i think we're part of america. there's from or america. ah, the news the ah, will come to still be great visionaries, me so shepherd not to our universe is full of unsolved and powerful mysteries. and one of the darkest thing, black holes, do reach advancement in science, shared at least some light on them. well to talk about this, i'm joined by 20 twain noble prize winner in physics, sir roger penrose. sir roger penrose,

desist mathematician, philosopher, 2020 noble prize winner and physics. so great to have with us today's sir roger. right, so one, reacting to your noble prize when you said that the black holes have become an increased importance in our understanding of the universe. so let me ask you as a lay person, why is the study of black holes so important? well, there's more than one reasons. important partly because they're such strange things . we're used to, you know, space continuing, more or less as it's like. and to find these strange objects, which seem to be so different where you, if you got to close, you might fall in and never be able to escape. and it is very strange phenomena. they are important for other reasons. one of the reasons has to do with a,

the term entropy. i have to explain what entropy means. it's more or less randomness. and there is a thing called the 2nd law sermons in that mix, which tells you that things get more and more random as time goes on. we have to keep the entropy down. this is how we exist. that's where we get structure, structure forms and structure. can be propagated and we want to keep the entropy down all the time. now in black holes, this is where it ends up and why we have a universe which is interesting and complicated is really because poly because of the black holes. because this is where ultimately the entropy goes down the black hole and we can then live off the residue, which is the low entropy of the rest of the universe. this is a simplified picture, but in this sense, although it's indirect, black holes are absolutely central to our existence. well,

ok. at the center of a black hole lies what's called the singularity right. where density and mass become infinite and the theory of relativity which explains how gravity governs our universe breaks down in the center of a black hole. and the gravity conditions, there are 2 extreme for the theory of relativity to work. as far as i understand, you know, what kind of a theory about the universe will hold its own at the heart of a black hole, where we don't know, what you would seem to need is a theory of quantum gravity. now you see there's an interesting story here because when you know, i put my serum and then i that was to do with black hose and this has to do with a single is in the future. you could fall into the singularity and it's the end. the opposite side of this picture is the beginning. we have in the big bang we have

another singularity. and when i did my work, stephen hawking picked up on it and developed it mainly for because mama g and he was more interested in the singular she in the past. and i remember i was in princeton in the united states, and we were going to a conference and i was, we had to go and shepherd cars from princeton. and i noticed in one of the cars in the back seat with jim peebles, jim pay was going up, and i thought, oh, i'll take my chance and ask jim, why don't cosmo ologist think of all these complicated kinds, the singularities that you get in the future we know many solutions of the equations in a very complicated and you cause a ologist don't seem to talk about them. but he looked at me and he said, because the universe is not like that either. my gosh, which not is it? because the microwave background is, oh, very,

very irregular all over the sky toes is the big bang. was very, very smooth and regular and not like the thinking that she's in the future. they're very different. so if we are to have a theory of quantum gravity which explains the singularities, it's a very, very, very strange theory, which has to be different in the future from in the past. and that's lot like the quantum mechanics. we know all the theories, the physics apart from the statistical theory. this is the statistical phenomenon of the 2nd of feminine nomics. everything seems to be symmetrical in time, backwards or forwards. what's the difference? so i thought this is very odd. there must be some very strange theory, rich ships playing the difference. for many, many years i tried to think of a strange theory, constant mechanics. i didn't get anywhere but my student paul todd, had

a different way of thinking about the beginning. i'm sure the bus is a little myself, but he really worked it out. but the main point is, according to polls, idea is that you could extend the universe to before the big bang that just to say our big bang is the continuation of the remote future of what i call a previous eon. now, the word eon, i like to spell it a, a o, and that's one of the spellings. it's a word which i looked it up in the dictionary to make sure it was not the millionaires or some length of time. it's an indefinite length of time. so i'm calling an infinite thanks your time. so our eon began was a big bang, and we'll continue to this remote future. there was an eon, i say, prior to ours is remote future, became our big bang. and signals can get through. and 2 types of

