So how would Nature, if crystal assembly as I was mistakenly believed at the time, you got this little ridge .. and they build up... you can't do it that way! So how would Nature do it? And then Paul Steinhardt and I were both at the conference in Israel on something completely different - on cosmology I think - harmonically it was. And we were both giving talks on something different - I was talking about energy... and he was talking about cosmology, inflation problem...
He said, "I want to talk to you about something else... " OK Nature has found someway to do it - it wasn't a complete shock. It was a pleasant surprise. I would say, Yes Nature has found some nonlocal way of assembling these things - or else maybe it's not quite as accurate as they think. You could see these pictures were pretty... the construction patterns were amazing."
Krauss.... goes on....back to Penrose:
See what I think, when I think it's a mystery, I think it's a mystery still not resolved, because 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. And so there's a reduction of the state involved in making the crystal....
Krauss doesn't like this since he believes in random Platonic irrational materialistic NeoDarwinian B.S.
Dirac's Two-dimensional spinors is what took Penrose into the singularity theorem as the inevitability of black holes in general relativity. Fascinating. Back to Penrose around 1 hour 30 minutes:
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.
Conformal transformations - Riemann Spheres inverted...Penrose at 1 hour 40 mn:
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.
Penrose made a Trap Door down to his private study !! awesome.
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...
Krauss HAS to throw down the "randomly" word since he really doesn't understand Penrose and is apparently trying to warp his meaning of Penrose....
Once I had shown that singularities were generic in collapse then they would clearly be generic in a Big Bang of the Universe...
Roger Penrose....
so if you had a universe that was closed, then how do you do it? Stephen [Hawking] used it in a way in a reverse time direction, in a way that I hadn't thought about...it did become the basis of our much much later joint paper that we wrote - where - he then developed the ideas with discussions with me from time to time. But they were probably people in Cambridge...correcting mistakes and things like that. ... Hawking was a little bit sloppy of his arguments - mistakes of the first kind - you just change the argument and it becomes correct....
Penrose at 1 hour 58 minutes:
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."...
Krauss has a hissy fit.....promoting the eternal exponential expansion of the Universe....
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....
Krauss promotes Brown's Law (anything that can happen will happen) ....
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....
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.
Krauss argues the issue is why is the universe hot because the entropy of matter so high?
PENROSE:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment