Sir Roger Penrose on Blackholes and The Big Bang | Joe Rogan

Not to fool you, there is a mathematical theorem that covers the shaggy dog ​​theorem, shaggy dog ​​theorem, yes, I mean the SSF ocular terminology, but you think of something that is topologically a sphere, which means that you see, you imagine the shaped like a dog, but you could move it. around it with a piece of plasticine until it looked like a sphere, there are no holes in it, okay, forget about this digestive system, you see, you are thinking about the outer surface and then you come out, the problem is that you try to comb the hair on the dog for all sides and the theorem says that there has to be a place where the hair doesn't lie flat and you test it on the sphere, there has to be a point where the hair forms some kind of singular point, so it's a little like that, you have no idea where the singularity is, but you know for general topological reasons that there has to be one somewhere and that was the kind of argument I produced and I guess a lot of people got into trouble because I had never seen this kind of argument and a lot of people got into trouble. noticed, especially Stephen Hawking, and for a while there were a lot of people working on it.

I guess it's not as popular now because they'd probably run out of serums. the idea of ​​a singularity as it is when you see something like a quasar or the center of a galaxy and we were talking about a black hole when you say a singularity, what exactly do you mean by that with a normal expectation? you have a place like in the middle of Oppenheimer Snyder's dust cloud, there is a point there where the density becomes infinite and the curvature of space-time becomes infinite, so you have a place where the equations escape and go to the infinite and you say, well, something went wrong, but maybe initially it was in these cases very symmetric, but you could show with these indirect arguments that somewhere something has to go wrong and you can't continue with the equations and they got stuck just in that place where they go. infinite gate what happens in detail in the theorems they don't tell you they just say that something goes wrong and that's what we call a singularity and if a black hole is bigger or smaller the singularity remains constant it stays there it stays there but it doesn't You can measure in terms of your actual size, so if you can measure your size very well because your size is an intriguing question, you could say that the size has reached zero, right?

It could be quite complicated, irregular, not like the original obernai Messiah or my soldier something even then the point is the wrong point of view but let's not go into that now there is something about the structure of these things you can say that they are not all the same no then the singularities and all the same except black holes they are not all the same they are not all the same but one of those strange things about black holes is that if you let them stabilize, they are not all the same to begin with but they are not many different things. they can sit in they can have rotation they can have a certain mass and the mass translates into the size of a diameter of the hole and you also have rotation so they can rotate and this is difficult, I found the ones that don't rotate and it was Roy Kerr, an Australian who was the first to produce the solution for a rotating black hole that spins, yes, one that spins, but then you see what's remarkable is that that's what they established, so they are nice theorems that tell you that the black hole in general it's very complicated.

Quite quickly it will settle down and become one of these curved solutions, the spinning black hole. I remember when I first saw that documentary that I saw when they were discussing the shape of these galaxies and that in the center it had this supermassive black hole that was slowly devouring the galaxies, yeah, I mean, it's an incredibly beautiful idea but at the same time terrifying , is that there is an infinite power at the center of an infinite mass that is slowly but surely absorbing everything around it, yes, but it is not an infinite mass, the mass is quite well defined. and it's not infinite, but yeah, it was a good question.

I mean, if you wait forever, how much mass is actually swallowed by the mine hole, you'll see. I think the images not only make you think of a galaxy but of a cluster, mmm, you see our galaxy. has this four million solar mass black hole and we are on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy and I don't know how long, but many, but at some point in the future yes, the black holes will probably spiral around each other and there will be a big one, so it's of definable mass but infinite density and at this point they were speculating that this could possibly be at the center of supermassive black holes.

Now, if you could get through it, there would be another universe. Well, yeah, that's all good speculation. It's a nice romantic thought. Is it more whoo? I'm afraid so good yes, I know well, it's a shame for science fiction, yes it's kind of nice, it's just that we try to make things more complicated than they are because they are so complicated because it's like dark matter , for example, it boggles your mind that we don't really fully understand what more than 90 percent good is, that's a good question, yeah, what is that? Well, you want me to tell you my theory, yes, please, well, you see, it is. part of a story that I don't know about 15 years ago.

I must have spent years. I don't remember how long ago, so I had this idea: You see the universe as a whole is expanding now at the beginning of this century. Don't ask me again dates some people when observing super, not supernovae, they saw stars exploding very, very far away, they discovered that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion and some people found this very mysterious, on the other hand, it is in everyone cosmology books. because there is that expectation, you see it in 1915. I saw and produced his general theory in 1917. He introduced what is called the cosmological constant.

Then you think of one, it was called lambda. You think of an inverted V shape. Remember and introduced. This term for the wrong reason because at that time people there was some indication that the universe was expanding, but it was not very clear and Einstein, I guess, maybe he did not know it, he believed it and the couple's observations still did not they had come to be. a convincing case for expansion, so I thought, well, maybe the universe is static, it's philosophically nice to think that it's sitting there all the time and he couldn't make it do that, so he had to introduce this term called the cosmological constant and he did it.

He did and not long after this, Hubble showed that the universe appears to be expanding and Einstein considered this lambda term to be his biggest mistake, which is an irony because it turns out that this term is probably the explanation for the expansion. of the universe we see now, so it's what people call dark energy. I don't really like the term because it's not dark or proper energy in any clear sense, but let's still not worry about that, right? So it's a strange term, yeah, I think it's a little confusing because it's also dark matter, which is quite different, you know, shamash, yeah, I'm confused with dark energy as it's called or the cosmological constant which, until As far as we know, it is completely According to observations, it is a very small positive number, but it seems to be producing this expansion and I am quite happy with that point of view because it leads to a picture that I have been trying to cover up for a while, such time up to 15 years.

I don't remember the idea. I know it's hard to explain, but let me try. It came about because he was worried about the distant future and was thinking, "Okay, when these black holes are on this wall." I love all the stars and they're just sitting there and what's the most exciting thing that's going to happen well, Hawking's appearance they're going to radiate Stephen Hawking showed that black holes had this extremely cold temperature how many of these huge ones are absurdly cold much colder than any thing made on the earth and but when the universe expands and expands and expands it becomes colder than black holes and that's why those black holes become the hottest things that exist and that's why they radiate very, very slowly this Hawking radiation and it carries energy and that's why they shrink and They shrink and shrink and finally they disappear with a pop.

I said the pop is probably a pretty big explosion, but it's not that big cosmologically, that's the physical scale, so they disappear. Well, it may be that you have been quite bored when you are sitting down. waiting for the black hole to explode, but then that's very boring, so this was an image. I thought I was pretty depressed thinking that's our destiny, you see the destiny of all the interesting things that happen. The final destination is this incredibly boring final state. Okay, this is an emotional plot, but it gives me a little bit of wiggle room, so I started thinking, well, we won't be the ones who will be bored because we won't be around the main things that will be present. they will be photons and it is quite difficult to borrow a photon for two very good reasons: one is that you probably don't have conscious experiences, I'm not sure, but the other is more of a scientific point: they don't measure time because a photon has no mass it travels at the speed of light and but the way relativity works means that the clocks stopped if you will, so if you had experienced it, but the moment of its creation would be one moment and the next moment would be infinite, so They just slide. to infinity without realizing anything.

You see, I had been working on this kind of thing thinking more about gravitational radiation and how you measure its energy and things like that, and it was a very useful image for crushing infinity, a useful thing. To think about here if you have seen these images by the Dutch artist MC Escher mmm yes, and there are those called circular boundaries and there is a very famous one with angels and demons intertwined and they all pile up to the edge. What you have to think about is that this is a type of geometry called hyperbolic geometry and the angels and demons live in that geometry and the ones near the edge think they are the same size and the same shape as the ones in the middle, oh, you got that right, yeah, so the idea is that if you look at it from the point of view of the angels and the demons, that is the infinity, that limit, but from our point of view we can see it and we have what is called a conforming map. that image is a conformal map, what that means is that the small shapes are drawn fairly consistently, but they can be big or small and you don't care if there are any or this anymore, since the small shapes are precise or the angles if you like a correct drawing.

So it is what is called a conformal map and that conformal map describes infinity. Now you can do the same with the universe, but I said do it. You can imagine hitting them with this distant future. You can smash it like in Escher's image. a finite limit and as for massless things, they don't have a way to measure how big or small it is. Maxwell's equations don't know scale, they don't care, it's just that it works just as well for small things as it does for big things and you can stretch it somewhere and squash it somewhere else, as long as the stretching and squashing are isotropic, both in one way and the other, which means more or less that you keep what I call the light cones there.

I won't go into details here, but it means that if you have massless things, more particularly photons, then that limit is just like everywhere else and photons get close to it, so you might think that they have to have somewhere to go. go. that's right, you don't have to think that, but that was the point of view I had, the photons need to need some way to get in somehow, but then where does it go? But then there's the other image which is the opposite and then there's the With the Big Bang you can now do a similar kind of trick which is to stretch it and turn it into a limit and that can be done too.

I played with these ideas for a long time and with the standard cosmological models that you can do it with, but among the more complicated cosmological models, you might have one that is very complicated, the Big Bang; the generals are nothing alike, so you need a condition that tells you that the Big Bang was a very special type and that it is all linked. with this thing called the second law of thermodynamics and all the links to physics in a way that we may not have time to talk about, but it seemed like a very good idea to have the condition in the Big Bang that you could continue it in the same way.

I have to say that the idea of ​​doing this came from a former student of mine, Paul Todd, who is a colleague of mine and he used this as a continuous form or continuation as a good way of saying what the condition is at the Big Bang for I Give You What You Want , but that is a huge condition, but yes, however, it is what makes our universe start in a very special state, which is what we live in, in some way, it is the second law of thermos that exceeds that To begin with anyway, I don't.

I know if you want to worry about that, but anyway the point is that it seems like it's a good condition at the Big Bang, but it should also be compliant. I like a limit that if you didn't have mass you wouldn't notice, okay? We have particles with mass running close to the Big Bang, but as you get closer and closer, the energy increases, the temperatureincreases, they move at such a speed that the energy of their motion is much greater than the mass is equal to mc-squared Einstein's mass the energy in the mass is a certain amount, but when they get so hot you forget about the massThen they like photons to behave like massless particles and are only interested in conformal geometry, so the crazy idea I had not only extended the Big Bang you smashed into Infinity, but maybe our Big Bang was a smash of the infinity of a previous Eon, so I say that Ariane began with a big

bang

ended with this exponential expansion there was another before us there will be another after us there was another before that and so on, it is an infinite cycle of Big Bang that is the image and constant expansion until the point where there is no more energy and then, somehow or another, a Big Bang arises.

There are no fairly unique theories that are attractive. I'd say nothing terribly popular. There are certain ideas that say we can continue before the Big Bang. Paul Steinhardt and what do you think he has things in common with my model, but no. exactly the same thing and you still see it and you see that it was not right not long after Einstein produced the theory and this Alexander Friedmann, who was a Russian mathematical physicist, produced the first cousin cosmological models and one of these was one that has a It sort of bounces and Big Bang expands and then contracts again during the bounces and that was one of their models.

The only problem is that if you put irregularities in these models you get black holes and these black holes could be Palmer Crooker, I mean, amazing. It's a mess in the end and that doesn't add up to a nice smooth Big Bang the next so you have problems with those models but still people take these things seriously and then I say Steinhardt and file a model that is like that , so these What was nice to think about from my point of view is that they don't take into account the black hole problem, which is that mine gets rid of that because the whole black hole evaporates by Hawking evaporation and, by Therefore, it forms a model.

I used to give talks about this feeling, quite happily, no one would ever prove me wrong so I can keep talking about it, but I wasn't very happy about it. I thought maybe you could see the signals coming, so I had an idea about that, but more. Recently and this is just this year, I have two Polish colleagues who are Christoph Meisner and Pavan NeuroSky and there is a Korean who works in New York called Daniel Ann and the four of us have an article that I think today or tomorrow will be the The new improved version of your article should be in the archive and this is the title of the article: Are we seeing Hawking spots in the CMB sky?

What is a Hawking point? I talked about the black holes that are in the previous Eon for us, assuming that it is more or less like ours, there will be black holes in huge, huge galaxy clusters, that will swallow the whole cluster pretty well and what happens with the energy in those black holes, well, it goes off into Hawking radiation, it takes forever, ages and ages, and ages maybe 10 to 100 years, Gogol years or something, ages and ages, but all that energy in the image comes out basically at a point, think of it as an image and right at the edge you will see that there are not many angels and demons squashed. together there so that all the radiation from that single black hole is squashed into that little point now that we're on the other side, what do we see?

There will be a huge release of energy at that point and that is what we call Hawking. point and it spreads, you see what we see in the Cosmic Microwave Background, this is radiation that comes from all directions and this radiation does not come exactly from the Big Bang, but from 380,000 years after the Big Bang, so there is a kind of last dispersion. surface where the photons that are trying to get out can finally escape and now we see them extending from the Hawking point to what is seen in a cosmic microwave background on the last scattering surface is something the diameter of about eight times the diameter of the moon is not bigger or smaller now you wouldn't see it all because our past cone, where what we see cuts it, we don't see it all, but we probably see most of it, so you could imagine something. about four to eight times the diameter of the moon, which is a small region that is highly energetic, most energetic in the middle and decreases as you go towards the edge, and we seem to see these things in the analysis, but the surveys They have the techniques and the actual analysis of the data is the Planck satellite data done by Daniel An and then we look at the data and we seem to see an effect that when we see what you do, we have a single universe, that's what we know. they complain.

So how do you know if something is real or not? You create millions of fake universes and compare them with them. There is a lot of technique to doing this, but Daniel first made a thousand of these fake universes and they were two sizes. of these, you look at these rings to see if the temperature goes from the outside to the center and there were two sizes, both within this size, which I would say were about four degrees in the sky and there was no evidence of them at all. simulation, so this is a real effect, so people were skeptical about this for one reason or another, so Daniel made another 10,000 in total and occasionally there are one or two that do what two or three to be precise, where You see this effect in the simulations, but if you calculate the probability that it is a real effect, you get a 99.98% confidence level that it is a real effect, so we are waiting to see what people say about it.