"Before the Big Bang?" (2005), the original lecture by Roger Penrose (part 1 of 9)

[aardvarq]

This sounds a lot like the story line behind Frederick Pohl's classic Gateway/Heechee series.

[LordShield2012]

The only thing i didn't point out was that the cycle of a Galaxy or black hole is infinite or maybe until it runs out of energy. The Big bang is the point where it is trying to recycle the energy that is has already use to try and keep it self going. My point being that every galaxy could be its on particle, subatomic particle, atom, quark, leptons, or even a Peron. There could even be that every Galaxy could be it very own Galaxy Physics taken from the word Particle Physics.

[LordShield2012]

I come to believe that the Big Bang happens every time a Galaxy is born. That is why we find black holes in the center of every Galaxy.

These Black holes clean up the mater and and keep its cycle going by cleaning and maintaining its area kind of like the way are body cleans it self out after taken in all energy it needs.

This Theory or type of, i cant find any where on the internet. This needs to be addressed cause i really think there is a lot of things that are being over looked.

[sandustanBrasov]

SandustanBrasov

And yet, we can see, we can visualize the ethereal matter. The scheme to one device for to visualize the ethereal matter: EXIST! And this device it can realize!

My e-mail: s.stan65@yahoo.com

You Tube: sandustanBrasov’s Channel Dark energy is the ethereal energy and this can be harness it!

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The matter of the our terrestrial globe has four states of aggregation: solid, liquid, gseous and ethereal and not three after official science. The matter on which we see it, proceed from the ethereal matter, which from cancentration in concentration it had constituted in the electrons, in protons respectivel;y in the atoms of the chemical elements which had overtaken at the gaseous, liquid and solid state. All the matter on which we see it, is condensed ether.

[sandustanBrasov]

SandustanBrasov

The GRAVITY’s PARTICLES as aproximately the smallest ethereal particles, constitute the most general ethereal aggregation state from nature, with the largest temperature interval, from zero Kelvin degrees to millions of degrees in stars. That is an aggregation state which coexist with all others aggregation states(solid, liquid, gaseous, ethereal) and on which it influenced them. The actual official science is mistaken in great proportion because this has not in sight the Ether

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The ACTUAL ELECTRICAL GENERATORS : galvanic elements and electrical accumulators; dynamos and alternators; thermoelements and photoelectric cell - transform nothing, but they only gather the electrical energy= the particles of the electrical ether which exist in metals, in the environing medium, in the thermic radiation or in the ray of light!

[sandustanBrasov]

SandustanBrasov

The ELECTRICAL CURRENT consist in circulation in the round and in lengthways to one electrical conductor to the particles of electrical ether guided on the magnetic field from the round the conductor; magnetic field formed all from particles of electrical ether coupled head at head and expelled in concentric circles in the round the conductor.If it interrupt the electrical current, then it decompose and this magnetic field in particles of electrical ether and it drain in circuit

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The ELECTRICAL FIELD is a field of particles of electrical ether, free and it move approximate in right line.The MAGNETIC FIELD from the round of one conductor is constituted forever from particles of the electrical ether, but magnetic coupled head at head and it move on a curve forming concentric circles in round to one conductor.The ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD is a combination of particles of electrical field anf of curls of magnetic field, having property of the evolve in space.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The ELECTRON is not an exclusive electrical load, but an elementary particle from the composition of any atom, and is only a particle with intermediate role in the unfolding of the electrical phenomenons. The REAL ELECTRCAL LOAD is a particle of electrical ether more nore small than the electron, has and she a personal and rapid rotation, producing a personal magnetic field, which it gear with the magnetic field from the round of one electrical conductor.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL MATTER is the visible matter with free eye and is constituted from atoms of the chemical elements. The PHYSICAL-ETHEREAL MATTER is a matter with atoms more small with 7..8 order of dimension than the atoms of chemical elements, and the bodies formed from this matter are invisible for the human eye. The ETHEREAL PHYSICS it occupy with the study of the ethereal matters, but which was abandoned in the XX century, because in 1905 A.Einstein excludes the ether

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov But the ETHER is a physical reality constituted from a very small matter, invisible for human eye, and is formed from atoms more small with 7...8 order of dimension than the atoms of the chemical elements. The matter of the ether penetrate in all the visible bodies and is the physical matter which fills both the interplanetary space and the interatomic space. The ether is a matter with mass and weigth, being subdued and she the action of the universal attraction law.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The science has and history. In the Fundamental Principle of Democrit(470..380BC) it show:"From nothing nothing's born, nothing that exist can not be destroyed and any transformation consist from a reunion and separation...Out of atoms and ether. all rest is not otherwise than rationament and not exist...The spirit as well as the ether consist of a small and spherical atoms, very mobile, atoms that their movement form the phenomenon of life".

