Roger Penrose - What Does Quantum Theory Mean?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2015
- Click here to see more video interviews on what quantum theory means bit.ly/1gk3pqa
Click here for more interviews from Roger Penrose bit.ly/19Tyygc
To buy Closer To Truth episodes click here bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For more video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
I like how can and does change his mind as he thinks and learns more. That is a scientist!
An original thinker - rare, precious and utterly brilliant. Thank you Sir Roger.
Roger Penrose is one of the few truly great minds we have access to in this age. He implies what many of us secretly believe, namely that there is something more fundamental we haven't yet glimpsed which will clear up the contradictions. Many world's, the landscape, inflation, dark matter and the like will fall by the wayside when (if ever) this is discovered. What Physics needs is a new Einstein, and if past experience holds, we may have to wait another 300 years. As an aside, this man's humility and humanity is so refreshing amoung his peers. I wish I could be there when God shows Penrose the whole picture.
You might live in a part of the universe were a God rules while in other parts of this universe they have no need for a God so I dont think God could show a whole picture of anything he would only be able to show a tiny part
@@halestorm123
Why would *God* , of all... eh, "people", not rule the whole universe ?
What do you mean by "God " anyway ?
@@nicholasleclerc1583 Well, according to Gnosticism (not saying I agree with this, it's just an interesting concept), the "god" of Abrahamic monotheism/Israel, YHWH, is only our "demiurge"--our planetary logos--that is simply a part of a larger intergalactic/interdimensional system.
@Bob Smith Really? I'm not too familiar with Mormonism--had no idea they incorporated Gnostic ideas.
Meditate; to beyond the jhanas and the formless abodes or immaterial realms (or in Christian parlance the various degrees or stages of prayer or heavenly or saintly abodes or stages or levels of sainthood) and one can truly ask of the Great (vegan, wholefood) Hotgod Vendor to "Make one One with everything" to truly achieve At-One-Ment going beyond having even just "a little dust in one's eye" so that one becomes as Meister Eckhart, "from whom God hid Nothing". Though would this mean that Eckhart was in need of the stage of No-thing-ness, prior to Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception of the (is it correct to say) the 8th and 9th jhanas ?
Advancing to these levels of alternate states of consciousness may strip away such levels of deep-seated prejudice and conceit (or ego-centrism) as to display Reality in all its glory. Whether this is more (or less) difficult or edifying than a deep mathematical grasp of the universe or reality is probably beyond even Penrose, but I'd hazard to guess he'd be pretty damn close. I'd love to hear his take on it, but I'd suspect he might avoid answering too explicitly as a consequence of the prejudices of his fellow "scientists", after all, is this not why he chose to call his book after the Hans Christian Andersen tale (The Emperor's New Clothes) which highlights how we follow, sheepishly, the prejudices of those around us for fear of being witch-hunted ?
Even should he turn out to be mistaken in one or another of his unorthodoxies, the depth and beauty of his thinking is undeniable.
This channel deserves much more subscribers and views.
I mean, millions of views for a stupid music video or a guy screaming in front of a camera and 3k for Sir Roger Penrose, one of the greatest geniuses of our time. Seriously guys? Come on.
this video is not for the average iq
+Arr Ere They can't and they know it. When I discuss relativity with my wife her eyes go out of focus and look away from me. Just be glad YOU are able to appreciate the discussion.
Andrea - the prablem for you is that your too ...hmm.....innerlectual??
3:51 When your coworkers keep talking to you about how their kids made the 2nd grade honor roll for the 7th time and you’re waiting for them to go away or just die really.
🤣🤣🤣
Great encapsulation of the problem Sir Roger! The phase factor discrepancy of t^3 is curious, I hope to use your explanations as a compass in order to guide me on my path to comprehending the situation fully for myself.
A rare genius. I first appreciated his ideas over 20 years ago now. Glad he's finally getting the recognition he deserves. Took an entire generation of physicists to come and finally fizzle out, but still. It's good to see. Same for some other "old school" scientists who were not preoccupied with trends and fashions.
I find it fascinating to listen to this guy,
maybe it is I am about the same age and not so sure about current accepted physics, as during my life I have seen things change, sometimes 100% opposite from what I learned, always been a rebellion.
We are still learning, without some picture in my mind of what happens, just the math is meaningless.
I am in electronics , talk about changes ....
So happy with his way of thinking.
This guy did a great explanation, like to hear an update
Didn't notice a problem with the camera work. Enjoyed the interview.
I see comments.
The average video I see usually involves someone all but screaming and the camera view doing cartwheels.
This was a relief.
Penrose is superb. What a mind,and what a gentleman.
General Relativity is the more mature theory. Now that gravitational waves have been found, the correctness of GR seems unassailable. Quantum mechanics, by comparison, despite its extremely impressive numerical accuracy in certain calculations, is clearly a work in progress. It will surely be modified extensively over time.
What a remarkable man.
I just love Roger !!
Anyone interested can read this article- "On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics I: Quantum State Reduction
-- Roger Penrose " . The idea of this paper has been summarised in this video
Dr Roger Penrose is making very interesting observations. i am not sure I understand everything. I need to think more about what he has said. I really do like the way he thinks.
I wish I had his background in his subject. I wish I had a teacher like him. he is making this subject very interesting. Yes I have always felt that Gravity must have an effect on the collapse of the wave function.
Enlightening!
Further description of time cubed would be helpful? Might time cubed be acceleration of gravity moving through time?
Sorry about that, but these questions are important, and I wish you had more than a gazillion views and likes, mr Penrose, but here we are. I, for one, would love to have a conversation with You, Cantor, Boltzmann, and of course Turing, about these matters, but what can we do? :-(
+Contango1000 I know! I would love to have conversations with Nima Arkani Hamed!
yes, of course, this is a problem to be surmounted...but hou?
How wonderful the human mind is, its incredible in such a short time, our brain has devolped into such a powerful tool, in working out the impossible.
His brain, not ours. If you shaved off the 99th percentile we'd all be painting caves
Subspace: +ve charge cells (charge quanta, base charge +1) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge
Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind
Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow
Positron: +ve free cell (+1) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice
Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice
Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Free cell and hole are close with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass
Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron. 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large. Overall electric charge is +1
Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another proton in the nucleus, decays outside via centrifugal force on the dangling electron
Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. 10 e-, 8 p+.. -2 base charge .. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), +2 valence charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP) + Gravity
++++: Chunks + holes of lattice of various sizes that quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice
Atom: Lattice density increases to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely)
Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit with enough energy by one or many particles releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons and gamma light
Nuclear Force: Gravity (-ve charge inflow/charge gradient) + electric attraction beat electric repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres
Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons
-ve Charge Flow: Continuous, gravity-centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral force in random directions cancels out
Gravity: Matter attracts -ve charge away from voids that repel more and expand. Higher -ve charge density compacts the lattice
Time: Local time/(charge outflow speed / wave frequency?)/Speed of Light slows with charge density (Time Dilation).
Velocity: Compresses the lattice=length contraction and higher charge density.
Black hole: Drags lattice around (frame dragging). Feeding may cause core boundary matter to annihilate to very compact empty lattice (a universe?)
Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, into a black hole core and out of the black hole
Tunnelling: The intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3
Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement
Spin: particles (and cells and/or charge flows?) (can) spin (anti)clockwise perpendicular to the direction of travel (due to blocky lattice?)
__
Light Blip: Compressed (excess?) -ve charge dipole pulls in cells. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Dark Matter?
Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Velocity = C
Photo-Electric Effect: Light blips push/pull outer electrons as they pass or hit. Atomic mass and valency effect outer electron-nucleus bond strength
Photon Entanglement: Subspace charge doing its thing....... I'm not sure. The weakest possible connection.
