## Sunday, April 06, 2014

### Roger Penrose continues his weird anti-ïnflation jihad

...as well as anti-quantum, anti-string...

For more than 30 years, Roger Penrose would be offering many irrational and wrong criticisms of the cosmic inflation. He didn't stop after the publication of the discovery of primordial gravitational waves by BICEP2. On Friday, instead of hiding somewhere in a closet, he went to Ira Flatow's show, Science Friday, and displayed more self confidence than ever:
Sir Roger Penrose: Cosmic Inflation Is ‘Fantasy’ (click this and click the "LISTEN" button)
In the 27-minute interview, he reminds us about the book "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy" about "string theory, quantum mechanics, and inflation," respectively, that he has been writing for a decade. Whenever he is asked a technical question, he laughs and closes it with the suggestion that it is surely silly to talk about such questions on a science show.

Instead of a single counter-argument, we hear lots of things "it must be wrong because I say so". The discovery by BICEP2 is probably OK, he says, but the interpretation is completely wrong. It cannot be because of gravitational waves because there should be no gravitational waves in the early Universe.

He has "alternative theories" to explain the B-modes (no, when it comes to B-modes, he wouldn't even say that they have something to do with the polarization of the cosmic microwave background). What are his "alternative theories"? We hear lots of promotion of cyclic cosmologies. But they are the #1 loser that are really disproved by the discovery of the B-modes. They just predict that there should be no B-modes.

Penrose's vague comments about pre-Big-Bang cosmologies don't help his case, either. The B-modes are clearly an after-Big-Bang phenomenon.

It takes some time to isolate what he could possibly consider "his alternative explanation of the B-modes". But if you listen for a while, he says that the B-modes were due to the ancient magnetic fields, not gravitational fields. But this claim doesn't pass the first test of a smart high school student who knows something electrodynamics. She knows that in the vacuum, Maxwell's equations are linear and they obey the superposition principle. It means that the presence of the background electromagnetic fields doesn't change the propagation of the electromagnetic waves in the foreground.

Can the magnetic fields influence the atoms the emitted the microwave radiation so that the temperature depends on the polarization? Perhaps but I don't think so. Thermal equilibrium is thermal equilibrium. Whether there are some background electromagnetic fields or not, photons in all modes will be led to have the same temperature. A more detailed analysis would be needed but I don't think that there exists a single paper that would even mention such an alternative explanation. There exists a huge problem with the "wavelength" of the magnetic fields in Penrose's "alternative" models. Note that the dominant wavelengths are measured in hundreds of millions of light years today and they had been really long even during recombination. Magnetic fields constant over these long distances are really electromagnetic waves with very tiny frequencies and those had no reason to be significantly produced without inflation.

Let me explain the need for the gravitational waves as follows: Before the cosmic microwave photons are emitted, the atoms and everything there is moving at low, non-relativistic speeds. When it's so, the variations of the temperatures and densities are derived from variations of scalar fields – there are no tensor fields in non-relativistic approximation of gravity – and the only vector-like variation is the gradient that has a vanishing curl. But curl-less variations of the CMB are by definition the E-modes. The vectors (electric, magnetic fields) are nothing else than what we want to calculate – the spectrum and polarization of the CMB radiation – so we simply need tensors.

The only way how some "tensorial" background may imprint itself into the CMB is that the background contains some patterns in the spatial components $$g_{ij}$$ of the metric tensor, i.e. if there are gravitational waves moving at the speed of light for which the non-relativistic (Newtonian) approximation of gravity breaks down. The gravitational waves stretch one direction and shrink the perpendicular one, inducing a temperature difference for the two polarizations, too.

Penrose's monologues on Flatow's show combine almost all the key errors that Penrose has ever promoted about fundamental physics. Gravitational waves shouldn't be there because he and his crackpot physician collaborator Stuart Hameroff want to link gravity to consciousness, or something like that, and there were no conscious humans during recombination. So gravitational waves are not allowed. But the principle of the gravitational field and the gravitational waves is completely analogous to their electromagnetic counterparts. The spins differ; the interaction constants and typical energy scales differ. But if one may exist, so can the other. These fields and waves don't differ in their interpretation and they also enter the interpretation of quantum mechanics "equally". To attempt to "ban" gravitational waves (and their composition from gravitons, something that isn't needed for the B-modes at this point) is as indefensible as to "ban" the light.

When Flatow correctly asks how Penrose's alternative theory explains things, Penrose answers that there is a puzzle, but "the puzzle is there anyway". There are voids, blah blah blah, and there's a puzzle where the primordial [magnetic] waves [that have nothing to do with the B-modes here] come from. Except that in inflationary cosmology, there is no puzzle about these matters whatsoever. Cosmic inflation predicts what the later various are unequivocally. For Penrose, magnetic fields in voids "prove" a history before the Big Bang. He immediately gets drifted away to weird speculations about "eons" from his CCC. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept that a cosmological theory claiming to say something about these early epochs should be able to say something about the B-modes. Or he's just plain denying the inconvenient evidence, trying to escape elsewhere.

At 7:50, Flatow says that Penrose also has a problem with quantum mechanics. It doesn't make sense. It's equivalent to the statement "Hey, Roger, you are a crackpot when it comes to all of modern physics, anyway", and you would expect Penrose to defend himself. Instead, he says, "Well, it [QM] doesn't [make sense]." Holy cow. Flatow reminds Penrose that it's the most successful theory that there ever was. So Penrose says it is fantastic but the trouble is that it is based on two mathematical schemes, Schrödinger's equations and observations. Except that there is no trouble whatever. The observations are directly (probabilistically) predicted from the objects that appear in the Heisenberg (or for eternal beginners like Penrose, Schrödinger) equations of motion. There is no schism in quantum mechanics. That theory applies to everything in our world including the bodies of observers. Penrose repeats lots of the basic wrong things about inapplicability of QM to observers, about Schrödinger's cats, about everything. I won't discuss this junk again.

"It's not just I who is saying that; Schrödinger was saying it, too." That's great but Schrödinger was wrong about these things, too, a simple example why such cherry-picked ad hominem "arguments" don't have any weight in science. A difference is that Penrose is wrong about these elementary questions even 80 years later than Schrödinger. He has had 80 extra years to learn the basics of modern science – and to see 80 extra years of experiments confirming quantum mechanics to every detail – than Schrödinger but he has still failed. So sociologically, Penrose's stubbornness or stupidity is much greater than Schrödinger's.

Flatow has understood what various people say about these matters so he's trying to offer Albert Einstein as an ally to Penrose. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, like Einstein has said, right? But Penrose answers that it's worse than that. Penrose claims that quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent. Holy crap, how obsessed with a delusion you have to be to make such claims. "If you apply Schrödinger's equations to the measurement, you don't get the results you should get." Except that you do get exactly what is predicted unless you deliberately distort what quantum mechanics actually predicts and how it links its mathematical objects to the observations and perceptions.

Penrose says that quantum mechanics fails when there is too much mass around; then the rules change. But they don't change an iota. Quantum mechanics is perfectly valid for any concentration of mass, including black holes.

At 10:40, Flatow asks about the "fashion", namely string theory. So string theory is "fashion" even though there were/are other reasons to study string theory. But what he really objects to are not strings (which may be a good idea) but extra dimensions. But holy cow, Dr Penrose, the extra dimensions are not arbitrarily added extra decorations. They are predictions of string theory. They are absolutely needed to have an internally consistent theory. It's really painful that after the decades in which you unsuccessfully tried to talk about string theory, you are still failing to learn these basic things from the first or second chapter of every string theory textbook.

He believes that there "must" only be three dimensions; there are problems with extra dimensions. Except that there are no problems whatsoever. The consistency of the theory not only allows but requires the extra dimensions. I remember Andy Strominger's report on a talk by Penrose in which he tried to use words like "conifold" and he would claim that there were singular points in these manifolds and/or their moduli spaces which implied an inconsistency. Except that it's exactly the main conifold-related result of the Second Superstring Revolution in the mid 1990s that the dynamics on these conifolds is completely smooth and well-defined. In fact, by mirror symmetry, it is exactly equivalent to the dynamics on a smooth Calabi-Yau manifold, and so on. When Penrose is talking about extra dimensions and you want to know when he is just saying pure rubbish, there is a simple criterion to tell: His lips are moving.

The very general suggestion that "strings are OK but the other structures are not" is outdated, too. The revolution of the mid 1990s has shown that strings are not truly fundamental in the ultimate design of the theory. They're just light degrees of freedom that become importantly in the (weakly coupled stringy) limits of the whole theory. There are more important properties of the theory that maintain theories importance even away from these weakly coupled limits and non-perturbatively.

Another flabbergasting "argument" in favor of 3+1 dimensions that Penrose offers on the show is that he has only developed a formalism for spinors etc. in 3+1 dimensions. That's great but there are lots of other formalisms for spaces and superspaces and their cousins in a wide variety of different dimensionalities. When it comes to formalisms for geometry, Dr Penrose, yours is just a tiny seed of sand on a rather large beach (I say it despite the fact that I was exposed to Penrose's and Rindler's book as a high school kid, so it has probably had a significant impact on my thinking and sentiments). It's an example of self-centrism run amok if you think that some ideas – or, indeed, dimensionalities – must be wrong just because you haven't developed a formalism for them. There are other special formalisms and even if "no special formalism" is possible in a theory or a dimensionality, it doesn't imply that the theory or dimensionality is wrong!

