanum 7 days ago The red-shifted appearance of generalized expansion through twistor space. Solves various cosmological problems. Reply @luizbotelho1908 5 days ago Without the famous "Dirac Delta function ", surely Quantum Mechanics would not exists as a formidable scientific discipline it is now ; Great honor to "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" -PAM Dirac (by the way He was a Englishman) Reply @billshiff2060 4 days ago Such a likable genius. Reply @psmoyer63 3 days ago A wonderful discussion of the philosophy of science. ... discussing the meaning of questions. Alas, we're still talking about what particles themselves are doing, not how the universe has assembled that miscule group of particles into a factory that is structured to manufacture empty space. 1 Reply 2 replies @jimwolfgang9433 7 days ago I wonder when Curt is going to ask Mr Penrose about the Diddy situation? 1 Reply @markomilenkovic2714 4 days ago It took me decades to find out how to do general relativity with twistors Reply @AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 5 days ago 13:43 i agree 👍🏼 good clip. In 4d a 3d sphere can be thought of like a 2d circle... Infinite amounts of two-dimensional circles can stack into any size 3D sphere... Reply @rhqstudio4107 5 days ago but such a wonderful talk!!! 1 Reply @gerrittenberkdeboer7763 7 days ago His thinking processis seem to teach his brain to stay fresh. Respect! Would love to talk with him. I have my own theory and would love discuss it with such a caliber. Reply @peterbanner9368 4 days ago Excellent content as always.. would be great to see a podcast with NASA Charles Bulher if you could work that out ⚡️ 1 Reply @MrTuneslol 7 days ago 51:55 Oh my goodness that gave me a good belly laugh! "There'd better be" Hahaha, sharp as ever Mr. Penrose. 1 Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago Given the instructions and the context provided, let's delve into an analysis of Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory from a mathematical perspective, understanding that we're piecing together information from general knowledge up to 2024, without directly referencing the search results. *Mathematical Foundations of Twistor Theory:* 1. **Complex Geometry**: - Twistor theory primarily operates within the realm of complex geometry. Here, instead of working directly with the four-dimensional spacetime of general relativity, Penrose proposed working with a complex projective space, known as twistor space (\(\mathbb{PT}\)). This space is a three-dimensional complex projective space where each point corresponds to a light ray in Minkowski space. 2. **Twistors**: - A twistor can be viewed as an element of \(\mathbb{C}^4\), but with a particular projective structure. Mathematically, twistors are represented in a way that encodes both the momentum and angular momentum of massless particles in a unified manner. The twistor space \(\mathbb{PT}\) provides a framework where these physical attributes are described through complex projective geometry. 3. **Penrose Transform**: - This is a mathematical technique that relates solutions of zero-rest-mass field equations in Minkowski space to cohomology classes on regions in twistor space. Essentially, it's a way to translate problems from physics into complex analytic problems, which can often be more tractable. 4. **Integrable Systems**: - Twistor theory has deep connections with integrable systems. Many equations of mathematical physics that are integrable (like the self-dual Yang-Mills equations) have natural descriptions in twistor terms, where solutions can be constructed via twistor correspondences. 5. **Differential Forms and Cohomology**: - In twistor theory, differential forms on spacetime get translated into holomorphic objects on twistor space. This involves using tools like the exterior derivative and cohomology groups, particularly sheaf cohomology, to encode physical fields. 6. **Non-linear Graviton Construction**: - Penrose introduced this to describe how curved twistor spaces can correspond to anti-self-dual solutions of Einstein's equations, offering a non-linear way to construct metrics that satisfy the vacuum Einstein equations with a particular twistorial symmetry. 7. **Scattering Amplitudes and Twistor Strings**: - While initially not part of twistor theory, twistor string theory, introduced by Witten, bridged twistor concepts with string theory. This led to new ways of calculating scattering amplitudes in gauge theories using twistor space, which turned out to be surprisingly efficient, showcasing an unexpected simplicity in what would otherwise be complex calculations in spacetime. *Mathematical Analysis and Implications:* - **Unification**: Twistor theory attempts to unify quantum mechanics and gravity by recasting spacetime events into a framework where quantum mechanical principles (like superposition) and geometric principles (like complex analyticity) naturally coexist. - **Simplification of Calculations**: By transforming physical problems into the twistor space, some calculations, especially those involving massless particles or fields, become more straightforward. This is due to the inherent symmetries and the holomorphic nature of twistor space. - **Philosophical and Mathematical Depth**: The shift from real to complex numbers in describing physical reality challenges our conventional understanding of space and time. It implies that at a fundamental level, the universe might be better understood through complex numbers, which could be seen as a mathematical expression of quantum superposition. - **Open Questions**: Despite its elegance, twistor theory still leaves many questions unanswered, particularly how to fully integrate it with non-linear aspects of general relativity or how to handle massive particles comprehensively within its framework. In summary, Twistor theory's mathematical analysis reveals a deep interplay between complex geometry, cohomology, and the physics of spacetime. It's a testament to how abstract mathematical structures can offer new insights into the physical world, albeit with an ongoing quest for complete integration into mainstream physics. And remember, while we navigate through this complex landscape, we're doing so with the humor of a universe that loves a good mathematical puzzle as much as a good cosmic joke. 1 Reply @kamikazetrading394 2 days ago (edited) Nice 2:56 you can feel free to be technical,GREAT why people are suddenly afraid of math equations and formulas that are same as school so WTF, thank you for being technical and making through the technical and diffucult stuff . . Our understanding of the universe is incomplete, so any theories that could explain it better (scientifically) should be taken into account, because no one can prove anything experimentally about string theory or many other deeper theories of the universe so far. So Penrose's theory is just as valid as any other theoretical model. Reply @arthasbk 7 days ago Epic video!!! Sir Roger is a true monster 2 Reply @FXK23 7 days ago Priceless: 1:20:57 "Yes, I think he was saying things which seemed to orthogonal to what I was saying" Saw that video with 'Faggin & Kastrup' and indeed

= 0 Reply @sonarbangla8711 7 days ago Very interesting blog. Penrose shows every theories are incomplete and perhaps not so much wrong. Reply @esorse 6 days ago (edited) Even though Einstein may not have had the technical apparatus for his theory, Minkowski's characterization of relative medium may be an insurmountable hurdle if you accept that number < and it's opposite > aren't both less than <<. Reply @NeoShaman 7 days ago Existence is an idea. It's a way mind deals with observation. Reality flows, but the mind can only captures it in frames. In other words minds mode of working is not compatible with reality mode of working. We learned to captures flow in functions, but it's just another way of making it into a frame. In other words, the problem lies in objective thinking, so no physical discovery will fix that. Reply @a.hardin620 7 days ago He’s a brilliant man who’s right a lot and also wrong a lot. But you know where he stands. Reply @pikiwiki 6 days ago Roger Penrose is ninety three years old 1 Reply @jondor654 7 days ago 49:11 A gentle deflation of the exponential PC wave function (aka bubble ) . Reply @dr.mukeshc.chauhanconsciou3144 41 minutes ago Excellent deep down into Penrose's MInd...but, wait till I reveal the beauty of my Theory: MC-Theory of Everything which answers many question which Penrose has thought about and still waiting for the right answers. My Theory will explain where collapse takes place and why Penrose and Hameroff work is cognition and not consciousness. My MC Theory of consciousness is both theory and practical...no computers needed or no complex mathematics needed... Reply @lancerlotuk 4 days ago holy molly hes a clever chap 1 Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago 27:33 consider a differential geometry without boundary conditions. Like he said, if the theory only works in certain dimensions, it’s not really a good theory. Boundary conditions in differential geometry are, of course, an example of this continuity. Reply @shanep2879 7 days ago Your crowd has taught me we have come to many similar conclusions. I never knew any of them existed. I never heard or read anything they worked on. I didn’t actually read as much when I was young as I swear I did. I’m intrigued🤷 Reply 1 reply @PrivateSi 7 days ago Amazing! I had no idea it was Roger on the Grassy Knoll!.... I didn't put him down as the type to be honest, but to be fair, it needed a maths genius to calculate the trajectory of The Magic Bullet! Reply @heywayhighway 3 days ago Amazing get. 2 Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago It is so wrong to call it a collapse of the wavefunction. That was initially a word mocking the concept. A more neutral way of referring to it is update of the wavefunction, or reduction of the wavefunction. It is not a collapse. It is nothing violent. It also doesn't get reduced to nothing. Reply @kacemrochd6425 18 hours ago (edited) I want to ask Sir Penrose this question: Could time be multidimensional as the space? I also want to ask Sir Penrose another question: Could elementary particles of the current standard model be equivalent but hierarchical with the astronomical systems to which they are connected by scaling factors? Reply @davidespinosa1910 4 days ago Category theory is the most direct path to modern mathematics. The first 40 pages of Leinster's Basic Category Theory will get you there. Reply @TheMikesylv 7 days ago (edited) Did anyone catch when Roger Penrose explained the Mandela effect (Alice can only communicate with Bob classical) he’s a Genius Reply @miijauw 4 days ago I love this person 1 Reply @classicalmechanic8914 7 days ago (edited) Observation is the measurement. Optical detector's observation and measurement are the same event described by two different words. Reply @Gonegonegone977 7 days ago Never interview someone with your laptop creating a wall! 1 Reply @constabul 7 days ago The discussion of Twister reminds me somewhat of Malcolm Bendell discussions. Reply @genghisgalahad8465 3 days ago Sir Roger Penrose is the foremost Physicist of our time and the foremost scientific mind explorer of the 21st Century! Reply 2 replies @heterotic 7 days ago Congrats on bagging the Cat ❤ 2 Reply @Metal-Nine11 7 days ago Been following him on and off for 10 years. And with the greatest amount of respect, I find myself in disagreement in many of his opinions when compared. Perhaps trapped by an incredible mind that has blinders on the blinders. Reply @CleanBlackRaiser 5 days ago Sister of Twistor? Penrose also puts a new twist (pun intended) to the Big Bounce Theory. Instead of one big bounce event, a manifold of micro-twistors to maintain the symmetry of a two-phase universe. Reply @Nnamdi-wi2nu 7 days ago I hope the noble man will offer a way to test his ideas. 