From: mk_thisisit
The proponent of this theory suggests that the Big Bang was not the absolute beginning of the universe, but rather an event that occurred as a continuation from the distant future of a previous “aeon” [00:00:02], [01:18:18]. This concept, which began to form around 2004, posits that there is no true beginning and no end to the universe; it simply continues [01:00:04], [07:36:12], [07:56:06].
Challenging the Big Bang as the Beginning
The traditional view holds the Big Bang as the universe’s genesis [00:52:48]. However, this theory proposes that the Big Bang is a transition point, looking “through the Big Bang to what was before” [02:13:39]. What existed before was an exponential expansion, similar to what is observed in our current aeon [02:16:11].
The proponent of this theory negates the theory of inflation because it “disrupts” his other theory and is not needed in his model [01:36:26], [01:39:27], [05:46:16]. The inflationary model suggests a huge exponential expansion right after the Big Bang, increasing the universe’s size by a massive factor in a fraction of a second [01:54:15]. The proponent claims this is a misleading picture, stating that such exponential expansion didn’t happen after the Big Bang but before it [02:08:52], [06:00:07].
The Concept of Aeons
The term “aeon” is used to describe the period from one Big Bang to the distant future [02:24:45], [02:28:49]. Each aeon ends with continued exponential expansion, driven by the cosmological constant [02:41:40], [07:27:03], [07:58:33].
The Cosmological Constant
The concept of the cosmological constant, initially introduced by Einstein and later deemed his “biggest mistake” before being proven true, explains the exponential expansion observed in the universe [03:19:07], [03:31:07], [03:37:37], [07:26:50]. This constant leads to a self-similar expansion where the universe continues to expand exponentially [03:07:07], [03:10:04].
Dark Energy Misnomer
The proponent of the theory refers to “dark energy” as a “terrible name” because it is “not dark or energy in any ordinary sense of the word” [03:46:27].
The proponent initially did not believe the cosmological constant was non-zero, but was convinced by a cosmologist from Princeton, leading him to change his view around 2004 [06:46:04], [06:51:00], [06:57:38], [07:35:46]. This change in perspective was crucial for the development of his cyclic model [07:23:43].
The Role of Black Holes and Hawking Evaporation
In this cyclic universe theory, the end of an aeon involves the absorption of galaxies and clusters by supermassive black holes [09:47:04], [09:54:19], [09:58:14]. Eventually, these black holes will gradually disappear over an immense timescale (approximately 10^100 years) through the Hawking evaporation phenomenon [10:17:15], [10:28:16], [11:05:07]. This radiated energy from the evaporating galactic cluster then transitions to the next aeon [10:35:05], creating a “point in the sky” that could be observed in the subsequent aeon [10:38:09], [11:15:00].
Evidence from the Past
This theory suggests that the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which is the oldest light we can observe (emitted about 380,000 years after the Big Bang), is not the only source of information about the past [04:18:19], [04:22:42], [04:28:05]. Before this, the universe was in a plasma state, too hot for light to transmit [04:35:02], [05:00:27]. To look further back, one might need to use other means, such as neutrons or gravitational waves [05:23:44]. The theory of the cyclic universe aligns with observations [06:31:36].
Theory of Gravitational Collapse
The proponent’s work on gravitational collapse, which earned him an award in 2020 [12:54:39], builds upon the earlier work of Oppenheimer and Snyder regarding a collapsing dust cloud forming what is now known as a black hole [13:08:24], [13:30:17], [14:32:41].
The Oppenheimer-Snyder model assumed a dust cloud with no pressure and perfect spherical symmetry [13:56:06], [14:07:07]. This model predicted a singularity (infinite density) at the center [14:26:00]. However, many physicists considered this unrealistic due to the lack of pressure and the assumption of perfect spherical symmetry [14:41:49], [14:48:07].
The proponent of this theory addressed these criticisms by considering irregular collapse, defining a “trap surface” to describe the inward collapse even if it’s very irregular [15:51:24], [16:01:21], [16:08:58]. This led to a theorem demonstrating that singularities cannot be avoided in such situations unless physical properties like energy are negative [16:26:08], [18:35:10]. The idea for this breakthrough came to him while crossing a street in London with a friend [17:41:00], [18:21:00].
