the oh, join me every thursday on the alex, silent show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then in the ah will come to so if you could visionaries me sophie shepherd, not our universe is full of unsolved and powerful mysteries. and one of the darkest, think like holes do risha advancement of science shut at least some light on them. while to talk about this, i'm joined by 20 twain noble prize winner in physics, sir roger penrose. sir roger penrose,

physicists mathematician, philosopher, 2020 noble prize winner and physics. so great to have you with us today, sir roger. right, so when reacting to your noble prize, wait, 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. they're 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's very strange phenomenon. they are important for other reasons. one of the reasons has to do with

a term entropy. i have to explain what entropy means. it's more or less randomness . and there is a thing called the 2nd law of 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 hose 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? which 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're not prove my theorem and then i that was to do with black holes in the system 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 manji. and he was more interested in the singularity 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 separate cars from princeton. and i noticed in one of the cars in the back seat was jim peebles, jim p was going up and i thought, oh, i'll take my chance and ask jim, why don't cause mortgages? think of all these complicated cars, a single axis that you get in the future. we know many solutions of the onsite equations and they are very complicated and you cause of ologist don't seem to talk about them. and he looked at me and he said, because the universe is not like that either. my gosh, it's 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 sink of 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 a statistical theory. this is the statistical phenomenon of the 2nd law summons and 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 which explains 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 until the budget 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 no, 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 i, we believe reducing an 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 faith in 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 a little differently from showing himself 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 sometimes people say quantum mechanics is the best theory physics we have ever had. this sound why they say this, but syria 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 i've done 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 pasting 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 this string theory completely improved? will g, i think there's a big difference between things here and in quantum mechanics. string theory has no evidence supported. quantum mechanics has an enormous amount of evidence is 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. 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, still no, that's wrong. this is 4 dimensions. one time through space. and if you tie up the other ones into a little ball and 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 formed the idea quite early that that theory is not correct. whereas quantum theory is certainly correct to

a large level. it's, it's, it's a lot, 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, linux is not that you bring the machinery of quantum mechanics to bring it into the phone call. 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 space is 10 to minus 33 centimeters. okay. maybe you chapter quantum gravity plays a role there, maybe 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 sure we need to study how they interplay with each other that don't have the view that quantum mechanics must be left in tex, you must say, take the view the cause of mechanics, but you, in the circumstances of the collapse of the wave function to gravity, we're going to take a short break right now when we're back or continuing talking to 2020 nobel prize winner in physics. sir roger penrose. ah, me. ah, the,

i don't know. i mean, there are some steps in there were rescuing the food that they were not scabbing or were rescuing resources that are still good. this is best by march 21st, which is in 2 days. all these potatoes, paula pianos, onions, all of these came from waste ground sources. 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 it 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 here. but for our annual summer solution where we look at the solution of the problems today, we're talking to simon dick's, the bank for the future. he's been around since almost the beginning. he's got

a wealth of knowledge. i met my lovely weekend and obviously wanted to know me and johnny douglas gave me the gotta go through the the or up the kitchen table out them out. i got a good model. she will put it on the show that the lady told me to be home like he's under the lamp, me up and everybody who bought them by little by now and then because

you guys are not the man why or why not what i mean the and we're back with twine twine, nobel 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 if you have it, right? i mean, i don't know what artificial 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 better. i mean, my father's brothers big machine where you try the house and it did arithmetic. that can do arithmetic much better than i can. that is 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 didn't your 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 herman bonnie ungenerous to the t . that was not my subject, but yeah, interesting, very good lectures. wonderful expositions, he made another course 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 man christine, and mathematical logic. and i'd be very puzzled by girls theorem. you see, girls them seems to prove that there are things in mathematics that you cannot prove. i thought this is not very pleasant. i don't like the idea. i went to the course of scene, i learned about turing machines. i learned about computability. i knew what that meant. i then learned about girls, sir. he described the theorem. he says, if you have a system of logic where you have rules of procedure, axioms,

the rules of procedure provided you believe that message of proof within that system always gives you the truth. so that say you follow the rules and the rules sell your true. is it, do you believe it's true? your believe is 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 and you see yes, if you trust the rules, this statement is true. yes, you cannot prove it by those. 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 does it 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 yesterday. what can it be? how does it is something in the world? is it some mr. mystical use 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. it's 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? because now we know we can compute not, we are not us, but some people good people can compute what's black ho is going around each other, swallowing each other. the signal is produced 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 coves falling into each other. do sure. you can do general egyptian with a on a computer. what about college and 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 was here, and here at the same time, he takes out this piece of chalk. it breaks it into, i think he did x and he says a piece of sharp 1st with my short can be here, are 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. you goes on, it talks about quantum mechanics. so i'm left with this puzzle. one of the faces that makes a big piece of chalk behave differently from electrons. the massive explained it to me, but i didn't understand. so i go on thinking that must be where the problem lies. something about the collapse of away function,

which makes small things. when they get too big, they can't somehow exist in 2 places at once. the wave function collapse under the weights of gravity in some sense. so that was kind of a vague thought, but nevertheless thought that this consciousness, the 10s. that thing there has to be in the brain somewhere where the collapse of the wave function, whatever that physics is harnessed by the brain. now it's the opposite of what many people used to think. many people such as digna, and i believe on the woman, you're still the me, that least possible that is 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 because the other way around. i have no idea. no i had to, i saw 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 near physical. i learned about the hodge can actually theory of no propagation and i think can i get enough coherence,

you have to have the quantum system to preserve itself up to a sufficient level that it actually does something in the brain nerves. well, the signal propagation it's electric field all over the brain says no, no, no, i go to the engine book. i had to finish it. i did something i didn't really believe in. and that was the end of the book. other, you know, rather disappointments the end. nevertheless, the few people read my book as suiting, including still hammer off. still 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 hear interesting this. no, he told me about microtubules. i heard of them. you say stories that okay, little juice. this is probably the salt solution to your problem. gosh, is this another crack because i get crazy lessons from people that will 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 during linda 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 it. it should say. so mike, was there? roger, thank you. take care of yourself. thank you. thank you. the the. oh

i use the we're thank america i social class. most people don't know. so when i 1st, if you're born in 2 of 4 family, you're born into a minority family. if you're born into a family that only has a single parent that really constrains your live chances, people die on average. 15 years older, you born in the generational poverty it's a, it's a fight every day to meet your needs and the needs of your family. oh, when i went to the wrong, why don't i just don't. yes,

to fill out the thing because the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves well, the parts we choose to look for common ground in the news

an entire village in alaska has had to move. if another country threaten to wipe out an american, we do everything on our part a project in water, they escaping climate change poses the same threat. right now alaska has seen some of the fastest coastal erosion in the world. we lost about 35 feet 35 feet of ground in just about 3 months while we were measuring it is bad and that means the river is $35.00 pounds, then learning was yours for. i think we're a part of america, the 3rd from or america lose the use

the russia is high level economic form and st. petersburg hid to top gear with president putin announcing the country is pushing ahead with infrastructure for a vaccine tourism industry. when you wake up, we'll just covering our own needs. we can also provide foreign citizens with the child to come to russia and get vaccinated. here. i would like to off the government to analyze all aspects of the issue. by the end of the month, there is consensus at the event that widespread vaccination is the only way to get the world economy back on its feet with offers except for showing his support was putting the v as part of the global rollout, w or this candidate or it doesn't matter where of axis comes from, from russia, from the us, from china. every bit of success in the fight against corona virus is a shared success of the entire world for the good.