signals which we have explored. i and colleagues. one was when with my armenian colleague, he goes to joe and looked for signals, gravitational way of signals, from collisions between super massive black holes. the waves coming out from the previous eon. we could see that we believe reducing and a polish group also looked and they also conclude that they see them. nobody pays any attention because this is not the usual cosmos. here you are in a book where you are quite skeptical about the current application of quantum mechanics in physics, which is to be quite invoke right now. and you say that in the real world, quantum mechanics doesn't make much sense. hans schrodinger's cat being a paradox. but even it's hard to grass with, you know, paradoxical nature, all the, it was non locality, superposition and other mind blowing aspects this met. does that mean? it's necessarily wrong. i think you're talking about my book,

the fashion faces fantasy, the physics of the universe. yes, i do press express 6 skepticism, but let me talk about the face that is the quantum mechanics. and what i'm trying to say, as you mentioned, misreading are cats and schroeder and self was trying to say that there is a problem with quantum mechanics. people tend to interpret is a little differently from shooting him. so strutting or saying ok, according to his own equation, he was saying, well, according to my equation, as mentioned trading talking, you could have a catch, which is dead and alive at the same time. and he's really saying, using this example, this is ridiculous and did you couldn't have a dead and alive cash at the same time. the consequence of his own equation is that you have a cat which is dead and alive at the same time. quantum mechanics is inconsistent

with itself. this is somehow people say quantum mechanics is the best area of physics we have ever had this sound why they say this. but if there is inconsistent with itself, and i don't think a theory that good should be self inconsistent. now you see, since quantum mechanics work so well, people don't like to use the word inconsistent. they like to say, oh it's, it's amazing horace, incomprehensible, mysterious, see? but i say it can't be quite right. and this is what direct says, this is what einstein and much schroedinger says. it's not quite right. ok, so i get your point is approval and ampro will and you're saying the same thing about the string theory, which is also quite popular nowadays offers the variance and tactical parallel universe, latin world view. but for you, it doesn't hold up because of lack of hard experimental evidence. so is it just our

current limitations in our experiments? or is the string theory completely approval? just think there's a big difference between things. and in quantum mechanics, string theory has no evidence of sported. quantum mechanics has an enormous amount of evidence supported. so there is no comparison. she, i don't st like string theory very much you. when i 1st heard about string theory, i did like it. it was explained to me by linda susskind and i thought it was a very beautiful idea. and i was quite taken by us. but when i learnt it had to have a space time that was 26. i mentioned, i said okay, know when they got down to 10 dimensions. so no, that's wrong. it has 4 dimensions, one time through space. and if you tie up the other ones into a little ball because too small to see, that doesn't help. it's not, doesn't work very well. i don't think it works. so i form the idea quite early that that theory is not correct. whereas quantum theory is certainly correct to

a large level it's, it's lost, it's, it may not be completely correct. but at one end of the scale, it is very, very close to be correct. you have to say, what is it that makes it not quite correct? where that is where gravity comes in. so what i say is the union between general relativity economy mechanics is not that you bring the machinery of quantum mechanics to bring it into the fold of cause it can, you know, it's an even handed marriage that has to be give on one side and on the other side, sure, i'm son theory. when you look at tiny little spaces tend to minus 33 centimeters. okay. maybe you chapter quantum gravity plays a role. there may be in the singularities. yes, you got this sort of problem comes in that the main place where quantum mechanics and gravity have an effect on each other is the effect of gravity on quantum mechanics. it's the other way around. and this is to explain the collapse of away

function. so i think we should, we need to study how they interplay with each other. don't have the view that quantum mechanics must be left in tex, you must say, take the view, the cause of mechanics. but the yield in the circumstances of the collapse of the way function to gravity. we're going to take a short break right now when we're back or continue talking to 2020 nobel prize winner in physics. sir roger penrose. ah oh i me make notes, you know, borders and the blind number please. as

emerge. we don't have authority. we don't actually the whole world needs to take action and be ready. not a joke. people are judgment, crisis, we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is paid for the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we need together in the

ah, me join me every thursday on the alex silent shore and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm. i

oh, the the the and we're back with 2020 noble prize winner in physics, sir roger penrose. you have a rather daring theory of your own about human consciousness, which is rooted in quantum mechanics. and one of your points is that human thinking is not a series of executed algorithms, which means that any attempts to actually create a truly functional artificial intelligence using current computing powers are doomed. so in your view, artificial intelligence that is equal to a human brain is an impossible thing, right? do i get it correctly?