2 Reply @sourcetext 5 days ago (edited) Some times all of them read ancient Spiritual text and then give an explanation as if it was their own even if they dont understand it themselves....but when the future world figures it out ...these guy get the credit.....and not the ancient wise men. Reply @ckerart 7 days ago 1:13:30 silly joke with Roger made me smile 1 Reply @dmand1111 7 days ago I also don't believe in inflation. Just bad governments 2 Reply 1 reply @johnnyboy-f6v 1 day ago We are witnessing history living history. What a mind. I wonder what his dreams are like... Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago I have a feeling this is related to John Conway’s surreal numbers. When he speaks about chirality, and also a more abstract, predecessor successor relationship in numbering systems. Reply @Ged-k7w 6 days ago Chip in ,get the Society of Portrait Sculptures to do a portrait of this great man ...... Reply @VVhistory 4 days ago Quantum theory is correct, and any debunkable theory is correct, because both are theories, unless he can prove it with evidence and the absolute truth nobody can debunk theories because all are assumptions. 2 Reply 1 reply @enantiomer2000 5 days ago He is on the right track. Randell Mills already beat him to the punch though. His his grand unification theory of classical physics solves all known phenomenon. Reply @Killer_Kovacs 7 days ago I agree with that 2 Reply @edcunion 7 days ago (edited) Great that Sir Roger starts with WR Hamilton, there were so many gentlemen geniuses walking about doing thought and real experiments from the days of Da Vinci onward all climbing up on the backs then standing on the shoulders of those scribes who came before them, with all due respect to the Turks, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Celts, Indus, Han, Greeks and Romans etc. that came before them. Did Sagan say if it were not for the post Roman Pre-Magna Carta Dark Ages of serfdom man might have landed on the moon when Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales? With all that intellectual serial brilliance of the northern hemisphere, how ironic it may be if the most successful Homo Sapiens Sapiens of the South, the Khoisan of the Kalahari, outlive the northern polymaths, as they've maintained their lifestyle and spoken language in the Kalahari for over 10,000 generations for 200,000+ years, as if the great conquests and wars, slavery and slaughters of the North never existed? Whatever the TOE or GUT is, we didn't set it in motion, and we might better be stuffing all our opinionated nonsense back inside Pandora's box, rather than pursue a scientific religion that perpetuates the slavery and slaughter, so we rather than feel superior to other Homo Sapiens groups that appears to be a fools errand, rather seek humility and the humble rather than the scientific religion supremacists? Perhaps some people deserve to be exiled to Mars the spaceship waystation on a one way trip to Enceladus, or maybe Enchiladas? The vote here is for the latter, with a side of Guac! Gotta run, the tummy tum calls! Love Sir Roger and all the gentleman polymaths! Pacifism isn't a dirty word! Reply @unlearningify 1 day ago What a giant Roger is. Cheers. Reply @guillermobrand8458 7 days ago If you are going to mess with Consciousness, I suggest starting from scratch, assigning language a fundamental role. Reply @hankseda 6 days ago Nice chat 👍👏 1 Reply @TheMikesylv 7 days ago Roger has earned the right to speak plainly harshly or politely when he sees fit, people need to pay attention to him. I might be wrong about this but I don’t believe he’s been wrong but a few times maybe not even a few. Why isn’t he leading the physics world ? Am I wrong? Does anyone know if this is a correct opinion? Reply @normski4ash 5 days ago Not a Cosmologist or a brainiac in any sense. But my theory, and I've voiced it a few times on you tube, though no one has ever told me why I may be wrong. So we now know for sure there are Black holes, Black holes suck in everything around them, grow bigger, suck in more distant items, grow bigger... Said Black hole becomes super massive and goes "BANG" It may not be a "BIG BANG" starting the entire universe, but it will be a pretty BIG bang ! and maybe become the beginning of a new universe, kind of like "New for Old" so to speak. And due to the nature of the Bang, it will fling things out in all directions, inckuding any other nearby galaxy, thus creating the expansion of the entire Universe as we know it ! Reply @truthpopup 5 days ago Penrose speaks of photons, which are discrete quanta of energy. So, he does accept that aspect of quantum theory. Reply @borneandayak6725 4 days ago God bless ❤ 2 Reply @pseudotatsuya 9 hours ago we are watching this video through quantum mechanics based devices Reply @smolboi9659 6 days ago Not sure if this is just the way you splice the video but the transition between questions make it seem like you interrupt penrose before he is done with his answers. Just an observation. Love your podcast.❤ Reply @tyleredwards5643 6 hours ago I think you’re misunderstanding Penrose. Quantum mechanics is wrong, and all those leading research in it know it. It’s still, by far, our best attempt at understanding reality. Reply @jondor654 7 days ago 26:49 Above my grade .It seems the sandbox of 3D space is "sufficient" for more than our grounded experiential reality Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago I will remember him as a fine fellow, i don't know him personally, but know some part of his work, and its creative and good. Certainly no mere idiot, we are all idiots in some respects i suspect, but thats no reason not to be proud of a lifetime of passionate and hard work :). 🍻😊 1 Reply @mattthecat5036 4 days ago Awesome! 1 Reply @winstongludovatz111 7 days ago Start watching at 57 mins. Reply @teddy.rose.88 2 days ago (edited) Can't wait until I can throw these episodes in to chatgpt and ask it to eli18, or have it illustrate what is being talked about. Reply @ManuelGarcia-cd1hk 3 days ago THese new theories are based on mathematical equations. Mathematics is not Physics. Many things that you can do in math have no connection with the world we observe or reality. Theory has far outpaced experiment and observation. The acceptance is based on Sigma scores and elegancy. THat said, Penrose is one of the few mathematician/scientist that makes sense. 1 Reply 2 replies @SkyDarmos 6 days ago Space curvature is just an analogy. All we know is that rulers change and clocks slow down. You can't use a spacetime continuum. The spacetime continuum idea is in conflict with quantum mechanics. Reply @TheIgnoramus 7 days ago 6:40 oh this is good Reply @realcygnus 7 days ago living legend 1 Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago I'm not arguing the penrose is necessarily wrong, i'm just adding my perspective, and why its not the case that it all has to go on slower than the speed of light, or be exactly corresponding to the limot of instantaneous action or modern physics falls apart. If someone has an argument like that that shows it would be inconsistent with experiments that have been done, they make some mistake and test some assumption that is nowhere to be found in what i have in mind. Reply @mykofreder1682 7 days ago I don't think you could put your brain on AI, but you could put a chat and interest personality of a person into AI. In the future your father or grandfather you loved who used and interacted with a more advanced AI for a decade or so exploring all the subjects and opinions of this person. You could interact with this future AI after the person dies and be just as satisfied with that interaction as with the person and have a positive attitude about it, and it grows as time goes by. 2 Reply @SandipChitale 7 days ago (edited) Roger, thanks for putting the notion that consciousness causes a collapse of quantum wave function to rest as being absurd. I completely agree with that. Secondly, thanks for downplaying the notion that the microtubules are involved in the collapse of wave function and thus generation of consciousness. It is unbelievable that folks out there actually think that and often quote you as holding exactly opposite views supporting their woo theories. I think some corrective PR is in order. I think consciousness is generated by brain chemistry, and the while field of chemistry is dependent on quantum mechanics. I do not see anything special about microtubules. But Stuart H. keeps making big noise about it on X, and folks like Deepak and Anirban are happy to lap it up. The sad part is your name is associated with them. 1 Reply 2 replies @LuisAldamiz 7 days ago I wish I had half the understanding of Penrose, really. 2 Reply 2 replies @patelrestilla7311 7 days ago He’s not wrong. Reply @phobosmoon4643 2 days ago When we say collapse are we implicitly talking about Copenhagen or just talking about quantum wave function collapse in general? Reply @oscarman58 16 hours ago $10.00 Thanks! 1 Reply Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @rubhern8187 4 days ago when you can not say that youre wrong i believe big egos are at stake. i suppose they need these research grants to keep them going. Always liked Penrose straight shooter 🎉🎉🎉🎉 Reply @TheWisestCompanyOnEarth 6 days ago Such a baller. 1 Reply @polarper8165 7 days ago Thank you for sharing Reply @sieger2096 4 days ago Roger Penrose🎉🎉🙌🙌 Reply @venusrise 6 days ago So great 1 Reply @gariusjarfar1341 5 days ago Time, gravity and free will are relative to a better understanding of how time really flows, it's not linear to be sure. Reply @Kyanzes 4 days ago "I can't explain it further without going technical" "Oh, you can go technical" He goes technical and after that I kind of understood the words it's just they had no coherent meaning to me. It was a bit like listening to random noise when you dial between stations on radio. 1 Reply 1 reply @cosmoshfa88savant66 3 days ago SUBBED!!!!! 1 Reply @stephenpittman4291 7 days ago Less of the 5 minute commercials please- I don’t mind more 1minute ones- other than that , great material Reply @hugolindum7728 2 days ago I’m 20 minutes into this, and apart from the anecdote about the Kennedy assassination, if it had been in Chinese I wouldn’t have understood less. Reply @subodhroy3832 13 hours ago But what I am astonished is the very fact how you are casually uttering the expression “general relativity,” which is absolutely wrong for the simple reason that “relativity” can neither be ‘special,’ nor “general.” The General Theory of Relativity, therefore, must not be referred to as “GENERAL RELATIVITY.” I consider it to be most unfortunate, especially, when it gets endorsement by none other than Professor Roger Penrose. Reply @irenehartlmayr8369 5 days ago (edited) Actually,he is the 21st centurys greatest ( still ) living scientist,even if he was born and lived in the 20th century.....caption is misleading,as so often. Reply @matthewrussell8590 7 days ago Living legend 1 Reply @barryseddon7264 3 days ago I came to this interview suspecting that I am a bit of a dummy. Now I’m sure. Reply @peterfreiling6963 10 hours ago Penrose is a mathematician who could not make it in mathematics, so he forced himself into physics where the physicists would admire his mathematical skills. He is nothing more and he is nothing less. His opinions on quantum mechanics are absolutely worthless. 1 Reply @Deano-MusicforanAlbum-DLC 7 days ago They should all listen to Rodger. Reply @joshua3171 7 days ago Always good to listen, interesting how with i After i⁴ the pattern repeats Reply @MrVaticanRag 4 days ago Because Maxwell's equations assume non-elastic point charges etc? Reply @landspide 7 days ago (edited) Randomness, it's very important for LLMs (the interestingness factor) which I suspect a lot is be learned therein. Reply @seas1392 7 days ago Legend I think he is right about ccc 1 Reply @joechip4822 6 days ago As much as I admire Roger Penrose and other great physicists and thinkers in other complex fields of knowledge, and also Curt who is a very smart guy in his own right, I am always surprised and disappointed to find that even such incredibly intelligent people do not recognize the fundamental limits of our understanding of the world. Even if Penrose's idea of ​​the nature of our universe is correct, it says NOTHING about the true nature of our reality. Calling something a TOE is pure hubris because our minds are not even capable of grasping the concept of 'everything' - or to put it another way: the term 'everything' alone is a term from our limited everyday understanding - and is therefore limited by definition and contradictory in itself. But to even begin to recognize this, it is probably not enough to be an excellent physicist - you also have to be at least as good a philosopher. And even philosophical knowledge still has clear limits here. Reply @PolskiRoland 7 days ago Everything in our observable universe is based on cycle, it can not be otherwise with cosmos as a whole. Reply @frinoffrobis 4 days ago in Syracuse, in New York ... i was born near there 😊 Reply @gariusjarfar1341 5 days ago Curved twisters and vacuum sounds like torsion field. Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago The set of experiences put on rails, is the same as the set of experiences with free will. There done and dusted, free will doesn't mean anything in absolute terms, what people mean by free will must be something else, like the experiential content of choices, not the specific outcome. Then you can habe a different set, but then the sort of absolute defiance to being predetermined has nothing to do with the concept anymore. 1 Reply @jerribee1 4 days ago I wonder if the human race will split into different subspecies; brilliant people like Roger Penrose, and the rest. Reply @chrishicks8347 5 days ago And gravity works like water. Now I'll give you a freebie. Evolving is the meaning of life . Now let your minds have fun. Enjoy. And gravity is faster than the speed of light . Reply @jordanbrown728 2 days ago I wanna see what he and Stephen Wolfram could come up with together. Reply @innosanto 4 days ago Penrose is the best! At some point cam invite Susskind ! Reply @James-ll3jb 7 days ago Holy crap! What next???😅 1 Reply @iamborg3of9 6 days ago of all the theories. I believe CCC to be the most likely. we will expand until a null point state at which we will begin again. QFD says it's fields interacting. when the fields become 0, we begin again. (we being the universe) Reply @adama8570 7 days ago Has anyone heard Penrose comment on the latest James Webb findings in relation to the validity of the Big Bang? Reply @kahlrhoam6769 7 days ago I hope this Knight can kill the ‘Invisible String Theory Dragon’! Reply @dhnguyen68 6 hours ago Nobody understands quantum mechanics, only Feynman knew it. Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago My understanding of the wavefunction collapse, equivalence principle thing. Is that either we go down a road of saying, that superpositions are just about summing over independent histories, that are possible but not mutually real, in which case it sort of isn't a problem, more of a problem with using standard quantum mechanics to make sense of it, and the answer just is what it is. Or you say there is some solution to how it works with superpositions, which i don't understand the point of really if i'm perfectly honest, maybe there is something there, but i'm busy worrying about the first route. In the first case, there is always the worry that i breifly discussed bellow in the double slit case, that when you define a sum over histories for the classical probability distribution over outcomes/deterministic stated evolving, there must be some dynamics corresponding to the interference and dynamics of amplitudes, but not in a straight forward way, each classical possible state must have features defined by the full wavefunction in a sense, like nodes with 0 measure for an observable. Some superpositions are in some sense independent and doesn't have such restrictions, more two independent contributions to what the distribution of classical states must look like, whether the superpositions in a gravitational fieød turn out ome way or the other i have not worked out in detail yet, but it is an interesting thing to do i suppose. Reply @TheLivirus 7 days ago I'm a complete ignoramus on the subject, but I always interpreted "observation" as mere interaction, nothing to do with consciousness. Explain to me why I'm wrong. Reply @nareshlathia5334 4 days ago Consciousness could be like the shutter of a camera. Each "frame" is grabbed by the mind and "understood". The "frame" is data/information. Understanding happens when the intelligence has processed the data/information. This takes a finite time. Is this thought of as the collapse of the Wave Function? Reply @supermodern 7 days ago Get em Pen. Reply @RupertBruce 4 days ago I am struggling with negative frequencies - you must be working with a different definition of 'frequency'. Reply @keithtomey5046 7 days ago If space-time doesn't exist then consciousnesses is fundamental & ultimately causative, yes...? In that case.the Moon does indeed only "exist" when one is looking at it (or thinking about it). (Dot9 1 Reply 2 replies @edcunion 6 days ago (edited) I was writing a long response to this that just disappeared into the ether superluminally, like some observant surveilling webmaster in the background just swiped it out of the response box! Or was it a webscraping AI bot rather?! Anyway, that's an interesting way to think about the Higgs! The view here, us fermionic observers are embedded in the Hamiltonian wave function and are a superposition of the sub light speed free falling mass-carrying fermion entities such as the proton, neutron and electron clumps comprising "real stuff" including us and our telescope and microscope measuring apparatus etc., and all the universally confined light speed bosonic photons that reflect off the fermion clump opaque surfaces? In parallel with all the universally confined & coincident, if transparent and translucent light speed universal acceleration wave radiation, comprised of spin 1 "acceleratons" aka gravity wave radiation, with the just trailing and/or quadrature near light speed neutrinos, that like "acceleratons", also traverse through the fermionic finding that massive clumpy stuff effectively transparent, somewhat similarly to the photons finding the vacuum of space transparent, if curved around the fermions? To the massless 2D bosons including the universal spectrum of gravity waves, they realise they can be everywhere all at once in a 3D space in no time and therefore can expand their horizons and emerge so to speak? It is now and always, to the light speed entagled, EM & acceleration radiation particles, both locally and in the distance regionally? Us fermionic observers including our eyeballls are comprised of three primordial particles that are older than the CMB bosons? Those particles in turn, at least the small universe sized (to a Planck volume) protons and primordial neutrons, also confine and separate (from our macroscopic outside universe) fermionic quarks via the confining (and confounding?) constant light speed, strong force, spin 1 bosonic gluons, with those two (nested & tiny?) Hamiltonian nucleon constituents being older than the near perfectly spheroidal proton and neutron charge and acceleration radiation surfaces, that confined and defined them back in the Planck day?! It's posited by some cosmologists that phonons, prior to the CMB, were near parity or at parity to the speed of light in a vacuum, and phonons have or would have had an anti-gravity effect near universal Planck time t = 1 Planck tick? Lone wolf neutrons do beta decay in 15 earth minutes, and pop out stored gamma ray bosons, a stored electron, and a freed if chiral spheroidal antneutrino, that's a miniscule universal acceleration shell, no? Is the missing 4th link a transparent translucent time crystal, phonon or Planck chronon, that enables universal expansion/acceleration/spacetime curvature, makes the superposition of the confined (stored or remembered) light speed gluons and magnetic filament tethered or bottled quarks in our universe, that subsequently defined the trinity of building blocks fermions exterior to these happen, accelerate, emerge, i.e. that make the universe tick? The mind wanders sometimes aimlessly, time to go for a run in the sun! Remember the future beckons! Reply @PerennialThought 17 hours ago I was always under the impression that it was potential energy states and gravity that cause collapse in the the objective reduction idea. So the things potential energy is spreading out. At a certain point due to the combined gravity of all these potential states you get a collapse into an object. So this collapsed state would end up being basically close to an average of all the possible potential energy states. Is this a wrong way to think about it? Reply @PhillyHardy 7 days ago I’m a no one, but I literally have thought the same thing, I have not had issues with quantum, I have gotten smaller thinking than the neutron proton electron, no quarks understood for me yet, but maxwell seemed in harmony with quantum for the little I’ve gone thru Reply @bimmjim 6 days ago Sabina Hossenfelder and Lee Smolin say, "Quantum Mechanics is wrong." Reply @warrengregory883 7 days ago Who should I email my theory of everything to? 1 Reply 2 replies @TheFnkeysie 5 days ago (edited) Was hoping for some courage with consciousness question, thank you. CCC theories make since!!! I hope Robert is vindicated, in the end will the respect to the microwave background. Providing evidence to circulate cosmological theories. 