--
Variations of this model can lead to Big Bang or slowly growing and/or Steady State Universes. Also Black Hole Universes in parent universes / The Multiverse... It is quite possible the universe is NOT EXPANDING - perhaps an empty black hole universe took a hit from a very small but fast moving black hole that created a homogeneous field of positrons and electrons or even hydrogen that reacted and collapsed into stars and galaxies with black holes at their centres... It is possible the lattice is compressed in a container (ie. black hole shell) so instead of voids expanding due to loss of -ve base charge gravity wells shrink more sharply. if there is no void expansion from -ve base charge loss and/or big bang momentum frequency shift is likely proportional to galaxy mass - higher mass, higher frequency shift.
--
In the standard Big Bang model I don't see the problem with viewing the universe as as the ever-widening shell of an ever-growing sphere, with an ever growing empty core. If the initial explosion petered out over time, with the first ejected matter-energy having more speed and pretty well conserved overall momentum than the last ejected matter-energy space would effectively be expanding. If you see that gravity will work more strongly laterally with other matter travelling at the same speed, in relative motion, you can see how the strands form, where gravity can then do its local centralising thing.
--
This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A Bottom-up approach. There are many possible variations of this BINARY BASE CHARGE FIELD. This variant is a simpler universe to the Standard Model that corrects what seem to me to be obvious fundamental , problematic errors, namely Antimatter-matter and neutrino problem and lack of electro-lumino-gravitational !ETHER! (kind of... mine combines with +ve cells to form a more modern quantum-relativistic lattice field).
In mathematics, the continuum doesn't help understand infinity. In Complex Analysis, the Riemann Sphere solves the continuum, viewing it as a large circle, with infinite radius, where infinity is at the poles, like the 0 and 1 superposed. Infinity now is like no beginning and no end as on a circle, uniting 0 and infinity, providing deeper insight into uniting QM and GR, moreover it explains Penrose's cyclic big bang theory.
Jesus Christ, do I have to experience sea sickness to watch this video, why not believe in filming on a merry go round.
+innerlocus 'why not believe in reality' - haha well, we're here, that's reality. Beyond that, we don't know much, other than when you get down to a certain level, what we think of as 'stuff', turns into nothing more than possibility. You're welcome.
+Kim Runic Umm.....innerlocus was referring to the nonstop camera movement. I will say, as an editor, that although it's really annoying to watch in the raw footage, clearly the intention was to use small pieces on camera in an edited piece, whereby the dolly motion will add a bit more visual interest to the shot.
***** So when he said 'why not believe in reality' (the phrase I quoted) he was referring to the 'nonstop camera movement?' Does shaking the camera around betray some kind of belief in the non-real?
If you experience seizures from watching the video just stop. That is what I did and no problem...
Being a Historian, not a Science student, I find it easier to understand and focus or concentrate in the explanation of Mr. Roger Penrose by listening to the train, the airplane, the birds singing, the people walking. Imagine the black hole of Via Láctea 4 million times the mass of our own sun. And how it behaves every manifestation of the energy moving seen or unseen to the human eye but comprehensible to our brain through its communicating by thinking in mathematical way.
I understood precious little of what Penrose said, but he looks a lot like my late grandmother. Cute!
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
The camera man is a student and sees "beautiful legs"nearby and he tries to follow them while keeping Roger in the picture. But he is always too late, too slow.
Could superposition of quantum particles result from spreading into extra dimensions, such as past and future, by gravity?
If there is a problem doing quantum mechanics in a relativistic space-time then the problem is with quantum mechanics not relativity...
What is meant by two gravitational fields? Is a gravitational field between two objects?
Beautiful
You ought to talk to Roger Penrose and David Bohms colleague Prof Basil Hiley. There is also Pari center in italy, science, philosophy, art etc....set up by the late F. David Peat
Well, that's one "HELL" of a site! :) :) Big thanks for uploading - thumb up & subbed! ;)
I love this guy...although he might be wrong in many of his ideas, his thinking is so deep and his real impact on present physics is so huge, that I must just admire him.
Martin Scholtz of all the people who you might say has wrong ideas, Penrose is the least likely to be wrong on most conventional questions, but he is not afraid to speculate on very difficult problems which he would be the first to admit are probably wrong.
So what he most likely to be right about? String theory is wrong. He guessed the form of the states of Loop Quantum Gravity in the 1960’s called spin-networks, and thinks that is far more likely to be close to reality. He is the greatest living expert on General Relativity, Julian Barbour would be a blessed second, and has said that String Theory is what happens when particle physicists try to do cosmology without a deep understanding of GR, of that he is sure to be right. For the same reason, he believes inflation is wrong, that it cannot solve the problem without the initial state already being of even lower entropy, and so is a red herring.
He could be wrong about consciousness, gravitational collapse of the wave function, and his cyclic cosmology idea. But that’s far less than any String Theorist gets wrong just by getting out of bed.
@@BrettHar123 You may disagree with String Theory, but saying that Maldacena or Witten don't have a deep understanding of General Relativity is hilarious. In which sense they don't fully understand it? Can you please give a specific example?
Kep Thorne is another world class expert on GR.
@@BrettHar123 the second law of thermo-d is incorrect
What paper was he talking about at the end?
I like the moving camera. Looks 3D.
Worst possible camera man alive
In every video where I see this guy's face I can expect that the audio is misadjusted
Art Hartmut that's true, which is why your comment made me burst out laughing!
Trying to combine GR & QM would actually show which of their principles are in conflict and it would point directly to our incorrect (or at least imprecise) assumptions.
I wonder why nobody talks about that in more specifics :/
Could causation in space-time of general relativity be transferred to quantum wave function?
Could be two different vacuum in small extra dimensions?
My brain melted at 4:07
3:21 for me
Great content, but the camerawork is a little distracting (the constant motion and really long focus pull at the beginning). LEss is more, sometimes :)
Can put acceleration into quantum wave function (as time?) to reconcile with acceleration of gravity in general relativity?
QM deals with small objects whereas GR deals with huge objects.
Then there must be a transition scale where both QM and GR coexist.
If this scale does not exist it would mean that QM and GR are two theories which deal with different issues.
"Love is the answer to all things, Love can do all things. Now the important question is, WHO is Love?"
(a radius, in motion, equalized perpendicular) : ( a line, a circle, a vector) : ( l, o, v)
Can't you religious nutters keep your fucking theological obsessions out of ANY FUCKING DISCUSSION?
"Law Of Valid Equilibrium?"
wtf?
Awesome
3:50
Robert gets lost & starts agreeing
Who's doing the camerawork? It's Michael Bay isn't it.
annoying, distracting, and incompetent camera work
Not enough lens flare
@@mandarkumthekar8565 For example, 4:27
@@dewfall56 hmmmmmm😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
He hates tripod... and cannot resist zooming his vertigo
Maybe superposition happens due to quantum information non-local?
Superpositions happen over time?
There is no conflict we are misinterpreting it the superposition is super because it's the current position. Just like when you ask to meet someone for a dinner you need a place and a time. You are missing the time position in space TIME
Hopefully this interpretation dumbs it down a bit. NOT a physics/mathematics student so correct me if I'm wrong!
Basically quantum theory says that before u measure something very small (for example: electrons or molecules, around a nanometer or less in size) it exists as a cloud of possibilities. That means that before u measure something, it can exist anywhere, or not exist at all - before we actually check or measure the outcome there can be any possible outcome.
If we pick two outcomes of the measurement and call them A and B, then they are both equally probable outcomes - this is the uncertainty principle (e.g. Schrödinger's cat - we don't know anything about the cat until we check -it can be both alive (outcome A) or not alive (outcome B).
What he proposes is this: if we measure the two outcomes A & B, then according to general relativity both should be affected by gravity. The problem is that if we try to calculate their waveform (?) we end up with two time variables, because gravity involves time (according to general relativity). Squaring time (t^2) is not allowed however! It's illegal according to general relativity for the existence of two vacuums, which is what squaring time would imply.