you have it right here. you have it, right? i don't know what the visual tells reduce and you know they can play just very well . the play go very well after my ideas about never mind, but it's, it's sure it can do computations. we know that. i mean, they can do arithmetic much, but i mean, my father's phone is big machine. we're trying to have it did arithmetic, that can do arithmetic much better than i can. but it's not. that's not the point. what does you see this dates back to when i was a graduate student in cambridge graduate student? yes. now undergraduate, i think many when i was an undergraduate, yes. you see i was just pure mathematics. i was doing algebra geometry. that when i was a graduate student and i got interested in physics and in mathematical logic, those were 2 subjects. and i went to lectures by hammond bonnie ungenerous activity

that was not my subject but interesting, very good lectures. wonderful expositions, he made another course on quantum mechanics, 5 pulled iraq, beautiful, completely different style, beautiful. and i got my understanding of quantum mechanics from iraq. the 3rd course was a course by a man, christine, and mathematical logic. and i had been very puzzled by girls theorem. girls them seems to prove that there are things in mathematics that you cannot prove what this is not very pleasant. i don't like the idea. i went to the course of the scene. i learned about turing machines. i learned about computability, i knew what that meant. i then about girdle, sir. he described the theorem. he says, if you have a system of logic where you have rules and procedure axioms rules, procedure provided you believe that so message have proof within that system

always give you the truth. so that say you follow the rules and the rules sell your true. is it, do you believe it's true? you believe it's true if you believe the axioms? genuine? if you believe the rules of procedure only give you choose from own truths. ok. so if it proves it's true, i believe it. now if you have that point of view, what does girl do? is shows a statement which says, in certain sense, i'm not provable. now, you see, go through the procedures. you see yes, if you trust the rules, this statement is true. yes, you cannot prove it by those rules. now those rows you could put on the machine, i knew about turing machines. algorithm existence show you. there are the same as computers. that means that this computational system,

if you believe that what it says is true, if you believe all the statements, then you must believe the thing beyond its scope is true. how do you do that? it does that by understanding it understands what the rules mean. i mean, it doesn't because it doesn't have understanding. that's what i regard as the difference. what does your consciousness do? that is not done by the algorithm exists and understand what it's doing. now, what is understanding? i don't know what understanding is, but whatever it is, it is something which is not following an algorithm. so it's not a computational procedure. then i saw it just just a will. what can it be? how does it is something in the world? is it some misstep? mystic was huge that comes in from who knows where that gives us some serious. so this enables us to understand things. there's a consistent computational device cannot do. i didn't believe that i thought ok, what's going in our brains is material. it's just like the material,

my computer is like, this lamp is like everything else is organized differently perhaps, but it's still the same physical stuff. ok, how do we see non computable things in the world? of course now we know we can compute not. we not ask some people, good people can compute what black hole is going around each other, swallowing each other, the signals they produce and gravitational ways if you build lago detector. now the nobel prize, you can see the signals which follow what the calculations tell you that black hoes falling into each other. do sure, you can do generally to do with a on a computer. what about quantum mechanics? yeah, you can put shredding this equation on the computer. then i go back to direct 1st lecture. what was his 1st lecture? he gave a talk where he talked about the superposition principle. he said, ok,

an electron can be here, or an electron can be here, or it can have a state which here and here at the same time, he takes this piece of chalk. it breaks it into, i think he defects if he says that base at your purse where they might short can be here or to what kind of big picture to here and here and the same time my mind wanders. i look out of the window. i'm thinking about something else. then he finished his explanation. he comes back, i have a vague memory. he's saying something about energy. i have no idea what he said. he goes on and talks about quantum mechanics. so i'm left with this puzzle. one of the messages that makes big piece of chalk behave differently from an electron. the massive explained it to me, but i didn't understand. so i go, i'm thinking that must be where the problem lies. something about the collapse of the way function, which makes small things when they get too big. they can somehow exist in 2 places

at once. the way function collapse under the weight of gravity in some sense. so that was kind of a vague thought, but i'd nevertheless saw that the consciousness to tens that thing there has to be in the brain somewhere where the collapse of the wave function, whatever that physics is, is harnessed by the brain. now it's the opposite of what many people used to think . many people have such as digna and i believe and the women you're still believe that least possible that it's conscious being observing the system. the collapse is away function. so it's our conscious consciousness which collapses. what we look at, you see, my view is the opposite. it's not that it's what makes the consciousness is the collapse the other way around. i have no idea. no i had to. so i was writing a book. now it took me a long time, actually to galvanize myself to write the book. this is the emperor's new mind.