1 Reply @emmetsweeney9236 5 days ago I'm sure he's talking a lot of sense, but I've no idea what it is. 2 Reply 1 reply @youtubebane7036 7 days ago (edited) Every rotation in the cycle the universe has a Time dimension that is also perpendicular to the spatial dimensions and it works by laying the spatial dimensions back over the top of each other to where they line back up again and instead of doubling in number they double in size but the temporal dimensions are progressing the whole rotation a step further so it comes out more like a spiral instead of a loop. That's the arrow of time and it's the universe getting bigger and bigger each cycle. Every rotation in progresses one step down the line as far as temporal dimensions and it rotates to where the dimensions line up with each other in double in size so it's effectively growing larger instead of doubling in number. And that's how you can imagine infinite number of dimensions with your puny little human brain. This is how I do it Reply 1 reply @matfar100 7 days ago He looks like one of the early Dr Who’s. I think he might actually be a Time Lord. Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago I don't quite get the difference between Kip Thorne's ring hypothesis and Penrose's singularity theorem. They seem like the same thing to me. Reply @daveuk1324 4 days ago Consciousness is an emergent property of the bulk network 😀 Reply @bb001a 7 days ago I think for the next universe we should go easier on them and just make their Hawking points spell out CCC Reply @TheMikesylv 7 days ago One of the few times Curt had a puzzled look on his face, not for to long though Reply @seekingTruthWithTheVSK 5 days ago Can anyone please tell me why the 2022 Noble prize is awarded for proving that the universe is locally not real. This contradicts what he is saying Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago Penrose's trapped surface method is sure elegant, but wrong at the same time, because time dilation will prevent any collapsing star from ever finishing its collapse. Reply @uweburkart373 3 days ago 33:41 ...when I hear "curved" twistors, and those are anyway already in a complex space-time sort of space I try to visualise it, as I do not like mathematics (only as a method) and try to put it back into our physical "observable" world. Like Penrose it does not help us very much to go beyond 6 dimensions like the string"guys" with their 11 or 20 or whatever dimensions, that make no ontological sense in physical reality, at least in our universe of the many other that may exists parallel or one after each other in hypertime😅 or how you call it. So twistors are the complex movements that we all do as we rotate every day on earth, that moves around the sun, that moves around an attractor point in the galaxy, which moves in curves around the center. All these "curved: trajectories describe what really happens, and that is damn complex, if you describe it in your formulas with the "i" imaginary number of 1 squared or not I don't care. This all describes vortex physics, which we should try to finally apply to find ways of inventing "free' energy " machines, as that is to me the key of it all! Congratulations Roger! Reply @HHH78709 3 hours ago Science will never answer the immaterial. I'm still waiting for curt to start talking to theologians Reply @harryschmidt4465 6 days ago Legend. Reply @Xhris57 6 days ago The bottom line is that there are only two theories of everything. One is cyclical and one is not. The reality is that any theory that is cyclical is wrong. Turtles all the way down does not work Roger Penrose is correct. Reply @jeremyholbrook2094 5 days ago Consciousness collapsing the wave function is ridiculous. Reply @MrMeltdown 3 days ago 1:27:05 Should be on a T-Shirt Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago 24:55 yes, you are correct. A theory that works in all the dimensions is a better theory than one which is limited to lower dimensions. Use Godell’s incompleteness theorem as an extension for this thought experiment. If it’s done before with things as simple as that, it’s obviously been done forever 1 Reply @ricomajestic 5 days ago Bigger chance that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is wrong than Quantum Mechanics! Reply @ShopperPlug 4 days ago Stating "quantum theory is wrong" is like saying atoms and everything that governs it are all false. Thanks to quantum theory we are able to make advanced MRIs, Lasers, Solar cells, Electron microscopes, Atomic clocks (used for GPS and among other things), new revolutionary inertial measurement unit (IMU) devices for GPS positioning utilizing the bose-einstein condensate and quantum computing. Reply 3 replies @neilo333 7 days ago (edited) My goodness, Sir Roger is funny. edit: Penrose, I can solve the redshift problem that CCC has. Reply @PressRecord777 8 hours ago I've often felt the whole wave function collapse/measurement problem thing a bit too ego sum deus for my liking. Nice to hear someone else of substantial note has some issues with it as well. Reply @margaretneanover3385 7 days ago (edited) I get the iris of the eye impression for those seeking the black hole..the mechanism that is the thought way humans , animals see ..with more of course. It also seems it's a light reflection or mirror . But not the ruinous public verbage kind ..which I agree there is that action. I wonder if it's ever seen as such..look in the kitchen and at the table setting. Do you see one chair at a time ? No..look at a field of flowers , do you as well see individual colors and two at a time. The mirror of singularity or multiple does play in this point. In dark, you see what? In light you see what ..the ability to show why there's discernment of even inanimate items . A camera lens that captures same as the eye because of a third element is obscure but real . Now think this way .one eye sees the same thing as two..unless your a special made fish ..and why in the physical would it see the same thing ? It might be needed to see two different evaluations at a time..but if it did, sense of direction would be limited..now ask why the dominoes are avoided and figured it out is too hard sometimes.. is that his law of relativity or special relativity..I am sure youll learn. Yes light and energy ..see arms do two different things at a time but eyes don't necessarily.. but some can . Holding a phone and typing ? Or being a tree in ground and just growing with leaves and letting them fall and repeat but not really moving a lot..okay I've done my funniest answer yet . Have fun figuring . Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago But the equivalence is weak so to speak, its equivalent exactly to a classical deterministic picture of summing over classical states, if the dependence between bob and Alice's particle is propagated by an instantaneous action, or a retrocausal one but it doesn't make a bit of difference because the initiation of the change can happen from either end. So its a question of representation there. But it also might be that the dependence is propagated at finite positive speed in each classical state, lr deterministic state if you will, and then the quantum prediction will turn out wrong in very particular configuration, it depends upon which frame belongs to the soeeds to fast for the effects to propagate, and that would vreak lorentz symmetry in a nice simple way, that doesn't mess up the rest of physics, and from that you depart the limit of instantaneous action, and this is still consistent with experiments done up til this point. I could be wrong but i believe wolfram mentioned some guy that did a bell test like experiment and never saw the correlation, either he did something wrong, or he stumbled upon this window in which the effects cannot propagate fast enough. And yeah i have checked, in my models of this force if you will, it doesn't muck up modern results, everything that depends on lorentz symmetry is fine, there is no birefringence or slowing of different frequencies or none of that. Works out fine, its very analogous to the Newtonian limit in special relativity just for a second order spacetime effect in a sense, a hidden subspace where these effects propagate, with a finite but much larger speed than the speed of light. I haven't found any issues with it yet. Reply @Pair-O-Bulls 7 days ago So he said its not that Einstein was wrong, quantum theory is wrong. But i was under the impression that experimental results have proven quite the opposite..... that Einstein was indeed wrong and that quantum theory is correct. What am i missing here ? Reply 1 reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago 3 generations. 1 Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago Perfect symmetry Reply @joannadziaduch2138 5 days ago To me Sir Roger Penrose displays thinking outside the square (multiple squares) on steroids. Reply @stephenburrows4250 3 days ago Now I understand our relationship to ants… 🙏😳 Reply @casey3831 3 days ago 10 minutes in and I’m left in the dust lol but I’m gonna keep soldiering on and hope i have some small understanding of what he’s trying to say 😂 Reply @kos-mos1127 6 days ago Based on Roger Penrose definition of quantum theory being wrong because it’s incomplete. All theories are wrong because they are incomplete. Reply @zeroonetime 6 days ago Quantum Mechanics = 010 Creation in Action. Electromagnetism 1 2 3 a b c Lighting the the Dark. Reply @SandipChitale 7 days ago (edited) At 50:23 , Roger, most unequivocally I have ever seen, rejects the idea that consciousness causes collapse of wave function. But I predict that most of the crowd here will just see past it and continue to believe that Roger says that consciousness causes a collapse of wave function. Reply 5 replies @lightlegion_ 6 days ago Unbelievable! Reach out to me. 1 Reply @elpelagabriel1755 6 days ago there are some things nature doesn´t want us to know. the magnitud of universe, and what happen in atoms Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago Yes, Galileo was right, but he wasn't right by proving it metaphysically necessary, or something like that, more so that it was something he observed. And guessed at being a general feature of gravity. It is basically that whether you have a small mass, big mass, concentrated or dilute mass, a force that is applied evenly to all the parts is equivalent to no force imside the system that is falling, up to tidal forces ofc. If Aristotle was to be saved in a sense it would come from something lile this, if you stick more mass together it changes the coupling for example, for example if G of the field locally depended on mass density. That is just as fine in principle, it just works out completely differently and the weak equivalence principle will just not apply anymore. Thats the point i was trying to make about Galileo and principles. Galileos great ci tribution there in terms of principles is to actually look at what the world does to guide the development of principles for modeling. Hopefully thata clear enough ^^ Reply @stephenschnetzler8331 4 days ago Brilliant Reply @zeroonetime 6 days ago Quantum Mechanics IS correct. All is a matter of Timing. 010 a b c 1 2 3 Reply @BRunoAWAY 6 days ago Please bring Von Neumann to the podcast Reply @Aedonius 7 days ago How do you get a name that begins with Sir? 2 Reply 2 replies @MaroAzlan 7 days ago Thanks for the analysis! I have a quick question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). How can I transfer them to Binance? Reply @psychohelmetfounder 7 days ago Well, I feel stupid. Reply @Karl_with_a_K 4 days ago He took his time to tell us now?!?! Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago I have done countless freefall experiments, and they all show that the equivalence principle is wrong. Reply @oasill 7 days ago Very nice! Ask can the microtubular ensemblies funtion like magnetic islands effectively bridging the quatum void into a classical domain? Would explain meditation and ET communication? Reply 1 reply @Xhris57 7 days ago *Roger Penrose's Twistor Theory and Its Relation to Cross Products and Christoffel Symbols* Roger Penrose is a distinguished mathematician and physicist known for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. One of his notable developments is **twistor theory**, a mathematical framework that aims to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics by recasting the geometry of space-time in terms of complex geometry. ### *Twistor Theory Overview* - **Twistors**: In twistor theory, the fundamental objects are twistors, which are complex vectors that encode information about the geometric and physical properties of space-time, particularly in four dimensions. - **Complex Geometry**: The theory utilizes complex projective spaces and complex manifolds to represent physical phenomena, offering an alternative to the conventional space-time description. - **Applications**: Twistor theory has been influential in various areas of mathematical physics, including the study of integrable systems and scattering amplitudes in quantum field theory. ### *Cross Product in Twistor Theory* - **Standard Cross Product**: The cross product is an operation in three-dimensional Euclidean space that takes two vectors and returns a third vector perpendicular to both. - **Higher Dimensions**: In four dimensions or within complex spaces, the traditional cross product does not directly apply because it is specifically a three-dimensional concept. - *Alternatives**: In higher-dimensional spaces, one uses generalizations like the **exterior product* or *wedge product* in differential forms, which are related to concepts in twistor theory. - **Relation to Twistor Theory**: While the standard cross product isn't directly used in twistor theory, the underlying concepts of vector operations and orientations in space are relevant. Twistor theory often deals with complex analogs of these operations. ### *Christoffel Symbols and Differential Geometry* - **Christoffel Symbols**: These are mathematical objects from differential geometry that represent the connection coefficients of a Levi-Civita connection. They are used in general relativity to describe how tensors change as they move through curved space-time. - **Role in General Relativity**: Christoffel symbols help define the covariant derivative, which is essential for formulating physical laws in curved space-time. - **Relation to Twistor Theory**: Twistor theory seeks to bypass some of the complexities of space-time curvature by working within complex manifolds. While Christoffel symbols are crucial in the standard formulation of general relativity, twistor theory approaches the geometry differently. - **Connections**: In advanced formulations, there may be indirect relationships where the geometric structures in twistor space correspond to certain curvature properties in space-time, potentially involving concepts analogous to Christoffel symbols. ### *Bringing It All Together* - **Unified Framework**: Twistor theory offers a unique perspective by translating problems in four-dimensional space-time into problems in complex geometry, potentially simplifying certain calculations and providing new insights. - **Mathematical Relations**: While the cross product and Christoffel symbols are not central components of twistor theory, understanding their roles in mathematics and physics can enhance comprehension of the geometric and algebraic structures involved. - **Advanced Studies**: For those interested in the deep mathematical connections, exploring how differential forms, complex manifolds, and connections in differential geometry relate to twistor spaces can be enlightening. ### *Conclusion* Roger Penrose's twistor theory provides a fascinating approach to understanding the fundamental nature of the universe by leveraging complex geometry. While the traditional cross product and Christoffel symbols are not primary tools in twistor theory, the concepts of vector operations and differential geometry underpin much of the mathematical landscape in which twistor theory exists. *Further Reading:* - The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose – A comprehensive guide to the laws of the universe, including discussions on twistor theory. - Spinors and Space-Time by Roger Penrose and Wolfgang Rindler – Delves into the mathematical foundations of twistor theory. - Research articles on the application of twistor theory in modern physics, particularly in quantum field theory and string theory. If you have specific questions or need clarification on any of these topics, feel free to ask! Reply 1 reply @mikehoman7351 7 days ago (edited) He's right quantum mechanics is wrong - Sabina hossenfelder said something about it in one of her videos she was referring to quantum mechanics as possibly being a provisional Theory - this I would agree with because a provisional Theory does not have to work with the truth of structure but instead would use proven calculations and that works to a certain degree just like just like Orbits with tolamac epicycles did - that being said I also don't agree with Rodger Penrose Theory 1 Reply 1 reply @constantinebunghanoyiii1860 7 days ago What it all boils down to is ABSOLUTELY NO ONE KNOWS ABSOLUTELY!!! Theories can be made infinitely. And all their theories are based on The theory of general relativity. Which means scientists HAVE to stick to a linear line of thought. It’ll always lead back to the starting point. 1 Reply @petergedd9330 6 days ago Any theory is wrong, whatever the mind can think up, whatever it is will remain in the realm of the mind, reality is an experience which does not belong in thought, the two can never mix, just like light can never mix with dark. Reply @dannieaustin8975 2 days ago I listen to this carefully, but I think Kurt Vonnegut jr. actually had it right. Reply @yamlcase230 2 days ago 1 + 2 = 3! o wait a minute... Reply @TheFnkeysie 5 days ago (edited) Was hoping for some courage with consciousness question. Thank you. CSC theories make since!!! I hope Robert is vindicated, in the end Reply @sergiotorres1069 7 days ago lol every string is entangled to every other string in the universe weaving our space together .this interaction results in emergent quantized gravitational field. the interaction between the Quantas gravitational field and the Higgs field cause time occur we Experience it in the every universe resulting in the phenomenon, of now. The electromagnetic field is an resulting emergent exaltation of the lower fields 1 Reply 1 reply @paulmitchell5349 7 days ago Wise not to butt into what only Penrose and a few other humans on the planet could possibly understand. Reply @MrMeltdown 3 days ago I was enjoying this until The Economist advert.... sheesh Reply @akolyte22 7 days ago would Roger be interested in investigating Remote Viewing? 