So, quantum theory is wrong- or at least lacking a possible MATHEMATICAL answer to this problem of two coexisting time-spaces.
For what it's worth: I think he's wrong. I think that the uncertainty principle & measuring the outcome can account for two time-spaces. They simply don't exist. As soon as we measure A we have the only outcome that exists. In a similar fashion, we cannot possibly measure whether Schrödinger's cat is alive (A) and not alive (B) at the same time - which is what we need to create the problemwith general relativity.
Full disclosure: I'm not a physics, math, or philosophy major. This is just my interpretation of what he said :)
I do like his idea about there being a more fundamental theory which unites them both though..
So the problem is not having a definite vacua on the gravitational field at the quantum level (different observers will differ on their deffinition of vacua)? Do you need a unique vacua to apply the creation operators and get the particles? is that the idea?
Where do you see a second vacuum? A second vacuum would have different physical constants. It may have a different speed of light or a different electron mass. Are you aware of anybody who has measured a second speed of light or a second electron mass? I am not.
@@lepidoptera9337 gravitational fields very immensely. Not only across the cosmos but here on Earth as well.
Both Quantum Mechanics and GR are theories lacking in their own ways.
I still believe in hidden variables even if non-local.
Could the gravitational fields in quantum be in extra dimensions?
They tried that. Doesn't work.
If this guy spent two years dumbing this down I have a feeling I still would feel like a mouse looking up at the strange giant and wondering why it kept putting a maze between me and my cheese every night.
This is how feel,though you articulated it superbly,and very poetically.
It's already dumbed down.
Basically quantum theory says that before u measure something very small (for example: electrons or molecules, around a nanometer or less in size) it exists as a cloud of possibilities. That means that before u measure something, it can exist anywhere, or not exist at all - before we actually check or measure the outcome there can be any possible outcome.
If we pick two outcomes of the measurement and call them A and B, then they are both equally probable outcomes - this is the uncertainty principle (e.g. Schrödinger's cat - we don't know anything about the cat until we check -it can be both alive (outcome A) or not alive (outcome B).
What he proposes is this: if we measure the two outcomes A & B, then according to general relativity both should be affected by gravity. The problem is that if we try to calculate their waveform (?) we end up with two time variables, because gravity involves time (according to general relativity). Squaring time (t^2) is not allowed however! It's illegal according to general relativity for the existence of two vacuums, which is what squaring time would imply.
So, quantum theory is wrong- or at least lacking a possible MATHEMATICAL answer to this problem of two coexisting time-spaces.
For what it's worth: I think he's wrong. I think that the uncertainty principle & measuring the outcome can account for two time-spaces. They simply don't exist. As soon as we measure A we have the only outcome that exists. In a similar fashion, we cannot possibly measure whether Schrödinger's cat is alive (A) and not alive (B) at the same time - which is what we need to create the problemwith general relativity.
Full disclosure: I'm not a physics, math, or philosophy major. This is just my interpretation of what he said :)
One smart dude right here.
And the good Prof. is no dummy either.
How can we hope to have a resolution of the apparent incompatibility QT and GR when we have resolution for - the duality of neither light nor matter? Are they some how connected - part and parcel of the same thing? Is the Universe comprised of a superposition of dual realities? Where the hell do electrons "go" in transit from one atomic shell to another?
I heard a suggestion as to the reasoning of the extra ordinary weakness of gravity compared to the other forces being a possible undetectable dimension into which gravity is leaking. Perhaps electrons pass through this dimension also in the progress of their quantum leaps.