Distinguishing Quantum and Classical Reality
The speaker emphasizes a clear distinction between quantum and classical reality, a division he has developed in his understanding of reality [30:28:13], [30:43:08].
- Classical reality: An object in classical reality has a defined shape, geometry, color, and form. One can ask about its properties, and it can “tell” you its characteristics [31:18:03], [31:51:22].
- Quantum reality: A quantum state, like the spin of a proton, does not directly answer “what are you?” or “which way are you rotating?” [32:04:14], [32:11:15]. Instead, one can confirm its state without disturbing the system. If you ask if it’s rotating in a specific right-handed direction, and it is, it can confirm “yes” [32:48:47], [33:07:02]. This is what Einstein referred to as an “element of reality” [32:07:06]. Quantum reality provides probabilistic answers, unlike the definite answers of classical reality [34:38:03].
The challenge lies in understanding the “bridge” between these two worlds [33:19:40], [33:22:25]. While confirmation of a quantum state is possible, direct determination of its properties as in classical reality is not [34:16:09].
Twistor Theory: A New Path for Physics
The speaker’s “own child” in physics is Twistor theory, a concept he introduced in 1963, the same year Kennedy was shot [36:08:08], [36:15:06], [36:18:00]. This theory is an attempt to combine relativity and quantum mechanics in an unusual way, without changing the observed dimensions of three space and one time [36:32:06], [36:43:08].
Instead of fundamental points, Twistor theory considers light rays as fundamental elements [37:40:02], [37:46:17]. The theory is based on spins and is influenced by the ideas of Ior Robinson and Engelbert Sching [36:57:08], [37:07:00].
Initially, Twistor theory was one-sided, only able to describe left-handed photons and gravitons [38:56:06], [39:14:38]. This was known as the “googol problem” (a term from cricket referring to a specific type of spin) [39:21:05]. About three years prior to the discussion, the proponent found a way to combine Twistor theory with “split octonions,” a type of algebra that allows for both left-handed and right-handed twistors [39:33:04], [39:41:00], [40:49:19], [41:01:05]. This unification solves the one-sidedness problem and opens a new avenue for physics [41:16:11], [41:35:46].
Critique of String Theory
The speaker expresses strong skepticism towards string theory, considering it a “dead end” for fundamental physics [19:08:44], [26:44:26]. While acknowledging its mathematical elegance and the inspiration he initially felt when learning about it from Leonard Susskind, he believes it has not contributed to understanding core physics questions [19:47:05], [20:00:03], [20:21:05], [20:29:13].
The Problem with Infinities in Quantum Field Theory
In quantum field theory, calculations using Feynman diagrams often lead to infinite solutions, especially when diagrams with “loops” are involved [21:11:39], [21:20:04], [21:35:05]. While “tricks” like renormalization are used to bypass these infinities and get usable results, the speaker felt uncomfortable with relying on such methods [21:51:19], [22:15:00].
String theory initially offered a solution by replacing particle lines in Feynman diagrams with “little tubes” or loops, making calculations smooth and finite [22:29:21], [22:58:39], [23:03:00].
However, the speaker’s enthusiasm for string theory waned when physicists concluded that it only worked if spacetime had 26 dimensions, or later, 10 or 11 dimensions [23:21:00], [23:51:15]. The concept of introducing “extra dimensions as little loops” in spacetime to make the model work was also deemed ineffective [24:01:06], [24:09:00]. The speaker views this as a “mess” that detracts from the initial beautiful concept [24:01:30], [24:04:10].
He published a book titled Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe, which critically examines such theories, including string theory, which he categorizes as “fashion” [24:32:02], [25:00:27], [25:03:10]. He argues that while physics should be beautiful when it’s correct, a theory being mathematically beautiful does not automatically make it correct physics [25:18:19], [25:31:06]. He believes that string theory, despite claims, does not offer a path toward a grand unified theory that combines all forces of nature, including gravity [26:41:21], [27:36:26].