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

I'm Roger Penrose, I'm a mathematical physicist, I work at Oxford, I'm not retired, I'm actually at Oxford and Andrew was building, so last year you published research suggesting that our universe is just one stage in a potentially infinite cycle of cosmos . extinction and rebirth, could you explain a little bit what evidence you found that made you adopt a sequential universe model instead of the Big Bang model? One of the main reasons I adopted this view is that, as I say, the universe is a succession of what I call eons, each of which begins with a Big Bang and ends with the universe expanding indefinitely in this type of exponential expansion that we seem to see now.

For many decades I have been concerned about something which is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that things will become more and more random as time goes by and this tells you that the Big Bang should not be random and one of the The most surprising evidence for the existence of the Big Bang is what is called the microwave background. This is radiation that comes from electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions and one of the most amazing characteristics of this radiation is that it is in a maximum state of entropy, which is completely random, so it is kind of a puzzle where it all comes from. this non-randomness. we are simply presented with randomness and I came to the conclusion that it has to be in

gravity

that

gravity

has not been participating in this is that a set has a very low value of entropy is very low from the beginning and that means that for gravity means it's very uniform, so this is a big puzzle why gravity behaved differently than other things and this worried me for a long time.

I'm thinking that some kind of quantum gravity would have to be a very time-asymmetric

theory

. and that didn't work very well until I came up with this idea, but the very remote expansion, this exponential expansion, it expands, it gets colder and colder and less and less dense and the black holes, which means that the most important things around you eventually evaporate by walking evaporation. there are only prevention terms in terms of radiation, there is nothing left except that it is all spread out now the argument is that when matter is all spread out in this way and it is just photons, it is mainly photons, that is, particles that have no mass.

There's no way to know how big they are, so it's a mathematical question, but when you have no mass, big and small are equivalent, so in the distant future the universe forgets how big it is, not a thought far-fetched, of course, but that's the concept. He doesn't really know how big it is and what happens with the Big Bang. You see that the Big Bang is really the opposite, it's very hot and very dense and all that and you think what could be more different, but when you look closely. You see very hot particles running around because they move so fast, whatever mass they have, it doesn't even count the motion is what dominates, so in fact they don't have mass either, so at both ends you have no mass. neither end knows how big it is now you have to have some equations to make sense of this, but the idea is that the previous expanded iana sigh becomes our big bang now you have to do equations for that to make sense, this It's the part that people have a hard time swallowing because it looks so different, but when you look at it from the core, the conformist point of view that big and small shapes make a big difference, but whether they're big or small shapes, No.

There is no difference and if that means that from that perspective the remote future looks like a big bang and also has the characteristic that all gravitational degrees of freedom are eliminated from the beginning, which explains this puzzle I had from the second The law of thermodynamics and I don't think any other

theory

I've seen explains it. There are all kinds of ideas people have, but as far as I can see, none of them work. This one does so at the cost of being crazy. idea, but it's a crazy idea that now seems to have some support.

Well, there were two types of support. One was that I was trying to think about what is the most energetic thing that could pass from one eon to the next and I thought about black holes. supermassive black holes that collide with each other and send these very intense gravitational wave signals and can communicate with each other and there is some evidence that for the signals that these would produce, the other thing was much more recent, this is this year. when I guess we've had a year, it was actually last year. I guess this is what we call Hawking

points

.

He collaborated mainly with some Poles and with Daniel, who does many of the calculations. He is a Korean who works in New York. and they do the hard work on this, the idea is that the black holes that you see eventually evaporate from the noise of the appearance, but all that radiation that the black holes come in takes away all the mass of those black holes and the largest be as big as a large galaxy cluster, so all that mass concentrated in this black hole evaporates and all that radiation passes on to the next eon and we have very, very good evidence that something like this is actually something that nobody has seen.

Call them Hawking

points

or Hawking points, these are small regions in the sky about eight times the diameter of the moon, not so small sand where the temperature increases about 15 times and we see that is very strong evidence that these things really They are there, so what kind? of evidence, did you use? Were they telescopes or computer assimilated? These are looking at the microwave background and these are the two satellites that came out, one of them was called the W Maps satellite and the newest one is called the Planck satellite and we looked. first in the data from the Planck satellite, now the data looks in all different directions, you see what the intensity of that radiation is in all directions and it is in the maps that they produce, so you get the maps from the satellites and then it is matter of doing it. statistical analysis and there is a theory of masses to heat that the other universe would actually go extinct due to lack of energy or due to heat, how would there be a heat wave in the universe before we reach the Eon when the universe would collapse according to To notice that you see the picture is that as the universe expands it gets colder and colder and colder, it doesn't reek of elapsed, you see that many people have produced theories in which the universe reaches a certain stage and returns, that is not the case here.

It's the only model I know that doesn't do that, it's a crazy model, you see, you think, well, it's going to get small, it has to collapse, but the image is that when it gets bigger and bigger and there's nothing around it that has Any way of knowing how big you are is the same as being small and that's a difficult idea to appreciate, it's the same as being small and it also has the effect that big and cold equals small and hot, so you get a very, very hot temperature. The Big Bang emerges as physics itself, that's the part that's definitely hard to understand and clearly that's why people have problems with the theory, but if you write down the math now you'll see that it's more or less equivalent when you don't do it. .

If you have mass to give you a scale, then these two states are actually very similar, in fact, equal to each other is the argument: the remote future with this very extended, very cold, very rarefied universe, is physically equivalent to an early stage, very early, of a Big Bang, what are the geometric implications of this theory, well, it is a type of geometry that is called conformal geometry and has been studied. People know Euclidean geometry, you have triangles and size lengths and all that, but with conformal geometry. Drummond geometry, a big triangle and a small triangle, are completely equivalent and there are some very nice images that I like to use because of the Dutch artist MC Escher and he had some nice things that he called circular boundaries with angels and demons all intertwined and it looks like as if they get smaller and smaller as they reach the edge, but for them, the geometry that angels and demons respect is the same, the geometry up to the edge is the same as in the middle and the edge represents the infinite, so it's the same type of image.

Look, the infinity that we're going to reach in the future is really like the limit of one of these Esha images and you can imagine going out to see what's on the other side and what's there. on the other side there is a big bang tomorrow so there was one before us your remote future became a big bang our remote future will become another year's big bang so in both directions that is the picture which was the reaction you had? this this theory support and skepticism I think with the enormous amount of skepticism, we have a lot of problems getting articles accepted and they just don't believe it.

I guess even with this verse there is not very solid evidence. Hawking points out that the evidence is. about ninety-nine point nine eight percent confidence, I mean, it could be random, but the odds against that are nine nine nine eight to 200, so how do we imagine infinity? So it's like this kind of infinitely expandable universe is the same as small things. You can describe infinity. You see, this was a trick I used to use a long time ago when I was looking at general relativity, looking at gravitational waves and how energy is defined in waves and that kind of stuff and hard problems because The problem is hard because in relativity you don't have a clearly defined notion of energy.

I think one of the problems people had was accepting that theory in the first place, but when you go to infinity you see what the radiation is when it goes off. and hours and hours and outside and it goes on like this, where does it go? Well, to infinity. So the idea I had was to use one of these conformal maps that squash infinity and then you can see it, it's just the limit of space and then you can do your calculations on that limit and it's much easier to see if you have infinity, you have to do things complicated things taking limits and God knows what and I liked doing it that way.

It refers to having a geometric image when you squash infinity like in those Escher pictures, you squash it until it becomes a finite boundary and then you can imagine going through the boundary and then the other side and I kept thinking you know there are no gravitational waves. nor electromagnetic waves. Things with mass without mass don't even realize that infinity is there, they could just go through it if there was somewhere to go, you see, the idea here is that there is somewhere to go and where it goes is the Big Bang of the next you.

I know this and it works very well, so what do you think it will take to convince your skeptics that it will be necessary? Oh, I have no idea. I have not done it. I used to be much more optimistic that people would pay too, you see. I had a paper with an Armenian colleague that we published in the European Journal and some Polish colleagues of mine published theirs in the Royal Society, it was finally published after a lot of complaints from the referees and, my goodness, they were finally published and Christophe asked me: Do you see what kind of attention?

Have? I guess it's zero, so I asked him what about you. Zero, it's not like people say, oh, this is a load of rubbish, this is completely wrong, for this reason, that reason, that's just silence. A kind of eerie silence is because it is too much. shocking and they can't stand it or is it because everyone is so preoccupied with their own theory that they are not open to similar paradigm type changes, well we will have to see if these new talking points we have taken a lot of care to make it something observational , you see, these things are things that we see and then there is an explanation.

Well, from my point of view, this fits exactly because Mark actually predicts these things, but we have to explain them and go against inflation, it is very difficult to see how the current view of cosmic inflation, which is supposed to have place in the first fraction of a second, which is 1 over 32 digits, a small fraction of a second, the entire universe was supposed to expand by a To a large extent, it always seemed like a pretty crazy idea to me, I mean, nothing more or less crazy than mine, as far as I can see, but in some ways it's become accepted and that's the standard view, so if you're going to alter that view.

We have a lot of people to turn around so how long do we have until the next Big Bang? Well, it really is infinite. You see, that's the strange thing to say, but infinity to admit a thing without mass is not that much. For a long time, see if there was mass around where you see that the mass is a mass that sort of fades away and you have to do it, so there was an age that you could give it, but I haven't worked it out, it's not like that. It's not a constant age that everyone would agree on, so I think infinity is a better answer because it's clear that's what the Masters does.

That's fine thanks. My last question will be related to your previous

interview

with David David Malone, when you said no. opposed to free will and I was wondering what that means to you on a scientific level, but also what it means to you on a personal level. Well,I've always been concerned about the free, we look at the other and there are experiments that people do that show that a part of them tries to make a conscious decision about something and there is evidence of an accumulation of signals that tell you that some part of the brain knew what choice I was going to do but all these things are not what you would use for free, well you see, it's not particularly because I had experiences when I was young, you see, let me tell you this that my younger brother used to use, there is a set of scissors and paper rock , now you know. and there are three things you do: add the scissors or the paper or the rock and you don't reveal it until the last minute and he used to hit me in this game constantly and I thought he was using free will. decides what I'm going to do, how does he know, you know, it's some mystery that predicts the future or something, so what I did, I went to a table of logarithms, you know, it's only about seven or something, he was spending about five, I can.

I don't remember and I used the logarithm table and I just worked it out, you know, seven means Stone, eight means scissors or whatever and all the way, you see, so I take these digits and I would play this game reading the digits and then I did expenses, so it was like my free will wasn't really a free will, you see, I was just doing what was easy for me at the time and that kind of thing, okay, maybe you can make predictions about what people will do. I'm going to guess next and it's not actually free will, it's free will with a purpose, you're doing something because it means something, not just because it's a random choice, but I don't know, I'll always be in two minds about that and you.

Looking at physics, you might think that everything is determined and therefore what you do now is determined by what happened yesterday, if you knew all the details of how all the particles move, but this is not entirely true because You have this curious thing. within quantum mechanics you have the collapse of the wave function that Schrodinger's equation goes forward and says what's going to happen suddenly, it's not like that, it's something that jumps to this or that and people generally talk about this and talk of this in terms of measurements. The view is that this is happening all the time and you have a lot of particles and when they reach a certain level of mass then it does one thing or another and every time those decisions are made, you see Stuart Hameroff and I have built this idea about consciousness and we consider that consciousness arises when these collapsing wavefunction things happen now the question is does it collapse in a random way that's how physics works now you consider it pretty random well yes maybe it's entangled with all sorts of other things and the decision about what to do this or that has some kind of content, some mental content that is not entirely random and that's where free will plays its role, so maybe it's controlled by some deterministic laws that go along the way. deep of the laws that we know now or is there any real freedom, you know what happens in the workings of the universe.

I'm not sitting on one side or the other here, I just find it quite attractive that there is something about a choice that is not actually determined by the other laws of physics and is something much more subtle than being random, it would have to be something that it has a God that goes beyond computation and that is what I maintain is involved when we make conscious decisions. but whether it is as free as it is, I don't know, I wouldn't like to make a strong claim about that, but in this room there is room for some kind of thing that you could call free will, yes, you never stop, well, there are so many.

There are interesting things happening, you know, I would love to go and sit and watch TV or something, but there are so many ideas like this, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, conformal circular cosmology, what do you know, this It's only a year old, that's basic for me. talking points and that was something quite new. I had worried about it before but I thought I couldn't deal with it somehow because it's quite different, you see the big black holes going around for centuries and centuries and it's a very different situation. the big ones you have to wait for something like Google, yes it's one with a hundred zeroes, yes where is everything else interesting?

It's been gone for eight years and these black holes are just there, evaporating gradually, very, very slowly, by Hawking evaporation. I'm accepting all that, I think it's right, yes we do it right away and it would take about 10,100 years, but the big ones, really big ones, maybe longer because there are some that actually walk and we would end up using huge galactic clusters. of this going into a black black hole black and I have no idea how they were long but they lasted a long time they lasted but this is very exciting and this is just something new and where are they worried about it before when when when we Christophe Meisner, my Polish colleague, said well Look, we seem to see these very strong signals.

She was originally looking for other signals plus collisions between black hole signals, but then she said, look, there's a much stronger signal from us, maybe not. They are Hawking points, they are thick because that is what you would expect the radiation to concentrate on. It's a really huge explosion right in the middle of the Big Bang. Okay, current theory says inflation occurs, but I can't have inflation. My skin would be ruined, so there is a kind of inflation that was the exponential expansion of the eon before ours. If you look back, it looks like an inflationary period, but it's not before or after the Big Bang, it's before and right at it.

The final stage, the Big Bang, is not quite smooth, but there are little spots where these Hawking points are, which is completely crazy and you should be able to see, I'm not sure how many, but we see about 30 of them, let's say. We see five that are very well established because both on the W map and in the Planck data they are completely different satellites and you both see them in exactly the same places, so the evidence for them is quite compelling now, maybe there are some arguments inflationary. someone will produce, it will be something quite new, it cannot be in the theory that they have now, but it is predicted by this theory.

I didn't face the prediction, but yeah, that's what you'd expect. We have these points, much stronger radiation sources, these individual points, and then you have to work on this more? Are you approaching the next radical theory? Well, there are other things happening too because there is the tornado theory, now you see that I don't. Normally I don't talk about it in

interview

s because it's hard to explain, but it's an idea that a lot of people were working on when I was in graduate school, I had a lot of graduate students and a lot of them were working on the Twista theory, which gives a different different point of view.

How difficult to make physics look if you like to see. We normally think of spacetime when space has 3 dimensions and then time is another so you have this space-time which is a four-dimensional structure and the basics are made of these little points we call them events, you don't see any dimension in space, there is no dimension in time, but you see like this, those are the points in the space-time of events, now you see that you twist a theory that is not the basic structure. The basic thing is basically something like a photon that goes along with the speed of light and you can identify the points because you have a family of them passing through that point, it's a kind of geometry that changes the ordinary way of looking at physics from the inside out. out there some things are harder to do something is much easier to do and what is much easier is to describe it feels like Maxwell's sensation for radiation the gravitational field actually the gravitational field well there's a story here you see that photons can spin left-handed or right-handed and you can describe the wave function of one left-handed or right-handed and usually you add them up because they both spin combined to give you the linear polarization, so the things you know are polarized glasses.

Do they let light through in one direction and not the other, and these and you add them to what's left and right handed together to get linear polarization, so they're different ways of doing it anyway, that's how photons work now? Look, in tornado theory, it's very peculiar, you have two different formulas, one that works for the right hand, one that works for the left hand, and for gravitons, which is the gravity particle, if you will again, do this, but go with gravity. I want it to fit with Einstein's theory, so change your space, space-time is changed by gravity and then you discover that you can do it and you can do it for left-handed people, but not for right-handed people, and this was a big puzzle for me because tornado theories have a twist, so left analysis is not exactly the same in theory and can be done.

Lefties are not righties and I used to call this the Google problem. because in cricket you see a ball, a cricket ball, and if it spins, that's called a leg fracture, then if it spins to the left, that's a leg fracture, if you're very smart, a lot of people can do it, you can make it spin looking like even though it's left-handed, but it actually spins to the right and that's what's called googly, so we call it the googly problem because you're trying to put the right-handed graviton into the frame that the left-handed one makes and that It was a hurdle that took about 40 years and I recently had an idea with the help of Michael Attea who has gotten ideas from writing often and I had part of the idea and I can quite understand the other part which he explained and even then I it took another five, you have to make it work, but I think it works, so this is a way of describing physics in this unusual way and if you can spin both writings that way, then you can also do the interactions between particles, the strong ones. interactions and the weak interactions and you can put all the left and right together and I haven't done any of this, but it's a potential way to look at physics in a completely different way, well, some of them are already being looked at, people are already it has done.

They picked up the theory of tornadoes, but not this last idea, they use it for problems of scattering, massless particles and things, but not to the point that this would be a global theory that should be able to translate physics into this other language and has a kind of characteristics that attract me a lot, one of them is the use of complex numbers. Generally people think that numbers are integers 1 2 3 4 fractions that are 7 over 5 or whatever, or real numbers that are written in decimals. goes to infinity, so one tends to think of physics in terms of real numbers, they are called real numbers, they are not real in the ordinary sense of real, but they are real, but they are no more real than other types of numbers. , but things called imaginary numbers or complex numbers are things that were allowed to take the square root of negative 1 and that's the key, they were allowed to have something that they call I and that's the square root of negative 1 once When you put that in it you have a completely new way, but not that new, it was many centuries ago when the idea was introduced, but it is a completely different way of seeing the world and what happens is that quantum mechanics already sees the world that way.

The states in quantum mechanics involve these complex numbers, so the idea is that you bring that kind of complex number geometry into the real world in the classical world and somehow the classical quantum will blend in and it's a different way of looking at the things. and there is very beautiful mathematics in the complex world, if you will, that you don't see in the real world and it's something that when I was an undergraduate mathematics student I was absolutely blown away by the magic that is in these complex complex numbers. it means getting a real number and imagining your number together in the same number and algebra and analysis and all that and the geometry of these numbers has an elegance that you don't see in the geometry of real numbers, so it always seemed to me you know Wouldn't it be nice if somehow that was what ruled the world and that's what the tornado theory does?

It gives you a picture of complex numbers, a real and imaginary picture of the world, involving quantum and classical ideas, but the new idea where the Google problem seems to be solved I haven't had a chance to look at it very seriously, that's your next challenge, yes, the next problem, yes, when I abandon cosmology, well, I don't do birth, was that there are so many. There are new things in cosmology that need to be thought about. Well, you see, tomorrow there will be a talk. I guess about what is called the invisible universe. Remember, look at this.

The universe has something to do with what people call dark energy. and I call it Einstein's cosmological constant, he introduced this term, certainly for the wrong reason in 1917, he introduced it and then he withdrew it because he didn't like it, it was the wrong reason, but there we find that it is there and it is absolutely crucial to my cosmology. It depends on how you look at infinity, you see that infinity is the wrong shape if you don't have the cosmological constant it's the right shape when you have it it's the same shape it's a big bang it takes a little more explanation but it's essentially bang and that is because theCosmological constants are there and there is another type of mysterious invisible matter called dark matter.