Particles below a certain coherency with surroundings begin to find similar places to occupy. Because they begin to occupy multiple places they can travel multiple paths at once as long as they don't become coherent with their surroundings. It's not about the cognitive effect of measuring a particle that breaks the superposition, it's about the quanta that actually measures the questioned particle. An electron that isn't being quantized by light, often used as a measuring particle to make the electron react, will find multiple modes to display the same amount of energy. This is hard to understand, I know, but because particles aren't quantized by their surroundings, spacetime isn't curved enough to tell the difference between the multiple paths the electron is taking, not 'coherent' with a causal measurement yet, that the electron doesn't snap back into reality until spacetime is curved to the point that an event happens. My personal opinion is that all things are waves except for the moment of interaction. and since we live in a steady stream of interaction everything seems like particles.
Thankyou for your thoughts. but not sure understand the first sentence.
Yeah, but...why wouldn’t (a kind of) black holes be predicted from Newtonian Mechanics?
You can predict what cards the poker players on a train "Might--probably" hold but you do not know by the poker hands where the train will go....
And you can know that the train will collide with something 5 minutes down the line, but from that , you do not know what hand Joe Smith holds in his hands....
What calculations was he talking about can someone refer a paper
In classical world more interaction by mass while in quantum world more interaction by energy. One reason quantum gravity not easy to find.
Waves and Particles!? I observe the organic along with the non Organic and visualise the Human And Nature as “Knuckles”. So applying the Universe in the same way!? Continually inspecting that Union of “One Knuckle” in oneself and Nature. Seeking my/Nature’s Natural Trilogy, And Sleep well!?
Who thought it was a great idea to keep camera constantly moving during the interview?
"yh yh yh I know I know I know mhm"
this channel desperately needs a tweak on audio
Professor Irwin Corey?
Should look more at my quantum gravity theory. I propose that there are no true vacuums to begin with and attempt to explain gravity purely in terms of particle interactions.
"A vacuum is the absence of Love"
a vacuum is the absence of anything. You can have love in a vacuum
What just happened
Old as fuck Seinfeld talking science. Love it.
I don't think he is right when he says mathematics is "out there". It is one of the lenses that our minds generated with which we grapple with reality...the part that is "out there", is the part that we are still unconscious of, so it appears as "out there", beyond our command and seemingly exists independent of our minds. The strange, unknown land is actually those aspects of our minds, the realm of our interactions with the world that we are as yet unaware of. We can never know anything of the world that is beyond our interactions with it, but we can come to know that which we interact with but which we have yet to comprehend.
I've often wondered why scientists call it a big bang when as yet no one has found anything to compare it with? In the all encompassing scheme of phenomena it may just be a little wheeze. ^^
Big bang had happen in proton repeated rapidly produce strong force.
Love Roger, but I must admit, I didnt understand anything he said here.😥
Could the mathematics of quantum mechanics represent the passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle representing an emergent future? When the superposition collapses it represents the future unfolding photon bu photon with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment!
No. Because retro-causality , experiments show that the future can change the past on a sub atomic level. So if past influence future and visa versa wtf ? We live on a DVD, time is a flat circle
tigno323 The future can't change the past coz that would result in an infinite regression.
+david196609876 If the past present and future exist together it could change together?
The McDonalds near my house has a (1+1+1)/(10-9) for $3 combo. In the past it did not exist, because the gluons were insufficient. Now their present state is 'Active', the 'space-time' chart shows that the impact of inflation would terminate this combo deal in the future.
You're missed.
Love your artwork.
3:56 different vacua... wait that's illegal
the journalist is he son of steve jobs and albert einstein
Lol I can see that
Rise of the planet of the turtle necks 🤣
The interviewer is like a fusion of Albert Einstein and Jeff Goldblum
100% true!
Brilliant mathematician/physicist, comb over, not so much.
Is quantum mechanics working out future possibilities?
infinity possibilities
Hey?
"What does Quantum Theory Mean?" Huh? What does gravity mean???
What I get from this is that we need to pour more funding into finding a dead and alive cat.
If we just get rid of our addiction to the concept of distance, all problems will be solved. For the Universe, there is no such thing as distance. Only us 3D creatures "see" distance. The Universe is simply energy, nothing more or less. We exist on its "surface".
