One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven’t yet discovered.
Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry. He reinterpreted general relativity to prove that black holes can form from dying stars. He invented twistor theory—a novel way to look at the structure of space-time—and so led us to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity. He discovered a remarkable family of geometric forms that came to be known as Penrose tiles. He even moonlighted as a brain researcher, coming up with a provocative theory that consciousness arises from quantum-mechanical processes. And he wrote a series of incredibly readable, best-selling science books to boot.
And yet the 78-year-old Penrose—now an emeritus professor at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford—seems to live the humble life of a researcher just getting started in his career. His small office is cramped with the belongings of the six other professors with whom he shares it, and at the end of the day you might find him rushing off to pick up his 9-year-old son from school. With the curiosity of a man still trying to make a name for himself, he cranks away on fundamental, wide-ranging questions: How did the universe begin? Are there higher dimensions of space and time? Does the current front-running theory in theoretical physics, string theory, actually make sense?
Full article at Discovery
"
I do think there is tonnes of stuff we don’t know yet but the key is to be open-minded
Try not to accept everything at face-value and question everything 
Thepretical Physicists have known for decades that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is either flawed or incomplete, and the same goes for Quantum Mechanics. However until we can create a new theorem that links the interactions of sub-atomic particles with the physics of gravity, they both answer all the questions of their respective fields so well that they cannot be discarded.
I’ve been saying this for years, but because I have done no research and have no academic credentials following my name I have been both ridiculed and ignored..
Well, look who’s ridiculously ignorant now.
I’m off now to read up on my Thepretical Physicists. My web-browser says that there’s no such thing as Thepretical Physics, and so the intellectual oppression continues.
Pathretic..
Metaphorically I’ve always maintained that scientists are basically the ‘trainspotters’ of the universe – watching all the trains and times and from that figuring out the whole timetable and network they run on, then being able to anticipate the general operation.
But when you think of it with this metaphor, you can see it’s quite a narrow approach. It will never ask, nor measure, nor uncover bigger questions such as “intent” (“why?”) – or ask if there is any. It studies operation, but not ‘journeys’. One day we may have constructed the whole ‘timetable’ but then what? It won’t tell you a good place to visit
God bless the teacher who’s still looking to learn!
Dude – 78 years old with a 9 year old kid? He’s got to be doing something right
Hm … a 9 year old son on that age? Or did they meant that that could have been the case due that very alive mind of him? .Seemingly at least. 6 professors on one room? That’s a very different system than here … those who don’t work for money anymore wont get a room here.. they simply go home and do their stuff at home. They earned enough money .. so they can afford to rent some place with other emeritus prefessors. I haven’t met any of that age who still is working to the max in the field. That to the side, as it is not the real focus of this article.
Quantum stuff again. Yes, I do need to review that vid.
Nik
It seems to me that when we understand HOW and WHAT well enough, it could tell us whether it is even reasonable to consider whether there is a WHY. I think that assuming a WHY is generally a sign that certain persons have an answer that they’d like to add a question to.
God bless us, every one.
So is anyone else going to see ‘A Christmas Carol’ in Digital 3D?
I understand the basics of what the big bang was, matter & anti-matter etc. but does anyone know, what a person would see if they could travel at the speed of light?
a ‘white out’? would this be classed as a quatum leap? would you be blinded by ‘pure’ light?
I have read many years ago (over 15years) that there was a developement of a RamJet, a plane that could
fly at 10 times the speed of sound, so, what have the scientists developed since?
At the end of the day, the common man will not know all of sciences findings because they scare some
people & usually people of influence or power. You just have to look at Leonardo da Vinci.
WE KNOW ABOUT THE BOX
Hmm…up till now, all things quantum is still the stuff between the theories…
This is what I love about science, questioning assumptions of semi established theories is not just acceptable but demanded. A theory might not be completely proven, but if it gets a work over by everyone who can test it in all sorts of ways making sure its pretty solid stuff. Do this every few years with different ideas from different scientists and if it stands up great, if it doesn’t EVEN BETTER! Theories that get smashed are better than theories that are simply accepted. Because the truth of it being wrong is better than not questioning if its right. Every now and then we test even the most established of theories just in case!
I hope that at some point, every theory and understanding we have today is wrong or is certainly under-developed. Can you imagine if we just knew everything? All of the ‘big’ questions were answered? Would there be any excitement? Any mystery? The very thing for which we all stand. Its great to keep questioning and it is this state of wonder that keeps the child within us alive, don’t you think?
Kennedy
Yeh, who wants to know everything – it’s the quest that matters!
Seeing Roger Penrose’s recently reported comments makes me wonder whether he has been influenced at all by the ideas of James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis; life-detection entropy reversal theory etc).
Does Penrose have similar philosophical links with Lovelock (discussions around consciousness) like the famous friendship between Kurt Gödel and Einstein (discussions around time)?