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

Through the relativity theory to Einstein of over century, it hold with strenght -as a conspiracy a general activity of intellectual stultify of the planetary population. from relativity theory proceed the notion of: singularity, Big bang, black holes and holes of worm. From 1905 and till now in 2011, the disciples of the Einstein, preach with contumely as scientific elements of high class these theoretical confusions, these absurdities from which they had made a business.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

It popularize the fantastical theories and stantardized theories with which it terrorize the inhabitants the Earth, after what Einstein with relativity theory had blocked the science of the century XX. Sptephen Hawking and Roger Penrose had demonstrated in 1967 that the black holes proceed from the relativity theory.How it can conceive and it can say that the heart of the one black hole is a gravitational singularity whose volume tend to zero and whose mass tend to infinite?

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

The notion of dark matter and dark energy proceed from theoretical physics, from relativity theory of the A. Einstein, from the mistaken interpretation of the physical reality. Something exist indeed: and matter and energy; but is the much ethereal matter and the her energys from the her frame. Dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of relativity of the Einstein.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov In 1905, A.Einstein conclude that the ether hasn't a correspondent in reality and constitute not a medium which let can serve as reference system. Thus Einstein renounced to the ether notion and absolute space and emits the two restricted relativity principles. By it content the second principle excludes the ether, impose as limit of bodies' movement - the light speed - and denatured completely the classic dynamics reality.

[Bassotronics]

In MY opinion, more mysterious than the Big Bang is MOVEMENT itself. The mere existance of free will or movement had to exist prior to the Big Bang for it to occur. If the universe were static, the Big Bang could not "MOVE" and therefore the universe as we see it today could not exist.

[oicub2]

What if the BiG BaNG didn't happen yet ?? Eeek ??

[FallofDarkness55]

Before the Big Bang was rippling membranes coming closer together. Upon impact, the universe was created. The membranes have to ripple due to the large clumps of matter in the universe i.e. galaxies, stars, planets, quasars, etc. I also like to think of the rippling membranes as the warps and curves on the membrane itself within the 11th dimension which gives rise to the weak, strong, and EM force. They are trapped in our membrane whereas gravity isn't. Gravity can seep across dimensions.

[RiverChaopraya]

Very interesting lecture. Thanks for the upload.

[sirvalet]

Big bang was a local thing. like everything else in infinite universe.

[CanuckAlternative]

Interesting theory, but I wonder if the base elements for life would change, or all elements would be replaced with others.

[thehourcup]

there is no before for if there is no after.

[iceee187]

Is this saying that everything has a cycle?

[ImperatorAquila]

@iceee187 No. Penrose's model is not that of a cyclic universe, but more like an endless string of pearls, with the string+pearls-complex being the real (endless) universe, and with each pearl constituting a universal aeon, which we at the moment believe to be a "universe" in itself. But that may be an insufficient image. For some reasons I'm currently thinking about Matryoshka dolls. ;)

[SharpTwoEdgedSword]

@ImperatorAquila Science can't compute or include infinity in a theory.

[ImperatorAquila]

@SharpTwoEdgedSword I remember using infinity in my mathematical calculations, already in high school. But it's not a relevant issue here, because the infinity of the aeonic series has no bearing on the discrete calculations which would be applied to deal with the present aeon. Hypothetically, the only 2 important aeons are our current one (discrete) and the one before, whose echo (the "ripples") might still be detectable in the CMB.

[dalejosef]

@SharpTwoEdgedSword  Why not?

[albedoshader]

@SharpTwoEdgedSword: So, what is renormalization in physics about? And how about infinite series, cardinal numbers etc. ?

[nNorthWestern]

@SharpTwoEdgedSword you are so wrong, there are many different kind of infinities it all depends on the definion of ¨end¨

your just making smart ass comments becouse you really dont even know what science means

[MrAquinoflavio]

@ImperatorAquila : Is that compatible with the presence of a singularity of the friedmann-lemaitre standard model?

[MrAquinoflavio]

@ImperatorAquila : Does this model help to explain the so called ''fine tuning problem'' in physics?

[Campestral]

@MrAquinoflavio yep the black hole is between be and gee

[SnDkInGz]

@iceee187 yes, he is saying the universe expands to a specific size and then collapses on its self and then basically sucks its self into one point(the big crunch) then explodes back out(the big bang) and the universe starts all over again.

[IgorMorais666]

I can picture two parallel Universes dancing around in hyperspace before one collision taking place forming then the big bang and of course creating our own space and time.