(1:49) doesn't one think of Hamiltonian as even slightly more encompassing than Newtonian, and presaging Emmy
ok, put 'em up...best defense of the so-called Equivalence Principle..2 outta 3
(8:41) so stat mech may be sufficient: does that include aaad
I am a little late to this video. However I see it different in 2020. Electrons going around an atom ( ie schrodinger) and exp (lagrangians) is NOT the same as a rock going around a star( einstein). Why should electrons and absorption agree to einstein?? They must be different. Penrose should know these are 2 uniquely different observational consciousness frames. Leave them alone and forget quantum gravity.
Why the 'roaming' camera? it's pointless and distracting.
So Newton was right after all.
philipm06 yep he believed that God via the holy spirit guided him to discover science lol
😂
Hello Dr Penrose,
I firmly believe your proposition of studying the connections and interactions, instead of the particles themselves, is a powerful tool that, for some reasons, has gone unexplored, to great harm of all our science.
The purpose of those giant particles accelerator machines is limited. The greatest efforts should go toward the study of our reasoning tools.
My greatest respects,
Anthony
Wantum quantum a marriage of equals? Hmm roger dear boy why do you not consider a marriage of odds?
The Man said ..... in effect ... FY 'Quantum fantasists ' ...What A Guy! 'Ace Rimmer' couldna said better :-)
"Now, we don't have any known conflict between general relativity and known facts ..." The preceding statement seems to ignore the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. According to Kroupa, something is wrong with Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory. Consider my 4 comments in the comments section of the following:
physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20190314a/full/
Column: the collider question" by Gordon Kane, March 2019
1/r dependent force (as empirically suggested by MOND ) can be thought of as a classical force associated to a "line source" which has a cylindrical symmetry. In my opinion it is possible to define an approximate metric with a cylindrical symmetry which mimics space time near boundary of a galaxy- i.e. one can obtain galaxy rotation curves from geodesic equations , everything within the realm of Einstein's theory. But what really bothers me is that the associated energy momentum tensor may not be physically sensible. Einstein's theory is elegant but too general, not every solutions are physically sensible.
@@anuraagpaul6610 "Einstein's theory is elegant but too general, not every solution... physically sensible". Good observation. Is the concept of the continuum too general? According to Kurt Gödel's theorems, there are infinitely many models of the continuum. According to Einstein's "The Meaning of Relativity", 5th edition, p. 165, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field." What can replace the space-time continuum?
@@DavidBrown-om8cv "One can give good reasons..." Really? Take for instance- quantum "fields", it will do a better job in describing finite particle system. Continuum theory works so well (theory experiments), I don't see why one should deviate from it (my biased opinion).
Einstein's theory is general in the sense that it predicts all sorts of energy momentum tensor, not all of which have physical interpretation (see Ellis- Hawking classification of stress energy tensor). In the end, Einstein's theory is consistent with all observations made so far (+ with remarkable accuracy)
So... what does quantum theory mean?
Actually Penrose changes General Relativity too, with his twistor theory, and if you work the twistor idea fully out you will see that it leads to predictions that are different from general relativity in exactly the right areas. Penrose should take his own theory, twistor theory more serious.
Do you know what a twistor is? You could work that out in different ways. You would need a contradiction to where and how he is applying it. I think you will find yourself disappointed.
@@brendawilliams8062 I already have the theory of everything, and so I don't need to mess around with twistor theory.
@@SkyDarmos you need to show it off
4:06 What it means to be a real scientist: "We've got to do something . . .".
Precisely!
That's it? Eight comments, to a man that knows more than you can possibly imagine? Did you search for this, or did you fall and hit your head on your way to a day time television series called 'Dr Penn has a Rose for you'.
Contango1000 Well, Dr. Penrose is a tough act to follow. After hearing him, I feel that my comments would be irrelevant...
80 comments a few years later ..so like space.the comments are expanding
Brilliant interview!... What The Fuck was he talking about?