Some promotion of twistor theory that doesn't go beyond mid 1960s. He is largely unaware of any technicality in the twistor minirevolution of the last decade although he does mention the developments. At least he correctly says that those things reformulate the known laws of physics, so they are not alternative theories giving different predictions for experiments. Penrose mentions Arkani-Hamed; Witten isn't working on twistors these days. What made me laugh was Penrose's statement that "[Arkani-Hamed and pals] are only looking at limited areas of the twistor theory; they haven't used the main body of the subject yet". LOL. The contemporary work using twistor theory is about 100 times deeper than what Penrose has ever said about those matters. Everything meaningful that Penrose has ever said about twistors is summarized in the introductions to almost every review of the recent work on twistors because it's the "schookid's prerequisite" needed for a much more complex and structured body of work.

At 17:30, listeners' questions begin. Chris offers an incoherent monologue about the Big Bang singularity, mixing it with black holes, inflation. For Penrose, the Big Bang singularity is very special because it disappears when you stretch it to infinity. He uses this meme to say that it's conformally equivalent to the infinite future along the conformal cyclic cosmology. Completely wrong.

At 20:00, Flatow asks about the multiverse. It's a different thing – the universes are separated by space in the multiverse but time in cyclic cosmology. Well, a multiverse cosmology really deals with lots of universes that are separated both in space and also in time but he wanted to show he is special again. He is also asked about the anthropic reasoning. It's not quite his, either. Penrose is presenting everything as if he had "the right theory for everything". Except that his theories explain virtually nothing from the set of issues that is addressed by the theories he wants to question or replace which means that by switching to "his" viewpoint, he is not addressing any of the issues. He is just attacking the theories that do.

New physics is made necessary by puzzling observations.

Penrose is trying to make the Hawking radiation look like a no big deal because the temperature is low. It's quite painful. The importance of the Hawking radiation is not that the temperature is high for the known astrophysical black holes (it would be high for very small black holes!). The importance is that it is a theoretical development showing the inevitable consequence of quantum mechanics for the behavior of objects in general relativity. After a googol of years, the black holes will evaporate, but a googol (the number linked to Hawking) is nothing compared to the eternity (linked to Penrose himself), we hear. How modest. The eternity is long when expressed in seconds but nothing qualitative (except for the Poincaré recurrence after a googolplex of years) will be taking place in the nearly empty de Sitter space so the eternity is less interesting scientifically than the finite (and sometimes very short) epochs studied in cosmology (and black hole physics). Moreover, Penrose hasn't discovered any Hawking-radiation-scale insight about the "eternity" so it's silly for him to suggest that he "owns" the eternity more than anyone else does.

A few correct comments on the dark energy (a term Penrose dislikes). It is the 1917 cosmological constant invented by Einstein for wrong reasons. Just a number, nothing else to be discovered about the C.C., except that the value is confusing. I sympathize with these comments although the depth of wisdom and deeper mechanisms behind this simple "number" may be substantial (or may be limited; we cannot be sure today). Penrose correctly argues that there's no particle linked to the C.C. because the C.C. is a constant, and it therefore isn't varied like the Higgs field.

I would normally love such interviews but he's so wrong about such a huge majority of the things he says (certainly about the basics of things that he calls "fashion, faith, and fantasy") – and his wrongness seems to be due to some narcissism run amok – that the ultimate feelings are unfortunately much less positive.

1. Lubos, about the dark energy comments at the bottom, do you think it is a given that w=-1.00 to infinite decimal places?

That's what Penrose seems to be saying, but supernovae cosmologists often float the value of w as a free parameter, and the best-fit value right now is w=-1.12 +/- 0.07, and those error bars should go down over time.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3828.pdf

2. Hahaha, eternal beginner ... :-D

The galling things about such shows or interviews is, that the mass of people who has not even a slightly technical knowledge about these topics themself, will blindly believe what Sir Roger Penrose says because he is Sir Roger Penrose ... :-/.

Maybe the "Sir" has gone slightly to his head ...?

I personally think that the use of such shows, interviews or other media events as a megaphone to promote their own (by the majority of the physics community not accepted ideas) and slinging fog at up to bad mouthing correct and long time accepted insights at the same time, can almost be considered a misuse of one's state of popularity.

3. There is no schism in quantum mechanics. That theory applies to everything in our world including the bodies of observers.
Just curious. How do you define sum of two state functions if their respective domains have different geometries?

4. It was sad hearing it actually...

5. Dear David, a good question. Of course, the precision with which a theory may imply w=-1 may be vastly better than the precision allowed by current experiments, and it probably is.