[Juefawn]

According to the Big Cycle and Big Crunch theory, what was before, is now. ;)

[kenny8331]

@Rockstafeller less pressure but nobody really knows. in a way, it didnt. when the cosmological constant nears zero, space starts to expand slower so now we call it expansion. basically scientists dont have all their shit together yet. somehow the universe expanded very fast slowed down now its speeding up again.

[kenny8331]

why is everyone acting like this is a new idea?

[ImperatorAquila]

@kenny8331 It *is* a new theory.

[Juefawn]

@ImperatorAquila You can find a version of it in my book the Big Cycle. ;)

[kenny8331]

@ImperatorAquila not really

[UnifiedPerfection]

To have and effect you need a cause so there would be a cause of the cause and a cause of the cause of the cause and so on... ?

[ImperatorAquila]

@prophetofpeace2010 No, just one universe, with a (possibly) infinite number of aeons, their expansions and "big bangs" into a new aeon. Is it really an infinite number? The beauty of the theory is that this question need not be answered in order to prove or disprove the theory.

[ImperatorAquila]

@prophetofpeace2010 To my mind there is no conflict. Penrose rather talks about what happens at the end of the expansion process. According to his theory the universe "forgets that it exists", i.e. space and time vanish. The one additional step however is that from this state of maximum entropy a new universe is created, another "big bang". The initial size of the new aeon is irrelevant because there was no "size" at the end of the previous aeon.

[finalfantasy13c]

so is he suggesting that either atoms or some sort came out of a black hole(vortex look alike) or the gates to a diffrent dimention when you really think about every time

someone says atoms as such were created of some sort of theory based on dimentions as such then what made this thing if i can use that word what was before the cretion of the big bang never ends

[swiffstep]

maybe this cycloid theory makes sense. i can imagine the entire universe manipulated by one massive black hole which eventually explodes like a 'big bang'

[JoeyMars1]

In my reasoning..There could not had been a true 100 per cent birth or beginning of the universe! Because..that would mean that there would be a time of neverness! Neverness can't be because in order to have a neverness the universe can't be here today. So that means the big bang was only a beginning of a new cycle. Before it, it was the finishing of an older prior universe..

[ilbi00]

@Jupiterx5 I want to. Something in this way..

[mtayyabmemon]

''Before'' is the wrong word to use, because time started after big bang.

[ImperatorAquila]

@mtayyabmemon Right, but if there were previous aeons, there were also "previous times".

[kenny8331]

@ImperatorAquila seriously? what is time? according to me you just made no sense at all and everything you now say is suspect

[ImperatorAquila]

@kenny8331 Then you're saying that Penrose makes no sense, because I'm quoting from his theory. He says that the "when" and the "where" become irrelevant in thermal equilibrium, i.e. space and time are non-existent. After every transition into a new aeonic universe, time is created anew—if time actually really exists. (But that's a different question altogether. Many physicists believe that time is just an illusion.) If you keep spamming, you will be blocked.

[kenny8331]

@ImperatorAquila right, you 2 make no sense. what am i doing that is spamming?

[Juefawn]

@ImperatorAquila What is speed plus distance than?

Also, what is thermal equilibrium?

[iceee187]

@ImperatorAquila Time is a illusion. I always thought time was dependent on gravity. Then in later years after I heard this from another, I believe it to be true.

[ImperatorAquila]

@iceee187 We don't even know if gravity exists. It may just be a symptom of thermodynamics.

[lormendi]

@ImperatorAquila Well.....of course gravity exists....we just don't understand it at a fundamental level. (This is my understanding anyway..)

[ImperatorAquila]

@lormendi Yes, gravity exists, but it may not exist as a "fundamental interaction", but only as a phenomenon of thermodynamics, a force of entropy. It's just a theory of course, but very fascinating. The article is "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" by Erik Verlinde (6 January 2010). It's on arxiv dot org.

[mickeysears]

@lormendi Sorry but gravity does not exist. According to Newtons Law of Motion, objects can only change direction if they are pushed or hit. There is no natural force that can reach out at a distance and pull at an object to change it's direction. Newton has proven this and Einstein has proven this.

[Paulwall9494]

I'm not some big physics guy... I just want to know why we think everything's going to collapse or freeze after some billion years... can someone please explain that to me?

[ImperatorAquila]

@Paulwall9494 Penrose calls it a thermal equilibrium. It has to do with the second law of thermodynamics and the fact that cosmic entropy will eventually reach maximum. If I understand Penrose correctly, at that point the universe will no longer have space and time, with "size" being irrelevant. Anthropomorphized: the universe will forget about its own existence. This "non-state" sounds like a cosmological limbo between one aeon and the next.

[Antlers68]

The Big Bang is an accepted model precisely because there is proof.

[etechjoe]

maybe before gravity the only thing around was cold and dark Can you imagine the time ( if time was ) that cold and dark dominated ? nonsense . it has to be a ring or ocillation of some sort. maybe a point of absolute energy that is cold and dark and all it need was time to go unstable

[etechjoe]

wHY DONT WE STICK WITH WHAT WE KNOW INFINITY AND INFINITESMAL. I THINK WE ARE PART OF SOME LONG DOMINO EFFECT STARTED BY PARTICALS SO SMALL THAT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DETECT THEM BUT THEN WE WOULDNT NEED TO JUST OBSERVE A BLACK HOLE

[MicrosoftsourceCode]

I wish I had the patients to go through all of that ooh! and um, er, but, if. The more I hear about the big bang the more it starts to sound like a religion you must believe even if there is no proof what so ever. If you believe in the big bang and this that is the end of the story you find it hard to answer questions like what was going on before the big bang. And I only wanted to get an understanding of Einstein's general theory of gravity LOL.

[ImperatorAquila]

@MicrosoftsourceCode Oh, there *is* proof of what we call the "big bang". But it seems that our conclusions on what the big bang actually was have been wrong up until now.

[MicrosoftsourceCode]

@ImperatorAquila What I am saying the most distant objects we can see are only 14 billion light years away we assumer the whole univers is only 14B years old. If we could see further than that we would probably come up with another theory. Finaly Smashing atoms on the earth under the earths enfluances is not the same as creating matter from nothing in and undifined region of the univers

[ImperatorAquila]

@MicrosoftsourceCode I think that at lot of scientists believe that the universe is bigger than what we can see. That's why they call it the "observable universe". There are regions beyond that, and their light cannout reach us, because there's a point when the added expansion speed (ours + theirs) exceeds the speed of light.

[sobeita]

Oh, finally. I've been a skeptic of the notion of a 'beginning of time' for as long as I've known about the Big Bang theory... such a notion borrows from either Creationism or shortsightedness. If you believe in a continuous timeline that extends trillions of years back, what gives you the idea of a limit?

[ImperatorAquila]

@sobeita If I understand it correctly, time also has a beginning and an end in Penrose's model, but it's just constricted to a specific cosmic aeon. There were (and will be) "other times", in other aeons. So for spiritual people it would only transpose the problem. If our "universe" is just an aeon within the "real universe" (that consisting of endless other aeons), how then was this "meta-universe" created?

[ImperatorAquila]

@sobeita But we can now finally argue that asking about the initial "creation" of this "aeonic meta-universe" would be an irrelevant question, because it has no direct bearing on our own specific aeon. Penrose's new model wards off any potential spiritual interpretations of "our" big bang, simply because they are not necessary anymore, and it apparently also solves some major cosmological problems. This theory seems to be a step in the right direction. (Just my gut feeling, though.)

[ilbi00]

Omg im 15 year old and I made this theory long ago.. Too bad i couldnt somehow release it :((( i fell like robbed :(((((((((

[danytoogood2]

... take the same laws of the universe unchanged trough infinite cicles ,that results in having the same universe over and over. In conclusion dont be afraind if you die because you already did it and will continue doing it infinite times ;) se ya

[nickharvey7]

Interesting video!

But modern physics has no understanding of time I think this could be seen in the diagrams and drawings.

[keggerous]

i bet in the future we'll find that time is a entity that can be effected by mass and velocity but transends both. probably also find out that the start of the universe was so obviously simple that it would seem silly we ever thought up these theories.

[ImperatorAquila]

Time is already known to be effected. On the second argument: If time transcends mass, velocity etc., then we would have to answer the question how it would be possible to measure time, how it would be possible that time exists, if time were not dependent on mass and interaction. How can a chronology be established when there's no interaction? Put differently: How can time "survive" in a thermal equilibrium?

[ImperatorAquila]

I forgot to add that in the extended version of Penrose's theory there is a transfer of information from one cosmic aeon to the next, across the "big bang". He has proposed a way to prove this in experiment. There are "patches" in the cosmic background which could provide insight on the distribution of matter/energy in the previous aeon, just before the equilibrium stage. But mass and time are still lost.

[ASKaPHYSICIST]

@ImperatorAquila I posted a video response where he addresses this. Check it out.

[ImperatorAquila]

@ASKaPHYSICIST Thanks! Good one. I'll check it out tomorrow.

[ImperatorAquila]

@ASKaPHYSICIST Hmmm I just approved the video response, but it doesn't show up. (??)

[ASKaPHYSICIST]

@ImperatorAquila hmm, strange. I was able to add it again. Have a look if it works now.

[ImperatorAquila]

Think of the thermal equilibrium as the surface of a lake. In the previous aeon we have a certain distribution of mass/energy. This is symbolized by raindrops onto the water surface. We are in the next aeon, so we can't directly observe the raindrops, but we can observe the echo of the drops' ripples on the water surface, i.e. the "patches" or the inhomogeneities in our aeon's cosmic background, i.e. in the echo of the bigbang.

[keggerous]

so if we use that LISA satelite we can see the density variations then? if thats the case i wonder what we will see and if that will change current views about the universe and it expantion.

[thesethreekings]

And I never said I wasn't curious, that was a presumption on your part.

[thesethreekings]

Somebody said that we should worry about what happens at the end of the universe, I just said that it doesn't really matter, we'll all be long gone.

[thesethreekings]

It looks like the universe is going to be around forever, although probably very cold.

Anyway, why worry about that? None of us will know about it anyway.

[TehPyroFang]

wrong..

it cant last forever... every time the "universe" goes through another cycle.. its peak size would surely have to be smaller than the previous.... coz everything needs energy.. and in one cycle.. that would use a hell of alot.. causing the next exploasion (IF IT EVEN COMES) to be vastly smaller.......

And to answer ur question.. simply put.. because its fascinating,..

[thesethreekings]

I don't at all understand your theory on the universe cycle. The universe is expanding faster and faster, it shows no signs of slowing down and the gravity coming from the objects in it aren't enough to cause a big crunch. You said I was wrong to think that, if you have evidence to suggest that your certainty is valid, then every cosmologist on the planet would love to have a conversation with you about that.

[ImperatorAquila]

You're forgetting the conservation of energy principle. The universe always has the same amount of energy at its disposal. Peak size is then e.g. only dependent on the distribution of energy/matter within the cosmos. And at the end the cosmic peak size doesn't matter in Penrose's theory, because there is no such thing as "size" (or "age") in a thermal equilibrium.

[raunchbear]

To get a more complete knowledge of physics. If this was our view on expanding our knowledge we wouldn't have quantum mechanics, and hence no computers

[quidproquo2004]

no modern computers, you mean. the computer has been around for thousands of years

[ImperatorAquila]

It has only been said that, due to the BigBang singularity, time does not extend beyond it into the past. It's the beginning of our time, and therefore of our current spacetime. That's also what Penrose says: maximum entropy = cosmos loses track of its own space & time, i.e. more or less of its existence. But that argument doesn't mean that there was nothing *before* the BigBang. It only says that there is a state of cosmic transit from one aeon to the next where time & space have no meaning.

[ImperatorAquila]

Correction: not "more or less of its existence". If we interpret existence as the presence of spacetime, i.e. objects that produce time (clock model; cf. Penrose), then it means that the cosmos stops existing in a maximum entropy state, in the sense that there are no spatial and temporal references. But again: in Penrose's theory this doesn't collide with the idea that there was nothing before and that there will be nothing after.

[ImperatorAquila]

Yeah. Cosmology, to be more precise. But granted, this is a field that feels quite esoteric to many people. ;)

[ImperatorAquila]

No.

[ImperatorAquila]

According to Penrose's theory, our universe is just one chapter in a whole series, a series that has been going on for aeons. The universe won't stop existing... it will continue on to the next aeon/chapter. In other theories there are other outcomes, but I don't know if there are any, where the universe actually stops existing. In Penrose's current version of the theory, the universe actually retains information from the previous aeon and will accordingly transmit information into the next.

[cosmoladj]

Ill will. Something else to think about. I was at a talk by Sean Carroll and he was talking about the entropy of gravitating systems. His take was that the empty universe is the maximal entropy state. The argument was that a Universe with black holes only is still "doing" something and therefore not in equilibrium. When it is completeley empty due to cosmological constant domination (after all black holes have "popped") then it is maximal and primed for another round of inflation

[cosmoladj]

thanks for posting this! Penrose is coming to give a talk in Pittsburgh next week and I think his topic will be something like this. Gotta love a guy who has hand drawn tranparencies better than most peoples' power point presentations ;)

[ImperatorAquila]

There's a special colloquium by Penrose at CMU/Pitt called "Eons Before the Big Bang?" (June 12, 2009, 2:00 pm, 102 Thaw Hall). That should be it. It's his new expanded lecture including more satellite data. If you go there, you might want to ask him what he thinks of Bojowald's theory mentioned by F10xX below. Seems equally interesting.

[F10xX]

There's also a similar theory by Bojowald and others, developed from loop quantum gravity.