Now this scheme has a candidate for what dark matter is. In fact, it has to be there. The equations don't make sense if there was no dark matter so this is not the same as what they called dark energy, things that matter, they are things you can see, they gravitate and galaxies, you can see this, most galaxies are made predominantly dark matter, so you don't see it, but it just interacts gravitationally, it doesn't shine with light or anything like that. more and this schematic says that you have to have things like that that don't show up and don't interact in any way other than gravitation and would disintegrate with a lifespan of about 10 to 11 years ie.

Well, what people thought, a hundred billion years ago, but that's the rate of decay of these particles, but you might be able to detect them because there is a predominant material in the universe, so maybe you can detect the disintegration. All kinds of interesting questions this outline raises, observational things that maybe people could look up, so I'm not going to give up on it easily, so maybe it could become a book. I already had a book called time cycles and I think it didn't work very well. People know that the idea is too crazy and I don't know, it didn't sell as well as most of my other books, but I'm going to have to probably put out a new edition and it's completely changed because I experienced all the observations, none of them. them was in the book and now we only have both types of observations, the black hole collisions, which is pretty good evidence and the Hawking points, much stronger evidence, so I think if people don't do it.

I know you'll have to think of other explanations for these things. They haven't bothered to do it yet, but the document hasn't come out on the talking points yet. We had a previous version that was rejected by Physical Review Letters, but we have a much better version of the knowledge, I hope so, do you have the feeling that you have stuck to many of the same questions throughout your career and you get a question and then you come back to it? Yes, decades later. I guess I guess I'm terribly stubborn, that's what you're trying to say.

I know I don't give up on these things. That's true. No, like me, no, well, the second law, the second or philatelic law, look where it comes from, it had a chair. change my mind on one you know, I really changed my mind on that, it was difficult psychologically no, it wasn't that difficult because I didn't really see what to do with the older one I did, well, there were two changes of mind, well, yes as if was the same part, the same, I mean the great cosmic law, the model exactly called the conformal cycle, as long as you see, it says that the Big Bang was not the beginning, while I had these theorems, well, Stephen Hawking, He had the theorem about black. holes so when they collapse you have to have a singular point in the middle.

I was thinking about a place where you think we're wrong and you can't extend the solution and you go back in time when you get to the Big Bang and then Stephen Hawking did most of that to show that these kinds of theorems extend to the Big Bang, so that's the beginning and you can't get over it, but then you'll see that I have a different view, it's because of the consistent image that you see. We were doing it without looking that way, then, right? It's a long story, but you see, it's really an evolution that started because we had these singularity theorems.

I mean, like I say, I have one with the black hole Stephen. I had one with cosmology, then we got together and had a combined theorem that actually proved all the others, but all the time there is the concern that even though they were more or less the same in the future where things become singular in the future and the others where they become singular in the past, but in the details there are absolutely different things and this is where the second law of thermodynamics comes in in the Big Bang, everything is very fluid, you consider it a horrendous and violent thing, but it is extremely complete and not I don't understand that because of inflation, it is something that is there at the beginning, others in the singularities of black holes, an incredible disaster, I don't know what they look like, there are some Russians who have some ideas about it, maybe they have reason, but whatever it is, they are completely different, absolutely different and I used to think, well, they have to be quantum gravity.

Quantum gravity is how you get singularities, that's what everyone thought, that's what I thought and then I thought, well, they are so completely different it has to be a theory that is quite different in the future from the asymmetric theory in the past and that's horrible if you know about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, things like that, it's horrible, so this conformal scheme says it's different it's not quantum gravity, it's some conformal trick, looking at physics backwards, it's one of the reasons why people don't take me seriously, you see, because they said no, we know that the Big Bang has to be some kind of gravity, etc., okay, so this idea was not original, a well-known physicist called Minutes, you know, Gabrielle's availability, oh, no, and a colleague produced a model a little bit like mine cyclical with a pre-Big Bang and compression was something that happened before the Big Bang, so they had a model a little bit So, not in detail, very different, but I already had some of those ideas, so you have a good crowd outside, nice people.

Well, I think people pay attention, but the experts that are needed, it is difficult to make people change because they have where you see, I went to a conference in Poland, not in Warsaw, it was somewhere else, forget the name now and there was lectures on various things and there was a lecture given by a young Polish man who had a very good lecture. and it was about in the flow you turn off inflation, you see inflation is supposed to happen this huge expansion and then it's supposed to turn off and it's they have ways of forcing you to do that and it's called the graceful exit that has to turn off. in just a waitress doesn't cause chaos, you see, there's a fancy exit and he was talking about it and he had all kinds of problems to do with particle physics that I had never heard of all kinds of new problems that they raised and he In the end there was some way to get around them and at the dinner afterwards I obviously sat down during dinner, it was a very pleasant chat, you know?

I appreciate it very clearly, but don't you think that sometimes you get the feeling that inflation is something easy for you and he looked at me and said all the time you are working very hard on these things to make them work, so why Do you think that scientists or physicists in this particular case also resist the new? theories I think I would tend to be conservative in the way that they don't. I don't know if that means anything, but no, I think part of it is that cosmology is a big trap for nothing, crazy, you see, there are many, many unpleasant theories that I think inflation is a little known, but clearly They're trying to do serious science, so I shouldn't call it, put it in that category, but there are a lot of theories that are completely off base and So you know, if you're going to have to search for them all one after another, you're not going to be able to spend your time on it. do anything serious.

I don't know if that can't be a real explanation because, whatever you think, I, Kristof, is also nice there, he is really a particle physicist, this is my main colleague in Warsaw and he is a very good physicist, I really do. I appreciate, he's primarily a particle physicist, but then he got into this area, so I'm sure he's respected, so I'm not sure he's not. I think it's just that you need to get used to the idea. I mean, there are plenty of other ideas we've seen that are way crazier than this one. You see, inflation takes you into these bubble universes. there could be inflation here and it's just the probability of it happening there, it's very, very small, the argument goes, but it could, so this point would be explained if you then see and there are these things called internal inflation and they're quite, uh Turley .

It's really crazy from my point of view, but you can see why they are driven to these ideas because they are trying to solve this second law problem and how can you have an initial state that is smooth enough to inflate and to me that is a completely wrong way to do it. looking at it, but you can see that there is a thread of logic in what they are doing and I can see why they are going in certain directions even though those directions seem to be much crazier than anything I say, but today I guess my son is crazy, that's Just like I used to lecture on this, I called it I called it outrageous crazy, you see, and I call it crazy meaning because they have one to get in first before other people said it, you see, actually, in the first days, I would have done it.

I gave him about a fifty percent chance of being right even though he was pretty crazy, but it's all these issues that have been troubling me and then when the observations came in, I gave him a good deal, more than 50 percent. , many other people. Take me seriously, so what's the percentage when I say my percentages now? Yeah, well, if I take the actual examples of national figures, it's 99.99 point nine eight eight percent confidence that it's in the document that it's in the document these signals because it might not be inflated, it might not be a CCC, it might be something else, then what that 99.98% says is that these signals are genuine, so if the signals are genuine, it is quite difficult for them to be higher than average inflation because you have to have them at the elegant exit point that have.

It has to be right when inflation is going down and all of a sudden, it has to be like this, okay, maybe they'll think of a way to do it and it wouldn't really happen to them, there will be inflationary versions of this where Hawking the points are points of conversation is explosions and the Big Bang I don't know explosions at the elegant exit don't ask me thank you very much for more debates talks and interviews subscribe today to the Institute of Arts and Ideas on IAI TV