If one really separates the normal dark and baryonic matter and radiation, I do think that the rest has w=-1 with a huge accuracy, at least 5-10 decimal places i.e. -0.99999... or -1.00000.... I think it's fair to say that our current understanding of string model building implies that but even more generally, outside string theory and with various quintessence twists etc., I do believe that even if "w" of the dark-energy component were sufficiently different from -1 in the past, it has converged to a stabilized value that is extremely close to -1. I would be shocked if it were otherwise, but of course, such surprises may occur.

6. LOL, right, "Sir" makes one a big lord or a self-confident guy, although probably not as much as the future British king. ;-) I agree he has a huge authority over semi-laymen audiences and even people who agree almost 100% with me on the physics would hesitate in simply pointing out that he is wrong.

It's fun to be very respectful to a Sir who has done a lot for human knowledge in the past but one shouldn't overlook that by leaving his silly attacks unchallenged, one is helping to ruin the future of physics - in the whole eternity, so to say, relatively to which the 40-50 years from Penrose's major contributions are a short moment.

7. kashyap vasavadaApr 6, 2014, 7:44:00 PM

Hi Lubos: Interesting article.Is ST consistent with both CC and quintessence field or only with CC?

8. Hi Kashyap, as far as I can see, string theory is only compatible with CC. See e.g. a 2001 paper

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0104180.pdf

which discusses some causal limitations of any quintessence model. It was in the early years when string cosmology became widely studied again. A more important side is the model building. I believe that if one combines the limitations given by string theory building with some basic empirical constraints, no quintessence models survive.

9. Just to register that primordial magnetic fields are a respectable possible explanation of the Bicep2 result. See for example paper by Bonvin et al 2014 (arXiv:1403.6768), although they note it may have a problem with non-Gaussianity upper limits from Planck CMB satellite. Whether such magnetic fields can be sourced by Penrose's model or even inflation I have to leave to others to decide. But detection of primordial magnetic fields is definitely one of the aims for the upcoming polarisation results from Planck later this year.

10. Educate me please if I am wrong but you can only prove that string theory needs needs extra dimensions; you cannot prove that all possible theories of physics require extra dimensions.

11. some loosely related thoughts:

If I were an old physicist striving to gain significant insight into the mysteries of the universe, I would pursue more and more speculative ideas in hope of ever making the leap to understand the universe (and maybe consciousness too) in my lifetime.

This may explain some old physicists' apparent deviations from the mainstream physics. But I think it shall not lessen our respect for their earlier work (in case it advanced human knowledge by a great deal).

I think it is a trait of a properly functioning society, that people like Penrose, t'Hooft and Hawking do get the publicity to promote their deviant philosophy. It's a privilege that you can earn for your accomplishments. And after all they are the guys who may be right against all odds.

12. Stephen Paul KingApr 7, 2014, 5:52:00 AM

Dear Lubos, Have you read Penrose latest book (or the associated papers) and have a comment on its ideas? Any discussion of the relevant energy scales that the BICEP-2 data of B-modes indicates?

13. No, absolutely not. The test is whether anyone asserts that quantum mechanics is incomplete or wrong in any sense.

Anyone who finds fault with QM is just a crackpot. It is that simple.

14. Dear Tom, what you may have missed is that the paper only talks about models of *inflation* again, and I am not saying that even with this "negative remark" (from Penrose's viewpoint), their ultimate answer is pretty much No.

15. If you mean "Cycles of Time", I have read the associated papers, see e.g.

http://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=Penrose+concentric&m=1&by-date=true

They are riddled with elementary mathematical and conceptual errors. In the case of the "evidence using concentric circle", Penrose fails in the exam on spherical harmonics (and the decomposition of a bilinear/polynomial form on the space of functions into spherical harmonics).

16. Dear Bill, my respect for his earlier work hasn't changed but it can't be "generalized" to a respect to anything.

I agree that the "increased risk at higher age" may be a complete or partial explanation why older physicists tend to do such things often. But my comment would be that a higher risk is a higher risk and it should be a higher risk. A physicist who takes a risk by offering "probably wrong" papers is indeed taking a risk - risk of being criticized, humiliated, or losing his good name - and I think that it is essential for science to correctly react to wrong papers whether their authors are male or female, young or old, black or white.

17. Once you have the accomplishments of a Penrose, a T'hooft or Smolin under your belt, I'd be happy to listen again what you have to say about the (in)correctness of QM. Until then, you're the crackpot, and you should shut up.

18. Sidionian, who tried to post a nasty and factually silly reply to Gene. Apologies, your first comment was also the last one. New users are premoderated and according to all the evidence available to the moderator, your knowledge is disproportionately low relatively to your combativeness and your presence in the TRF discussion sections wouldn't be a benefit for any side.

19. Show me one useful concept/idea/paper you have contributed to science.
Just one. One single concept that your name is attached to. On Wikipedia
please. You're another insignificant loud-mouthed hack with ZERO real
accomplishments to your name. Another String Theory militant who
condemns the infidels who laugh at his useless religion. Bah. