Lawrence Krauss is debunked by Roger Penrose, Nobel Physicist: Noncommutativity Protoconsciousness

Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang
16 hours ago
@End PC more likely you have not been able to keep up with Penrose. He now admits that noncommutativity is the foundation of reality. This basic truth is not even acknowledged by 99.9% of scientists. Penrose also admits he's not good at doing noncommutative geometry math aka quantum algebra. He co-wrote a paper on the topic.
End PC
13 hours ago
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang Lot of things are commutative (per certain operators), starting with the real & complex number systems and many algebras. Links to what you're talking about? Has he changed his mind on rejecting the strong AI claim 𝒜 as described in his "Shadows Of The Mind", that all thinking is computation?
Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang
12 hours ago
@End PC Ok first of all you need to deprogram your commutative geometry wrong logic. Study math professor Louis Kauffman for example, " All of this points out how the complex numbers, as
we have previously examined them, live naturally in
the context of the non-commutative algebras of iterants and matrices..... A natural non-commutative algebra arises directly from articulation of discrete process and can be regarded as essential information in a Fermion." .. and "By starting with a discrete time series of positions, one has immediately a non-commutativity of observations, since the measurement of velocity involves the tick of the clock and the measurement of position does not demand the tick of the clock....In this sense, i [square root of negative one] is identical in concept to a primordial time.".. This is what Roger Penrose calls "fundamental time." So Krauss really has not studied Penrose's most recent lectures on youtube at all. Tragic.
Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang
12 hours ago
@End PC Roger Penrose is citing Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes. For example consider Connes' lecture on music theory, "Music of Shapes" - on youtube; "Why should Nature require some noncommutativity for the algebra? This is very strange. For most people noncommutativity is a nuisance. You see because all of algebraic geometry is done with commutative variables. Let me try to convince you again, that this is a misgiving. OK?....Our view of the spacetime is only an approximation, not the finite points, it's not good for inflation. But the inverse space of spinors is finite dimensional. Their spectrum is SO DENSE that it appears continuous but it is not continuous.... It is only because one drops commutativity that variables with a continuous range can coexist with variables with a countable range...."
"the amazing fact is that exactly time is emerging from the noncommutivity...thanks to noncommutativity ONLY that one can write the time evolution of a system, in temperature, in heat bath, the time evolution is really coming from the noncommutativity of the variables" and... "You can recover the distance from two points, in a different manner....but by sending a wave from point A to point B with a constraint on the vibration of the wave, can not vibrate faster than 1; because what I ask is the commutator of the Dirac Operator is less than 1...It no longer requires that the space is connected, it works for discrete space. It no longer requires that the space is commutative, because it works for noncommutative space....the algebra of coordinates depends very little on the actual structure and the line element is very important. What's really important is there interaction [the noncommutative chord]. When you let them interact in the same space then everything happens"
"The symmetry group of special relativity is not entirely simple, due to translations. The Lorentz group is the set of the transformations that keep the origin fixed, but translations are not included. The full Poincaré group is the semi-direct product of translations with the Lorentz group. If translations are to be similar to elements of the Lorentz group, then as boosts are non-commutative, translations would also be non-commutative.
....
De Sitter special relativity postulates that the empty space has de Sitter symmetry as a fundamental law of nature. This means that spacetime is slightly curved even in the absence of matter or energy. This residual curvature implies a positive cosmological constant Λ to be determined by observation."

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

A Penrose tiling is an example of an aperiodic tiling. Here, a tiling is a covering of the plane by non-overlapping polygons or other shapes, and aperiodic means that shifting any tiling with these shapes by any finite distance, without rotation, cannot produce the same tiling. The Penrose tilings, being non-periodic, have no translational symmetry – the pattern cannot be shifted to match itself over the entire plane.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe is a science book by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose published by The Bodley Head in 2010.
Originally published: May 3, 2011

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

It was the Greek temples that first "monetized" gold -issuing a fixed amount equivalent to one cow. Since they held the majority of the gold supply, the temples created an instant value for their new "money" by accepting it for their array of services (food, land, storage, etc.). Money became as much a source of power and control as a basis for economics.2

The Chinese in the east and Greek city-states in the west were the first to issue metal (gold and silver) coins as money. Their value was determined by the state separate from the metal's worth as a commodity. The Spartan leader, Lycurgus, was the first to issue fiat money in the 8th century BC. It was made of iron discs without any intrinsic value. Other Greek city-states and Rome's early leaders (using bronze) followed suit. Aristotle declared, "...Money exists not by nature but by law."3

For more than 1200 years, "coining gold was regarded as the exclusive prerogative of the supreme sovereign" by the Roman Empire. "Infringements upon this power... were met with death or warfare." 4Creating money was not simply creating tokens of exchange but was a sign of ultimate sovereignty.

Venice stamped leather and used it for money in the 12th century to pay soldiers. After the Caesars fell in 1204, local rulers throughout Europe began minting their own money. That process became most centralized in England by the Crown and affirmed by the courts. The Mixt Moneys legal case in 1604 concluded: "The sovereign, or those licensed by him, has the authority to create the money of his dominions, and it is treason for any other to do so." Coinage was minted, as was a kind of fiat money by Charles II in 1667 to pay for state expenses, including the Dutch War.

Most of the history of money creation is unknown. Political economist and historian Alexander Del Mar affirms, "Of all the elements of political economy, money is the chiefest; of all the institutions of money, the right to create it is the most important; yet not a word concerning this once sacred right by the state is to be found in any of the economists."5

Private interests controlling money and its creation have been numerous, diverse, and powerful throughout history. In addition to the aforementioned Greek temples, religious sources included Popes who made loans until the Church enforced a ban on usury and Jewish moneylenders.

The Knights Templar, formed in the 12th century during the first crusade, were a secretive high-powered group who eventually ran the depository of the French treasury, made loans to the French and English crowns, and became so economically powerful that their charter was dissolved and members arrested on orders of King Philip of France.6

Banks arose first in Catalonian Spain and Genoa around 1200 AD. Catalonian banking law kept moneylenders on a short leash: "No moneychanger who may fail, and none who has recently failed or in times past failed, shall again keep a bank or hold any office under the Crown... Until he shall have satisfied all demands, he shall be detailed on a diet of bread and water." Punishment for bankruptcy was clear-cut. "They shall be beheaded and their property shall be sold for the satisfaction of their creditors by the Court."7

Venetian banks were started to provide loans to the government following its involvement in three Crusades. Large banks, connected to particular families, arose in Italy, Germany, and Holland. A few public banks were formed, most notably in Amsterdam, where all profits belonged to the city, sending an unspoken message to private interests to focus on commerce and industry and not money-changing.

The Bank of England, chartered in 1694, despite its name, sought to concentrate private financial power into few hands. Its creation followed intense pressure from financial interests and the British East India Company, passage of the Free Coinage Act of 1666 overturning royal sovereignty over money, nullification of the Mixt Money case, and contrived commercial disasters and foreign wars (a similar rationale in countless other nations) that forced the state to seek private funds. Opposition to the bank came from those inside and outside of government who felt it would become the bank of the state but not controlled by it. Nathan Rothschild declared, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."8

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Just before the Big Bang launched the universe onto its ever-expanding course, physicists believe, there was another, more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter — a cold, homogeneous goop — inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe."