eventually i did decide to write a book partly because i heard some of the, i think it was marvin mid scan, minsky and edward fred can talking about what computers could do in the future. and you have these 2 computers talking to each other. and as you walk up and to the computer, they already communicated more ideas with each other than the entire human race. and i thought, well, i know where you're coming from, but i don't have that view. i think understanding is something else, not the computer. and so i thought, well, i will try to explain my point of view and then i realize i have to learn about neuro physiology. so i have a section where i learned about physics. i learned about the hodge can actually theory of no propagation. and as i can, i get enough coherence, you have to have a quantum system to preserve itself up to a sufficient level that it actually does something in the brain nurse. well,

the no signal propagation it's electric field all over. the brain says no, no, no, i go to the end of the book. i had to finish it. i did something i didn't really believe in. and that was the end of the book. otherwise, the, you know, rather disappointments at the end. nevertheless, the few people read my book as shooting, including still hammer off student hammer off, was an anesthesiologist, anesthesiologists rest away because in the united states, i did an interview with him that we were talking about. oh, did you interesting this? no, he told me about microtubules, goldman, you see stories at okay. and a little juice. this is probably the solution to your problem. gosh, is this another crack pause? i get crazy lessons from people. and then, well, i look it up to the microtubule real. yeah, it's real. so i thought this is very interesting. so i got to talk to him. he came

to england and we had long discussions, and then we had many other discussions. not only are they more promising than, than because it's small structures, but they're very symmetrical structures. so i was very impressed by the symmetry that you get in these little microtubules and i thought there was a much better chance. so we then got together reformulated, our orchestrated objective reaction, open orchestration reduction, objective reduction theory which do it. i mean he does the biology and the neural physics and all that stuff. i don't understand that stuff and i do the physics. he doesn't understand the physics very well, so we get together and compliment each other. well, professor, i mean sir roger, it's fascinating listening to i had millions of questions prepared for you, but instead we,

we had the brilliant lecture on your behalf on all existing theories and which of them stand around and it was not. and i thought this is much more interesting than me asking you silly question. so thank you so much for this wonderful insight into martin into how our world functions beyond this dimension. so thank you very much. and if possible, maybe we can do this one more time. my pleasure. enjoy this and say so mike, was there? roger, thank you. take care of yourself. thank you. thank you. the the ah

the, the oh, when i went to the wrong, when old fool just don't rule out the thing because after an engagement equal betrayal. when so many find themselves will depart, we choose to look for common ground in so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy. even plantation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk

i think i'm a little weekend and obviously wanted to know min johnny. yeah. because the the up in the kitchen only be able out them out. i got a good my don't get a get. we'll put it on the shoulder. well i mean he, brittany, home like he done this in the knee by

little by now by and then you guys name my last name. what are what are the the, i don't know. i mean, there are some steps in there were rescuing the food that they were not scavenging or were rescuing resources that are still good. this is best buy march 21st, which is in 2 days. all these potatoes, holla, pianos, onions, all of these came from waste ground sources. the. this is great for me because i'm always looking for a way to give things away. dr. because the tax laws, you know, definitely do benefit the wealthier people and our society. so that makes sense for them to throw it out right off,

rather than give it to somebody who could use it. and then that person is not going to buy it. the she got in to national it's 11. i am moscow times 11 am petersburg as well. our top story with russia's top level economic form in st. petersburg. busy in top gear will high profile gas on the horizon today, including russian president vladimir putin on the lead is a catherine auster, as well as subtle. how will i bring it to you other days for cross today? shocking evidence emerging in france regarding bodies donated for scientific research. in theory though, it seems many were then sold for use of military experiments and crush tests. denmark triggers fundamental concerns in the u and u. n. after it's past the law now allowing asylum seekers to be relocated to countries outside you.