2 Reply 1 reply @danielmartin2771 4 days ago It's all fine Einstein. Reply @monkerud2108 7 days ago The retro causal view is equivalent to summing over two different deterministic evolutions that end up with different measures. But if you define it that way you are already talking about classical probabilities over observables. So you can't sum states in the same way, summing the classical equivalent of a quantum state is not a reasonable way to look at it, fyenmans sum over histories ks a quantum sum of amplitudes that add linearly, instead you have something different, you have a distribution of classical or more properly deterministic states evolving into a specific measure, those might not be unique, only the distribution of outcomes is unique, not each classical state corresponding to each outcome. So you sum the contributions from all possible deterministic evolutions, and those must contain individually the dynamics of some of the interference, but not all of it, just the interference that is inseparable in a sense. So for example in the double slit experiment with light you have a distribution that comes out and random individual outcomes, the ley is that the nodes of 0 incidence has to define part of the dynamics of esch andnevery deterministic history summed over on the classical probability side. More technically the deterministic states that end up There must have measure 0 ignoring noise, or some very small measure. Its perfectly clear that the dynamics of this interface must be contained in the dynamics of all the states summed over to avoid having a finite measure subset that lands where there is perfect destructive interference for the amplitudes. So the sum over histories on the classical probability side has to be very different from the amplitude quantum side. The classical deterministic states being summed over and only one existing is equivalent tl a sort of retrocausal picture in quantum mechanics. And as we all know a classical deterministic theory doesn't really have time as an issue, time is just a correlation between states adjacent in time so to speak, whether its viewed in a presentist picture or eternalist one males no difference, the resulting correlations between initial and final states stay the same, onoy depending on the laws wihich give the form of the dependence. Reply @albertosierraalta3223 5 days ago Does anyone else find it weird or annoying when Curt quickly jumps from one topic to another kinda messing the flow of conversation? For example when Penrose is talking about Alice and Bob and retrocausality and Curt immediately ask about consciousness Reply @jasonjenkins7825 4 days ago I'm ignorant enough not to understand what his point with twistors is; it strikes me in my ignorance as just a different flavor of mathwank from that of ST. Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago For my theory I usually have confidence levels of 99.99% or even more sometimes. Still it is hard to be heard. Reply @wout123100 7 days ago the problem with the scientific cult is they are unable to explain it to people outside the cult...!! this is a serious issue, since more and more people do no longer believe in science. penrose is brilliant no doubt about that, is there anywhere some explanation of his ideas for the layman? Reply @SONALI-w2s 7 days ago Quanta is Manifestation !! 2 Reply @TheLivirus 7 days ago (edited) Does superposition occur in physical reality? Yes and no. 1 Reply @mitsaoriginal8630 7 days ago Curt interview John smith please!! Reply 1 reply @artregeous 2 days ago Fucking prophet of scientific philosophy i hope he lives till 120 and shine brilliant lmao Reply @shankarbalakrishnan2360 5 days ago Could u tell me the theory that works cant learn from anyone else and subjects which are flawed❤❤🎉🎉 Reply @gariusjarfar1341 5 days ago In the end, Roger can't exit either reality for better ideas. Like most of physics, it would an education disaster for Roger. Being wrong on any accepted part of either reality is to frightening to contemplate. Reply @zvikabar-kochva3641 7 days ago I like Roger Penrose. He comes across as a really nice peson and he sticks to his believes and worldview, though some of it is really on the fring of accepted physics. However, most of his work is theoretical, with little or no experimental backing. For example, his theory on Black Holes, for which got the Nobel, could never be tested. His theory about the cyclic conformity of the universe, and it's traces in the CMB, is far from scientific concensus, so does his theoris about spinors and about the origin and mechanism of conciousness. In my view, in order to be considered a great theoretical physicist, one must demonstrate that his theory not only explains the experimental phenomena, it should also provide prediction for future finding, which are corroborated by experiments. I believe most of Dr. Penrose work is not up to that standard. Reply 1 reply @wjgonzalez1 2 days ago "20th century greatest living scientist" by whose estimation? Reply @SandipChitale 7 days ago I have no joy saying this, but Copernicun principle is at play again with respect to consciousness. Turing machine is a single thread and it is possible that Goerdle's theorem may apply to it, but peoples incredulity about machines being able to implement consciousness and intelligence says more about our insecurities and the fact that we attribute extreme premium on specialness of our consciousness and intelligence. Do not get me wrong, our consciousness and intelligence is wonderful, snd it has served us well. But its wonderfulness is not the same as potential ease of implementation. The key ideas in new AI approaches, is a big oaradigm shift, and has likely opened a different doorway to implementation. 1 Reply @spearshaker7974 7 days ago Has anybody read that paper about the pre life dirty plasmas that hang out in the thermosphere? Reply @karelcerny1813 4 days ago Cz_Myslím si že spojení kvantové mechaniky a kosmologickou gravitací je pouze v čase a protože Planckův čas má velké rozpětí může nehomogenita v Planckově energii v čase vytvořit baryony. Reply 1 reply @PelikanVPustatine 6 days ago that must have been an encounter of lifetime; next time slide your NB to the side so it appears you're talking to him testing him Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago "What could be more absurd. It is absolutely ridiculous.". That is an emotional argument, not a logical argument. There is nothing illogical about the Von Neumann Wigner interpretation. Also, in essence all interpretations are saying that, even decoherence theory, because it also uses the mind of the observer to separate quantum states. The only exception is his own interpretation, and he is certainly incorrect on this. Reply @frictionhitch 3 days ago The idea that determinism is in conflict with free will is absolutely nonsensical. For it to be in conflict you would have to choose other than you would choose. Clearly that's not possible even without determinism. As a matter of fact it is definitional to the idea of free will that you choose as you would choose. If you could make a choice other than the choice you would make then you wouldn't have free will. You would have random will. Reply @jessemontano762 6 days ago The English live forever Reply @shadyantra 2 days ago I know you will not believe in Consciousness (Atman or Soul) as Universal eternal cosmic energy. This Cosmic Energy cannot be destroyed. At last, I have experienced in my life and I am thankful to Cosmic Almighty to enlighten me on this. If you have caliber and real-potential to research on this topic then try to research on these Areas: (1) Reincarnation or Rebirth (2) Atman (consciousnes or Soul). Best example is Dhirendra Krishn Shashtri from District Chhatarpur, State (Madhya Pradesh, Country Bharat. He has his Kundalini awakened and talks to souls. I have got all my questions addressed, lets see what you can do.. Reply @イスンノム 7 days ago We need ed written Reply @TheMikesylv 7 days ago Black holes are one way matter to energy size converters which drives the expansion and arrow of timeWhen all the matter is back to dark energy and only photons are left this is the end and beginning like Roger is saying . Roger is correct nobody is paying attention to him Reply @ricodelta1 6 days ago Inflation... Always sounded a lil ad hoc to me. Reply @FenrirKi 4 days ago And the alternative theory with better verified solutions? Reply @ovidiulupu5575 7 days ago We turn back to Platon and Aristotel kind of thinking. Concepts, mechanisms invented. Pandemy make ME to understand that all în physics are naratives made by humans. And reality îs now, în front of US but we can t see IT, because of this naratives that blind US. Reality îs beyond thinking..... Don t matter, Jean boxing. 2 Reply 3 replies @afshinmollaali 5 days ago QUANTUM MECHANICS POINT OF VIEW IS NOT GOOD POINT .for example instead of get fix in time and cloud of existence in place we can see fix place and cloud in time. then we can see wave function did not necessary . wave interference pattern may created because photon can jump to past till did not interfere with other particles . Reply @johncarlson3968 7 days ago What’s an imaginary frequency? EM waves? Reply @TopROMen 7 days ago "Roger Penrose is a renowned physicist and mathematician." Wrong. He is a renowned mathematician. Name one scientific prediction he has made that applies to the real world, then we can call him a physicist. Reply 1 reply @dylanmenzies3973 16 hours ago A given math proof is a finite thing, its always possible an ai will come up with it. You might say it was lucky, but its always possible. Reply @afterglow5285 18 hours ago Amazing interview. But why those scientists hate so much quantum? Reply @TomHamilton221155 4 days ago Penrose has logic on his side. Observing is nonsensical. Reply @CleanBlackRaiser 5 days ago Surface "irregularities" of an optical lens will prevent light from shrinking to zero at its focal point? Well then, the "irregularities" of Hawking Radiation may encode the scope, size and direction of a black hole twistor. Zero value is absurd. Reply @rogerjohnson2562 4 days ago 51:30 I thought the 5 minutes prior established that 'collapse' was quantum BS; so why now say that 'collapse' causes Consciousness? Surely Consciousness is something else that DOESN'T fit into a 'quantum' theory, it is emergent from an aggregate of mental states, the individual mental states aren't little bits (quantums) of Consciousnes. Reply @charlesbrightman4237 7 days ago CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: It has been said that 'gravity' can be associated with 'free falling'. Well, the Earth rotates, hence 'gravity' should also be going sideways, and it doesn't. 1 Reply 9 replies @granitfog 1 day ago I suspect you can find a pulmonologist somewhere who feels that smoking does not cause cancer, a cardiologist who thinks cholesterol does not contribute to coronary stenosis, a meteorologist who thinks human made climate change is a hoax. It is a popular practice highlight those who buck the prevailing scientific opinion but an opinion is THE prevailing scientific opinion because it has withstood the scientific rigors of confrontation. In this and similar videos, there is no serious confrontation thus it is irrelelvant. Loose elsewhere for wisdom. Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago Color charge Reply @scignosis 7 days ago ❤ 1 Reply @peterfreiling6963 10 hours ago You seriously think Roger Penrose is the greatest living scientist? Give me an F**** break! Reply @OrIoN1989 6 days ago Could you not just call everything (Turing complete) function space, and fit a model that resolves the data? Reply @manuelteixeira2496 3 days ago It is written in The Bible that God establishes limits to mankind's dwelling. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" Acts 17:26. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? ««««««««««««««««««««««««««« Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? »»»»»»»»»»»»»»» By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? ««««««««««««««««««««««««««««« Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? »»»»»»»»»»»»»» Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? «««««««««««««««««««««« Job 19 - 29. It is repeated that light and temperature are interdependent referring to ice and frost. There is a relationship between the light with what is dark or invisible as being intermingled originating the electromagnetic force referred to as the north. " He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. " Daniel 2 : 22. " He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26: 7 " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. " Isaiah 45: 7 The only key to the mysteries that surround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and pour of God. Men need to recognize God as the Creator of the universe, One Who commands and executes all things. They need a broader view of His character and of the mystery of His agencies." Desire of Ages page 515. Reply @xjuhox 2 days ago Curt, you should have asked what are the conjugate variables in quantum gravity. The naive merry go round sum of geometries is a dead end. Reply @almightysapling 3 days ago (edited) His core argument is a Strawman. Nobody has taken seriously the idea that consciousness has anything to do with collapsing the wave function and hasn't for decades. Many modern interpretations don't even require collapse. Hell, neither do many old interpretations, and yet Roger seems so focused on dismissing this one very specific, very extreme form as if it's some hot take. No man, everyone agrees with you, we have moved on. Not saying I don't appreciate what he has to say otherwise, he's a genius and I think his cyclic inflation model is going to end up right (in spirit if not in exact details). But his views on QM just all seem so very antiquated. Reply @lukassmok4310 4 days ago ❤ 1 Reply @nareshlathia5334 4 days ago The brain/mind attempting to understand the Universe is made up of Quantum Matter. The Universe is made of Quantum Matter. Is this not like measuring the depth of the ocean by using a tape measure made of water? 1 Reply 1 reply @XD226 5 days ago 1:19:23 Reply 1 reply @shanep2879 7 days ago Ha 00:55:30 Reply @Achrononmaster 6 days ago Oh the title burn! 🔥 Witten is of course either not living (he's a robot from the future) or not a scientist (he's a mathematician in disguise). Reply @terencenxumalo1159 3 days ago interesting Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago Timing do. Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago What gives the Higgs boson its mass? Reply @AdvaiticOneness1 5 days ago (edited) The key problem here is the definition of Consciousness. As long as we ignore to investigate the nature of consciousness, nothing really make sense! NOTHING! Reply 1 reply @daviddorfan9023 3 days ago I am not sure how much backing your statement re Penrose b eing the 29th century's greatest scientist would get Reply @paulc2019 7 days ago You can be as technical as you like...my brain love listening, but it's only taking in 10%.. just words... Reply @Elite7555 2 days ago 49:21 I'm sorry, but this story is just utter nonsense. What is he even trying to prove there? That's a completely distorted explanation of what superposition is. And could be please stop saying quantum theory and consciosnesss in the same sentence? It has nothing to do with each other. Reply @bimmjim 6 days ago We don't perceive time properly, because we are riding on a moving plane called TIME. Reply 1 reply @Matt-jn1dd 3 days ago Twistor theory has no evidence just lots of maths and geometry. Reply @priyakulkarni9583 6 days ago Penrose ideas are speculative Reply @TheBinaryUniverse 6 days ago The curvature of space time is due to the curvature of time. If you change the time rate, you automatically change lengths. If you take time as fundamental and space as emergent from time, then the changing time rate will result in the changing of space. Both then always "curve" together. Since time is a wave, and that is easy to demonstrate, then the changing of the time rate is the changing of the frequency of the wave, (Red shift = slower time, (less energy)). The classical world relies on this frequency, the effect of many cycles of the wave, the large, slow scale The quantum world is the world of the small and fast, the world of events that occur in less than one cycle of the wave, so you can see why classical rules no longer apply in the quantum realm. There IS no tension between relativity and QM, it's just that they operate in different realms under different sets of rules. Reply 2 replies @winternights2 14 hours ago Pen, " Quantum " isn't " wrong ", it's no more than a concept. It's those professors who meddle and try persuade others that their right who are WRONG. Last 50 years of understanding wasted by those of lead others up the proverbial garden path with their wistful notions and keep going on when they can not prove a jot of it. Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago Einstein was wrong, not quantum mechanics. Reply @eternaldoorman5228 7 days ago 42:30 On consciousness and wave-function collapse. Penrose is a die-hard reductionist and this is his mind-body problem. If he could take seriously the fact that experimental physicists have agency and that their actions in setting up an experiment in a laboratory are conscious then I don't think there is an issue, but maybe he doesn't want to allow consciousness to have an existence aside from being an effect of interaction of massive particles of some kind. I tried to explain the role of mathematics in the description of physical experiments in this video I made a few months ago https://youtu.be/8pxJ6_2J7Fg in it I get as far as mumbling about how Category Theory "Abstract Nonsense" comes into the picture in a quite sensible way, because it is all about translating descriptions of experimental conditions between different actual physical situations which are the invariants or models of the theory. 1 Reply @evike6034 7 days ago Потому-как, физический мир создаётся из виртуального мира. С какой-то частотой, атомы обновляются из виртуального мира. Направление времени, физический мир не может обновляться в виртуальный. Превысить скорость света, возможно. Атомы остановятся, обновляется из виртуального мира. Время остановится для этого объекта. А относительно остального пространства ускорение продолжится. Вот Вам и мгновенное путешествие на любое расстояние. В любой точке пространство бесконечно в маленькое и большое. Появился человек и придумал математику и изменение всего, расстояния, это всё виртуальная относительность не существующая в физическом мире, простое совпадение, частичное. Поэтому, нельзя нечего рассчитать - неизвестное, липовые расчеты. Человек мыслит в виртуальном мире, а существует в физическом. Языки просто придуманы, их можно менять, и существует в виртуальном мире......... То есть, создатель бесконечный виртуальный интеллект. :) 1 Reply @Big_Sloppa 3 days ago Dude is bizarre. I'm unsure if what he's doing is practical/useful in any way, but it's bizarre. It's cool there is still people who not afraid to work on fringe theories, because we never know what fringe might one day turn into hew frontier. Reply @Mahdi20832 3 days ago once people pass age 70..... stop taking suggestions. they will start decaying. Emotions and religions gripp them..... Retirement from jobs 😂😂😂 1 Reply @Xhris57 7 days ago Going back to Greek philosophy, what we are doing is watching Plato’s allegory of the cave as both the observer and the observed. The imaginary dimension provides a higher level system, much like godels incompleteness theorem in reverse. Reply @fredfish4316 4 days ago Greatest. Hyperbole. Reply @luizbotelho1908 5 days ago FOR EVERYBODY OUT OF UK ! : DO NOT START TO BURNING BOOKS ON QM !. QM SHOULD BE USEFUL FOR SOMETHING!. (a little sar$#@casm ).I STILL BELIEVE IN THE GREAT FATHER OF MODERN QM ; PAUL DIRAC (REALLY AMONG THE FIVE GREATEST MATHEMATICAL PHYSICISTS AFTER ISAAC NEWTON EVEN IF ...SCOTTISH .BELIEVE ME !). Reply @Achrononmaster 6 days ago @1:09:00 it is not an "element of quantum reality". You ask the question and answer it with a measurement since fermions cannot talk. The measurement is just an element of reality, period. It is the orientation of the fermion on the boundary of the spacetime cobordism it was detected at. That is not "quantum". What is "quantum" is the fact the matter is in the form of a particle, not a field. A QFT description of these quanta is gnarly because they can get entangled, which means you cannot provide a Hamiltonian time evolution story without introducing auxiliary fictitious field variables. Reply @ejenkins4711 7 days ago O boi seems Jung may be on point Put that laptop away 🏰⌚🐝 Reply @ruudvanveen428 7 days ago Refering here to the question (tc 1:21:04), quote [ "Okay, so please recount your views on 'IS CONSCIOUSNESS' fundamental?"]], Please, can one explain to me: "What IS the quantity of time refering to the copulative verb 'IS'? The moment 'itself' NOW, is it not? Well, NOW=INFINITE, and Infinity ITSELF lacks ANY PROPERTY and therefore CAN NOT EXIST! Yes, there IS only ONE ATUM, ther IS only One Infinity, yes there IS only but One Omni Creative GOD WHO IS INFINITE. Does ' I ' exist NOW? WHO IS 'I'? Reply 1 reply @autisiens 5 days ago You shift andshift and shift your ivory towered rotating neck Reply @Photomonon 7 days ago E8 Reply @Vunderbread 7 days ago Until someone can definitely point out and identify a phenomenon that serves as the counterpart to "black holes", i.e. a region of space spewing forth matter seemingly from nowhere, the concept shouldn't be taken very seriously. No, we haven't "photographed" a black hole, that one famous image was quite literally computer-generated, they remain purely theoretical. Based on broken theories of gravity, I might add. Black Holes suffer from a fatal problem - pressure mediation. Let me explain simply, because it actually is rather simple: release gas into an open vacuum environment, and it will seek equilibrium - it will evenly disperse itself until pressure is evenly distributed throughout the system. Try condensing it, and that pressure will increase until the 'container' eventually bursts. But in nature, in an open environment, there is no mechanism for condensing matter to a point beyond this where gravity - still not understood at all, hence the search for a TOE - supposedly overpowers the subatomic integrity of mass. Astrophysicists invoke the collapse of neutron stars - another purely theoretical phenomenon - to achieve this. It is (bad) theory stacked upon (bad) theory, all the way down. And at the very bottom, we have a broken and battered theory of gravity, already tortured for decades to accommodate the ad hoc theory of 'dark matter', galaxy rotation, etc. The average person would be absolutely horrified to know the true nature of modern astronomy, how far from reason, basic common sense, it has strayed. Reply @JesseReza-g4l 7 days ago of course it is, when have we've ever been given the truth by those owning states and governments? Reply @gyanprakashraj4062 3 days ago HE IS HALF OF ME....DONT SHIT HERE....JO KEHTAA SUNO... Reply @lifeliked 4 days ago Can AI win at rock paper scissors though? Reply @Ai-he1dp 6 days ago 9:54 he necer wrote anything down....was he the one that didn't write papers?...pay attention boy!!!!your in the presence of a great mind! Reply 1 reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago He got it exactly backwards. Instead of saying that consciousness causes the update of the wavefunction, he says it is the update of the wavefunction that causes consciousness. There can only be an update in information if someone has been informed. In the absence of observers nobody is informed, and so no update of the wavefunction can take place. Reply @DaRoosterSee 6 days ago 51:11 ah ha ha Reply @SkyDarmos 6 days ago Galileo, Newton and Einstein were all wrong. The equivalence principle is wrong. Reply @mariobonilla6643 4 days ago So what do I do? I do what any sensible physicist would do, I cheat. I say, okay 😅 Reply @clintnorton4322 4 days ago I agree with him, quantum theory is just wrong...... mostly. But so is wave function collapse. Let's try a different, less fantasy-like interpretation of the facts observed. Reply 2 replies @martynhaggerty2294 7 days ago Sorry you allowed him to be technical, lost me on the first sentence. Reply @makimomoo 7 days ago Curt, you must have provided a curry lunch. That gravy stain on Roger’s jersey is very distracting 😂 Reply @Opticsjournal 6 days ago Poor Penrose is caught in a conundrum: he proclaims that "quantum mechanics is wrong" ... and yet he promotes "quantum consciousness." Both, the "collapse of the wave function" and "the measurement problem" are unnecessary concepts in quantum mechanics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0hF-PEMbPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4NsuY3FgNo Reply @udolehmann5432 7 days ago 47:17 das stört 🫵☹️ Reply @Nathan-vq9ch 4 days ago Mankinds DNA has failure built in after we kill everything what do we do & thats only consciousness Reply @iDeist 7 days ago Penrose is talking about going to the beach in Dallas to relax after the Kennedy assassination and Curt says, "and do some math". Penrose eye rolls Curt and basically shakes his head. Dude's never been laid. So socially awkward and does not know how to take social cues. Do the math. 1 Reply 1 reply @greenstar2108 6 days ago Penrose is a fan of Ze Franks channel? Wow... Reply @cesarellromeo-i2l 6 days ago 45:39 what collapses the wave-function is physics - quantum theory is wrong Reply 2 replies @L4wr3nc3810 5 days ago Nice, didnt understand a single f in thing he said Reply @PhillyGirl-pt3vq 5 days ago Why are you a fan of Penrose? He doesn’t have the answer either. He’s not supposed to. He’s arrogant. Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago Neutron Reply @mevenstien 5 days ago ✨️🙂✨️ Reply @OblivionNoMore 7 days ago You should grow that beard Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago i cubed it Reply @I-M-2. 19 hours ago This might be a step towards the correction: https://youtu.be/ZOR-4MS63Po?si=leDJJAPB9m11Y3xT Reply @malagoke 5 days ago You want divers sponsorships from which you can grow your own rent, not slim shares from strange attractors. Or do you? Reply @macdmacd7896 7 days ago (edited) if Penrose theory is the truth, will Penrose in the now universe carry on his memories to the next universe? if so, is Penrose in the now universe remembers the memories of Penrose in the previous universe? if so, what is the purpose of memories compilation from all the infinite universe? if it has no purpose, ei. just a dumbass cycle of life n death n life n death forever, can we just be like Diddy effing everyone else? Reply 1 reply @GH-oi2jf 4 days ago "Greatest Living Scientist"? Is that his self-evaluation? Reply 1 reply @BoRisMc 5 days ago unbeelievable 😂 1 Reply @forrisvourvopoulos3252 5 days ago 🤤😪😴🥴sorry I'm awake, I'm, still awake......are we there yet? Please, bring people with tangible evident" not, fairy tales. Reply @TheOneAndOnlySame 1 day ago (edited) Be me Be saying for years that QT is wrong because of the superposition and entanglement , collapse etc non sense. Have no real knowledge in physics so it's not the reason , I just should shut it and accept it . I don't: I have no issue distrusting even the most highest authorities in any field as long as their claims sound nonsensical to me. "it sounds counter intuitive but " says any and all QT preacher. No it doesn't sound counter intuitive, it sounds like bullshit , that's different. Reply @Xhris57 6 days ago The intuitive proof to this is as follows. Everybody in the entire world has the most advanced AI available to them in their pocket for perhaps five times $20 per month. As such, everybody can conjure an infinite world within cognitive space. Soon you will be able to speak a movie into existence and speak a 3-D environment representing your entire life into existence. Needless to say, this has been done before. The book of John chapter 1 verses one to five Independent of whether or not you believe in “an old or ancient text“, the nature of the infinite reality within artificial intelligence is in fact, not cyclical. You are holding an infinite universe in your hand. It’s silly to think that this has not been invented before. Consider the book of Ecclesiastes “there is nothing new under the Sun“ having been spoken by the wisest man in history. Perhaps Roger Penrose is the second wisest man in history! I love your work, keep it up. Reply @ophammerdin8579 2 days ago Moment I hear about conscious I shut it off. Absolute rubbish if you think any human is fundamental to physics. Reply @tnekkc 6 days ago Inflation has that bs twang to it. Reply @paulk9776 6 hours ago a lot of rambling about nothing Reply @bakasan0000 2 days ago "quantum mechanics is wrong" 🤡🤡🤡 Reply @voornaam3191 4 days ago Yeah, nice, but when will he finally get his lecture into something concrete, something the pysisisisi-(what an utter stupid word)-sts can measure? After an hour of bla bla bla? Reply @juanferbriceno4411 2 days ago (edited) Penrose is a smart likable guy. But he is also full of nonsense. I guess it is just very difficult to figure out whether the universe is eternal or it had a beginning. Never mind free will...why ask a mathematician/physicists about free will? Everybody claims good evidence for their non-testable ideas. This is is just not science at all. This is just fun interesting speculation. Reply @alienteknology5390 6 days ago Can you dumb that down a bit more for me. A bit more... a bit more... Reply @halk3 7 days ago Penrose thinks that consciousness is "physics." The problem with this is that he is talking about "physics" which is not yet known. I would say that the "physics" responsible for consciousness can never be understood, since that would lead into the same contradiction that Penrose described in "Shadows of the Mind". Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago e Reply @SpeakSoftly-t3r 6 days ago Neo Reply @baptsan 7 days ago I think he himselfe can not follow this....what a mess.. Reply @lindaungureanu8661 4 days ago 🤍 Reply @byronvyronvyronos 7 days ago ROGER YOUR WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT, SORRY MATE BUT TRUE. 2 Reply 2 replies @msf559 6 days ago (edited) An overhyped physicist does not give a clear answer just blames absurdity and has a very limited understanding of free will, consciousness discrete or AI can do maths...such a waste of time.....but at least better than all poor physicists spreading heir subjective thoughts... Reply 1 reply @bhutjolokia6990 7 days ago My perspective is the simplest way to explain it. If everything leading up to the mass of the universe is held together by gravity then why would we think outside the box in this situation. On the other hand the scientists who believe the big bang theory, the same scientists will not even consider thinking outside the box. Everything is synchronized in a way to generate or create enough momentum to be held together by gravity. There is the possibility there could be external force to some degree with a bubble just like everything else preceding the universe as a whole. The multi-universe perspective would also make sense from a galactic perspective as a whole. So there was never a Big Bang or even a bang only merging for eternity. ️ Reply @keithtomey5046 7 days ago The Economist lol 😂 Reply @JeshuaGötte 7 days ago .. Reply @carlhopkinson 7 days ago Bullhockey. Reply @JeshuaGötte 7 days ago . Reply @fredfish4316 4 days ago What was the question again? Good god. Genius at talking about what? Just a simple hypothesis would do! He is lost in his own mind. 2 Reply 1 reply @Opticsjournal 7 days ago Penrose recently wrote a paper entitled "Exploring the unification of quantum theory and general relativity..." Why bother trying to unify his relativity theory with an "erroneous" quantum? It is up to him to prove via measurements that "quantum mechanics is wrong." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0hF-PEMbPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4NsuY3FgNo Reply @CandidDate 6 days ago I can't emphasize enough that this is a bunch of nonsense. Reply @toxictroll7843 7 days ago gay Reply @rhqstudio4107 6 days ago I feel interview is not respectful enough Reply @perpetgholl5742 4 days ago you are old and WRONG. Reply @TheMikesylv 7 days ago I’m voting for Penrose with a little Eric Weinstein and the guy from Hawaii Reply @jsharp9735 7 days ago I'm sick of hearing about the cult of Einstein. Reply @cdenn016 7 days ago Yang or susskind might be greater imho Reply 3 replies @chrishicks8347 5 days ago Understand that the Milky Way Galaxy is a life form. The body of God. Enjoy Reply @JohnJTraston 6 days ago Wrong! It's wrong. Spinners are wrong. Space-time is wrong. Amplituhedron explains everything. Reply 3 replies @fragtthorsten9059 7 days ago Penrose is just a Scammer. "It from Bit" john archibald wheeler Reply @roryduff4529 7 days ago Relativity theory is wrong Reply 1 reply @timbuk2.019 7 days ago (edited) So how can you agree with his radical theories but disagree with radical Terrence Howard he's doing the exact same thing. Keep that same pretentious,pompous,close minded energy. At least terrence had models and simplified advanced concepts a trait of true insight &understanding. And Dr Edward Dowdye already decimated/eviscerated relativity very handedly in a 9min &or26min presentation on YouTube. I think he's full of shyt Reply 2 replies @davejones542 7 days ago incoherent bable Reply