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

my name is roger penrose
i am an emeritus
professor at the university of oxford
and i am going to talk about black holes
singularities
and cyclic cosmology
now my talk will be mainly in
space time so i will have to talk about
four dimensions
you could here we have a picture of
three space dimensions and going upwards
my time will normally go upwards we have
the fourth dimension which is time i
also have drawn the light cone this
describes the speed of light so anything
which travels at the speed of light
would go along that light cone you have
to imagine that the spatial and temporal
dimensions
are comparable in the sense that if it
seconds for the time dimension you will
have something like light seconds for
space which isn't the normal way of
doing it but you want the speed of light
to look something reasonable in the
picture
now i'm not really concerned with the
axes i'm really concerned with the light
cone or the null cone this describes the
speed of light at any point
and this
as you go around space time it may not
have any irregularity because in
einstein's theory
of space time general relativity
you have a curved space time and so the
light cones sort of are not regularly
distributed over the whole space time so
here you have a picture which shows how
they
might vary as you go from place to place
in a general way though the time will be
going upwards
here we have a picture
of
the oppenheimer and snyder collapse this
was j robert oppenheimer of
atomic bomb fame later on but this was
in 1939
he and his student schneider described
the collapse of a dust cloud so the idea
was that in general relativity if you
have too much material squashed together
into small region
then it collapses inwards
and in this particular situation
everything was exactly spherically
symmetrical so no direction in space we
singled out above any other and you have
this spherically symmetrical body
the body also was special in that it was
what's called dust that is to say
there's no pressure so it just collapses
inwards
and the density gets more and more and
more until it becomes infinite at the
center
so this of course was regarded by many
people as a very artificial picture
there's no pressure to stop it
and everything is symmetrical so it's
got nowhere to go except straight
towards the center so the fact the
density becomes infinite at the center
that means the space-time curvature
according to einstein's theory becomes
infinite and this is what's called a
singularity where everything goes wrong
people really did not believe this was a
realistic picture not just because the
dust has no pressure but more
importantly because in a general
collapse situation there will be
irregularities which will become more
and more magnified as you get towards
the center
so it was not thought that this were a
realistic picture
however in the early 1960s people
started to find
rather strange phenomena these were what
became later known as the quasars these
are objects which sended radio signals
a such intensity
more than maybe a thousand times that of
an entire galaxy
and also they had to be relatively small
because they varied at a range which
showed that the size of them couldn't be
bigger than something like the solar
system
this is really extraordinary how could
all that energy be squashed into
something the size of the solar system
so people began to wonder whether
perhaps this oppenheimer snyder picture
might not be something
of what is happening that the material
gets so concentrated that it produces
signals
and then you maybe have a picture like
this but people didn't really believe in
the singularities
uh and in fact there was a paper written
by two russians
lichits and kalatnikov who seem to have
proved that in the general situation
when you have irregularities that the
collapse would not be straight towards
the center maybe it would switch around
in a complicated way and come swirling
out again now around about that time
again began to worry about these things
and certainly john wheeler in princeton
whom i was working with at the time was
interested in whether this was a general
situation
and for
various reasons i had my suspicions
that the literate scholatnikov paper
that singularities didn't
occur was probably maybe not correct
there was a mistake in the paper i
didn't know about the mistake
but uh i i wasn't totally convinced by
the methods they were using so i started
to think about methods of my own
which
looked at looking at sets what looks the
future of regions and so on like that
and this picture is from a paper which i
wrote
in 1964 published in 1965
in which i considered a general collapse
the it's roughly speaking the open slide
oppenheimer snider picture but i'm
considering
there's a little ring in the middle
which you have to imagine there's an
extra dimension of course because it's
four space dimensions rather than
four space time dimensions rather than
three so you you have to imagine another
dimension so that thing that looks like
a ring is really a sphere
and along that sphere the point is that
the light rays are of
converging inwards and i proved a
theorem which showed that if the light
rays start converging inwards and if the
energy doesn't go negative anywhere then
you're going to have a problem and that
you are going to have something like a
singularity quite general it's not that
this doesn't depend on the symmetry
because i was looking at complicated
situations where the future of a region
could be something like this and the
light ray start crossing over each other
and do complicated things but i was able
to develop arguments to show
that the once you have this trapped
surface this point of no return and the
collapse that there was no way of
avoiding the singularities if you had
diffusions have negative energies or
something unrealistic of that nature
a lot of people had trouble believing
this and they even thought that perhaps
this showed that general relativity must
be wrong that was not my view my view
was it really did show that we have
things like what we now call a black
hole
now
at the time this was as i say in 1964
when i gave a talk at king's college
london on this
um

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Penrose: "Yes Nature has found some nonlocal way of assembling these things.... I think it has to do with the collapse of the wave function....when you go from a fluid or a gas to a rigid thing like a crystal it's got to have collapsed because the crystal really knows where its atoms are....whereas the fluid or the gas, these states, there's going to be something where the atoms are not localized. ....
"I used to walk in the woods to try to get inspiration... it had to be a nonlocal problem [the singularity of the black hole]. Infinity had to have a spherical structure...I looked at the boundaries of the future of a point...I felt this elation and I didn't know why...
The idea of a trapped surface... for the boundaries of a future. "
"You invert and the point of infinity is singular - it doesn't work - what a pity. Conformal transformations - Maxwell equations were conformally invariant...
To be more precise have a look at Escher's circle limits - they're very unusual conformal maps - just look at the edge and there you can see infinity into a finite boundary....
You didn't just have - the leading term was null...but if you look at 1 over R squared - ....that I learned from my understanding of spinors. You could look at the Weyl curvaturve - the part that describes gravity. You remove the Ricci part that is the mass part. The pure part is the gravity part as the Weyl curvature.... You can classify them how they coincide - in the Null Part - the leading term at infinity - they all come together. If you come in from infinity they peel off one after the other - that is to say 1 over R, 1 over R squared, 1 over R cubed, 1 over R fourth, 1 over R fifth .. It was a very beautiful result. Very striking and beautiful result.
"the thought came to me I've been going the wrong way - I've been going a Spatial Direction. if you go the Null Light Cone it doesn't go out at infinity - .... I had realize this is a different power. That made everything finite instead of infinite. If your Weyl Curvative is finite at infinity you look at the different components - the curvature is finite at the boundary. I began to realize looking at these conformal boundaries was a fruitful thing to do..."
"Once I had shown that singularities were generic in collapse then they would clearly be generic in a Big Bang of the Universe..."
That's accurate - it's not quite as forceful as I would put it...no one else seems to be worried about it and yet to me it seems to me to be a huge conundrum...
the microwave background radiation blackbody means you're looking at some equilibrium - you go back and back in time and surely the 2nd law of thermodynamics means the entropy should be small. It's such an obvious, obvious point, why don't people talk about it and stress it....
We've got a universe that is not at equilibrium...you see there's the mistake in thinking that the expansion of the Universe is going to make it bigger - there's more room for entropy as the universe gets bigger - ...yes Gravity was not thermalized....Gravity has to start off low! God said, "Let there be a universe in which the degrees of freedom and gravity were not excited."...
"I think the strongest argument is in "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" (book by Penrose).. I can't see why you don't have an inflation - given our galaxy - why do we need all those other ones way over there? We don't need them do we? What's the use of the Andromeda Galaxy to us? That's the trouble you see, God has made all these useless universes out there, not doing anything for the natural selection which evolved on the Earth....
Inflation is terribly wasteful - it's trying to produce the entire Universe - it's really an anti-anthropic argument...It's somehow using an argument of this sort to...that the reason the entropy was low... the entropy is low in gravity was because it needed to be in a place, for us to be around, you need to have a part of the Universe of that nature...."
But why does it [inflation] do it globally of the whole universe rather than just locally? It does it in a uniform way? It has to know exactly when to turn off..yes locally...
it shouldn't happen so uniformly globally... perhaps I shouldn't go into all this. I'm worry about dissimilarity between this picture and what happens at collapse. Gravitation is absolutely different.
The book needs rewriting [Cycles of Time]... I have to be writing three books now...How am I going to write three books at once? I don't think even these observations of the circles was present there... there must be some indication. But the fact about them - no one was believing a word of it at that time. And I think with some reason....
It's not quite clear what you could trust and what you couldn't. The Polish group came in and they found it completely independently and they see them [the circles in the background radiation as remnants of the previous universe]
The Heart of the Argument is that the singularities in collapse are utterly different than the Big Bang....

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Paul Steinhardt - Wikipedia
Paul Joseph Steinhardt (born December 25, 1952) is an American theoretical physicist whose principal research is in cosmology and condensed matter physics.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

A Universe from Nothing
Book by Lawrence M. Krauss

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Penrose (part 2): "You haven't really gone back to the Big Bang - you've gone to an early stage before inflation as started yet...[for the quantum mechanics inflation origin argument]
Why is it such an unlikely one because in the collapse you have these singularities and they represent some kind of end...quantum gravity probably comes in, what good does it do you? It doesn't. They wouldn't be black holes - they'd be white holes....
You want to get rid of it - the point is the entropy is so low... in the beginning....that's a different argument."
Where is the time asymmetry in any of this? I don't see it? It's so different than what our Universe is like. To me it's just that we haven't got the right theory. We're talking about the early universe in ways that we could talk about the remote universe but we get the wrong answer - but the remote universe is not like this at all. There you do have the gravitational degrees of freedom dominating - they run ahead of everything else. They dominate completely.
Only in the tiny spots - only in the Hawking points [do we not know the physics]
I don't think that's at all fair. Almost the entire crossover from one to the next is not.... You do need a mass fade out and that is a big assumption and I've always said that. However it is based on something which is mathematics - mainly the first thing you do in particle physics, more or less, is look for the Casimir Operators of the Poincare Group. These are Mass and Spin... So you say they are absolutely conserved quantities. What i say is these are only approximately correct. The right group is NOT the Poincare Group but the De Sitter Group. The cosmological constant - the real one, the one that Einstein mistakenly introduced, ...it's certainly observed to be there... it's not a tooth fairy....
I'm trying to say there is that term (cosmological constant] - that the group that actually could be relevant at cosmological scale is the De Sitter group rather than the Poincare Group, it's not so surprising that mass is not absolutely conserved. It's not saying that mass is not saying that it decays in specifically this or that way - I agree that's missing - on the other hand it's not such a tooth fairy. You've got to have something if you're going to do a cosmological constant into your particle physics.
Most - look at the conformal picture - it's almost entirely the junction to the next eon is almost entirely smooth. That is the - all the effect of - take a galactic cluster it gets swallowed by a supermassive black hole. That thing stays around for maybe tens to the one hundred years - finally evaporates by Hawking Evaporation. If you look at the Conformal Picture it's less than the Planck Scale on the other side...
You know all about it - you know how much mass - I should go into this because I'm still in the middle of this - I'm trying to write two papers with Kristoff - it does use Twistor Theory - so we can avoid that. It uses a bit of Twistor Theory to show how you can work out what the mass - how much energy comes out of the spot - the Hawking Point. You can work out - there should be a certain amount of energy which will spread out to a certain size by the time you see the Mie Scattering.
No, We've got an inflation given for free which is the cosmological inflation and that is the universe. They are a natural consequence of the evolution of the general universe. I think one has to be careful about these things...there's hydrogen running around in this...I see where you're coming from but I don't believe it. I think these arguments which are a little so anthropic - "if we wait long enough than anything can happen" sort of arguments. I think that's not right.
When I'm saying that - it's probably that - it's more a kind of a feeling that's grown up since coming across CCC - from the conformal perspective it's not that long. I mean the end of the Universe is infinity - but that's not such a long time if you've got mass fade out. It depends on how quickly it happens. You can't think of that as enough time for energy to....I'm trying to say it's not that long...in a certain sense, compared to any mathematician who plays with infinity, 10 to 100 years is trivial time...
The question of probabilities of things happening - do the probabilities stay the same or do they go down when they become more rarefied. I'm trying to say the CCC picture gives you a perspective on the world which makes you not scare of infinity...
That's an interesting thing - the way that Kristoff has been playing with it [inflation] - the question of inflation has come up in it [CCC] - I've always dismissed it playing a role, but he's taking it more seriously of it - and there is a role for some of these things. It's not quite - the picture we have at the moment is not quite...
And Jim Peebles, whom I have a lot of respect and liking for, asked me, would I take part in one of the discussion sessions and they had several of them. And each one would present a paper and give their own point of view and then turn to discussion. Now I'm almost the last one -... [they didn't allow Penrose to show his slides and he got cat-called and heckled...]
The Hawking points are 98.. % accurate....these are observational facts.
in black hole singularities we seem to be led to something like quantum gravity - yes they're a mess. But that is NOT going to answer the problem of the Big Bang.
the Hawking Point signals are stronger - but the rings - the rings are consistent."

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Wow the NEW camera has the sound desynched from the vid? Hilarious.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Penrose: "Particles as photons only know the light-cones not mass.
They are completely insensitive to scale - they just care about the light-cones.
Massless particles, you don't have the scale.
Conformal geometry does not have scale, it's just small angles.
You can represent infinity, if they are massless, they wouldn't notice any difference of scale or boundaries outside infinity.
If there were no mass, that's the sort of picture that makes sense.
We can squash down infinity, if you only have photons then they don't notice the difference.
The energy is in their motion and NOT in their mass - so they behave like massless things. So you can stretch out the Big Bang... and squash down infinity....
The Remote Future extends Backwards into the Big Bang
You can imagine that the Big Bang is the continuation of something before.
it's much better way
and moreover you could do something more
you can say that the remote future well
is that the end? or can you imagine that
the remote future extends into something
else what about the big bang? maybe you
can imagine that extends backwards into
something else so this was the picture
Signals can get through...gravitational signals... signals in the early microwave cosmic background, only explicable in terms of something going on BEFORE the BIG BANG...
Sir Roger Penrose:
"In an open universe, there is, in effect, an imaginary time, which is i times the time scale, which is also a fundamental time."
Penrose recent talk that Lawrence Krauss should watch. hahah.

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

Bloch sphere - Wikipedia
Plotting pure two-spinor states through stereographic projection — In quantum mechanics and computing

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

part 2
dennis sharma who was a great friend and
colleague of mine in cambridge
wanted me to give a repeat of this talk
and i did give a repeat in cambridge and
at the repeat stephen hawking who was a
young graduate student at the time was
present at my repeat lecture in
cambridge not at the original one but
the repeat lecture in cambridge and
afterwards he and i and george ellis and
perhaps brandon carter
had a long talk about the details of the
arguments i was using stephen hawking
then generalized these arguments
and applied them to the big bang you see
here's another situation where according
to standard cosmology you have a
singularity where the curvatures of
space-time go infinite the densities
become infinite and it looks like a
crazy kind of situation this is at the
very beginning of the universe according
to theory
and the there was evidence
that the big bang was there this was the
evidence from the microwave background
which seemed to show that was a very
early stage of the universe when things
were actually extremely hot and dense
and it did seem to indicate that there
was this thing called the big bang now
maybe the big bang was not as you
see here
in all my pictures as i try to indicate
time is going up the picture so you have
to imagine that the bottom is the big
bang with a great explosion which
creates the universe
does it have to be this very special
singular regular situation
that the theories that people use the
models that cosmologists all use assume
exact symmetry what happens if you have
a general situation with all sorts of
irregularities and that's what stephen
hawking looked at later on we got
together and wrote a paper on this
together but most of the work on this
end was done by him developing the
arguments which i had used for the
collapse of black holes
now i began to worry about this because
what happens
in a general collapse you see here is
the very symmetrical big bang
why is it going to be symmetrical why
not irregularities but what happens in
this collapse suppose we imagine a
collapsing model of the universe
with time still going upwards and
there are irregularities now these
irregularities will cause black holes
these black holes will
congeal each other
provide bigger and bigger black holes
more and more terrible singularities an
enormous mess of a singularity nothing
like the kind of thing we saw at the
beginning
you have an incredibly
complicated and this is where the
russians also now corrected their
mistake and found that in general you
did to get very very complicated
singularities in the future now what is
so different from that
whereas in the past
we don't get the
time verse of what we expect to see in
the generic collapse in the future the
great mess that you see in this picture
here you get something very regular
which is
apparently what we see now what is the
difference between the situation in the
future and that in the past well mainly
it's because something called the Weyl
curvature
is dominates in the future and doesn't
in the past here i have a picture
somebody at the
future of this picture looking back this
is the past like cone of a point
and the light rays
become distorted by the presence of Weyl
curvature
and presence of Ricci curvature that's
according to einstein equations the
Ricci curvature is what's created by
the matter
and the Weyl curvature is what is the
free gravity so the gravitational field
is
um described by this Weyl curvature and
the matter is described by the Ricci
curvature now the Ricci curvature is a
sort of regular
inwards focusing in all directions
whereas the Weyl curvature gives you
this great distortion
and what seems to be the case is that in
the remote future one has a dominating
curvature whereas the Weyl curvature
seems not to be
present in the very early universe now
this is very much related to the second
law of thermodynamics now here i have a
picture of how the second law of
thermodynamics
um operates the top three pictures
describe say a gas in a box where we
have a smaller box and all the material
is constrained
into this little corner you open up the
box and it spreads out through
the box so from left to right we see the
increasing of
time and the increasing of entropy
and we get a much more uniform situation
as entropy increases so that's the way
ordinary matter seems to behave but how
about gravity in the bottom three
pictures
we have on the left hand side at the
bottom we have a
maybe imagine a very big box of galactic
scale box with many many stars
initially you might imagine they're all
uniformly spread out but as gravitate
starts to operate they clump together
and form clumpy distributions and
finally you get collapse into a black
hole where the entropy goes just
shooting up enormously so as entropy
increases with gravity
the irregularities increase whereas with
ordinary matter you expect the
uniformity to be the situation with
increasing entropy so the real puzzle is

why is it that in the very early
universe you see uniformity which was
consistent with very high entropy
but on the other hand very low
gravitational entropy

very high entropy
in the matter and that's what we tend to
see
but very low gravitational entropy and i
thought this was a great puzzle so i
formulated a sort of hypothesis
that for some strange reason
the singularities in the future
had to be
zero Weyl curvature
whereas the singularities so the
singularities in the past had to have
this
zero Weyl curvature whereas the
singularities in the future the Weyl
curvature could absolutely go wild and
dominate and i like everybody else seem
to think this must be a feature of
quantum gravity you see when the
curvatures get very very big
then you start to imagine that quantum
effects will start to play a role it's
not just classical einstein theory
when the radius of curvature becomes so
so small
maybe say
10 orders smaller magnitude than the
radius of a proton or something like
that
it's the sort of scale in which you
might expect that you have um quantum
gravity playing a big role
but what's so strange about it is if
this is the case
why is it that the quantum gravity seems
to behave so differently from the past
type singularity where the Weyl
curvature seems to be zero or very close
to zero whereas in the future
singularities it seems to dominate and
go crazy
now for a long time i seem to think this
must be
a very strange kind of quantum gravity
where gravity is changing the very
structure of quantum mechanics now i do
actually believe that
there is a great puzzle about quantum
mechanics which is called the
measurement problem which is not really
explained in standard quantum mechanics
and it is my belief that when you bring
gravity in it's going to resolve that
problem so for a long time i thought
well this very strange quantum gravity
where gravity behaves very differently
from everything else maybe that's the
explanation
but then i had a different idea
it's really very hard to make that work
and i was wasn't certain certainly was
not able to make it work
let me go back to the picture of the
light cone and now let me make it a little
bit more complete you see that picture
just described the light cones the nail
cones it did not describe
how time is behaved in general
relativity
you see time
features
here we have two of the most famous
formerly
if 20th century physics there's einstein
c equals m c squared of course and also
max planck's e equals h nu max planck's
formula tells us that energy and
frequency are equivalent
einstein's formula tells us that energy
and mass are equivalent
put the two together that tells you mass
and frequency equivalent so when you
have mass
you have automatically a frequency so
every mass is a clock
so when you want to bring clocks in the
rate of time
that's what mass does for you if you
have no mass you wouldn't have clocks
but if you do have mass that determines
these little
hill and bowl shaped surfaces i've
introduced into the light cones tell you
the ticks of a clock and here we have
two particles whizzing at different
speeds but they're related by these
surfaces which tell when the first tick
happens the second take and so on but if
you just have light-like particles in
other words photons and things like that
who don't notice that these surfaces at
all they don't register the passage of
time particles without mass
don't even know about the passage of
time they only know about the light cones
so this was a remarkable thing which
seemed to me to be important
it's also true of maxwell's equations
which describe
the classical behavior of light
and these equations are completely
insensitive to the scale they just care
about the light cones they don't care
about the scale now what happens when
you just have the light currents you
don't have the scale but you massless
particles things without mass that's
what they're interested in
well it's very interesting because
when you don't have any scale you can
consider a kind of geometry which is
called conformal geometry conformal
geometry is the geometry of small shapes
if you like of angles
and here we have a lovely picture due to
the dutch artist m c escher where he
shows with a certain type of geometries
called hyperbolic geometry don't worry
about that but the important thing about
this geometry is that you can represent
infinity
this circular boundary to this picture
represents the infinity of these
creatures so the creatures in ash's
picture
they don't
feel the boundary there they they the
mass keeps them uh so they actually know
where they are if you like they know how
big they are but if they were massless
they could go right out of the boundary
and they wouldn't notice any difference

from anywhere else if they were photons
the photons could
probe the boundary and go right through
and seem to explore some world outside
infinity very strange idea but if there
were no mass

[leofonseca]

A statistical argument is a weak argument without a solid premise/fundamentals esp when used to guess some yet unverifiable problem domain or edge scenario.. makes it sound scientific but at the end of the day its just an act of faith.. or krauss just spewing religious dogma. That's krauss being religious for all intents and purposes. 😆 🤣

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

which makes sense so i began to think
about this and when we talk about the
whole universe it was discovered uh
at the turn of the century more or less
that there is something sometimes people
call it dark energy i call it einstein's
cosmological consonant he introduced it
in 1917 for the wrong reason
nevertheless but this seems to be the
best explanation for what's happening
in the remote future here we have a
picture
of the universe
uh in its expansion
the remote future is this exponential
expansion where this dark energy or
cosmological constant seems to dominate
and we have the big bang at the bottom
of a picture
and the feature of this is we can apply
apply the trick that escher used in his
picture and squash down infinity and
make it into a finite boundary if you
only have photons running around then
they won't notice the difference and you
can squash it down into a finite
boundary what about the big bang well
the idea is you could stretch that out
into a finite boundary as well you might
worry well there's a lot of massive
particles running around the big bang so
surely they know how big the universe is
no they don't really because it's so hot
so dense and so hot at the big bang that
they rush around so fast that the mass
of particles becomes completely
irrelevant and again you have a
situation where in effect everything is
without mass it's not actually without
mass but the mass is so unimportant at
the big bang because the energy is so
big that the energy of the particles is
in their motion according to einstein's
theory in their motion and not in the
mass of the individual particles so they
behave like massless things too so you
can apply the trick at the beginning and
stretch out the big bang and make it
into something nice and smooth and you
can squash down infinity and make it
something nice and smooth now the
advantage about this
is that you can only stretch out the big
bang and making it smooth in very very
special circumstances
my
former student and colleague paul todd
used this as a rather than using my
Weyl curvature hypothesis saying the
Weyl curvature is zero a better way of
doing it was to say you could stretch
out the big bang and make it nice and
smooth so i liked his way of doing it
it's much better way
and moreover you could do something more
you can say that the remote future well
is that the end or can you imagine that
the
remote future extends into something
else what about the big bang maybe you
can imagine that extends backwards into
something else so this was the picture
that modifying paul todd's idea into one
where the Weyl curvature is actually
zero at the beginning and not just
finite as he had
you can imagine that this big bang was
actually the continuation of something
before
so i'm saying that why the big bang was
so special was because it is the
conformal continuation of something the
remote future you might say this is very
hard to imagine because how could
something so cold and rarefied in the
remote future be physically like
something so hot and dense but when you
think about it it's not so strange
because when you have no mass around you
can't tell the difference between big
and small therefore can't tell the big
difference between hot and cold see when
you squash down this very rarefied
remote future it becomes hotter when you
stretch out the very hot and dense big
bang it becomes colder and they seem to
match so the model i'm putting forward a
crazy model but nevertheless it seems to
make a lot of sense that you stretch out
the big bang and then it becomes the
continuation of the remote future of a
previous eon so in this picture
what we used to think is the entire
universe the big bang being being the
beginning in the remote future being the
end
i'm saying that this is just one eon
one stage of a perhaps infinite
succession of eons one after the other
now it's also you see when i first
thought of this idea about 15 years ago
or so i thought i'd go and lecture about
this forever nobody would ever be able
to contradict me because there's no
observations against it but then i
thought well maybe there are our
observations because signals can get
through
if these signals are light signals if
they more importantly are gravitational
signals they can get through
and i thought about if you have collapse
if you have
black holes which spiral into each other
and
huge galactic scale black holes i'm not
talking about the ones that ligo sees
and we certainly see black holes running
into each other but the black holes at
centers of galaxies absolutely enormous
ones eventually will start to spiral
into each other and produce signals
which may we could see
there are also other effects which we
can see
and it's seems to be the case that there
are signals that we are seeing in the
early cosmic microwave background which
are
explicable and only only explicable as
far as i can see in terms of something
going on before the big bang which is
consistent with the picture which i've
just been showing you
it's something for the future to see
whether these things continue to support
this idea or do we see effects which
contradict the idea i think it's very
exciting because it opens up
new things in cosmology
which which has been thought of before
thank you very much
you

[Kazemijazi]

8 KHz (approx.) circle sinwave at around 6 mins?

[ummerfarooq]

On Daddy Kitten ( pleased that which remains did he), said ambassador of that which remains (link that which remains over him and save) said:
That which remains said: Sons of Adam inveigh the time, and I am the time, by my hand is the night and the day.


Hadith

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:"قَالَ اللَّهُ: يَسُبُّ بَنُو آدَمَ الدَّهْرَ، وَأَنَا الدَّهْرُ، بِيَدِي اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ"رواه البخاري (وكذلك مسلم)

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
Allah said: Sons of Adam inveigh against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day (1). (1) As the Almighty is the Ordainer of all things, to inveigh against misfortunes that are part of Time is tantamount to inveighing against Him. It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim).



Hadith 4, 40 Hadith Qudsi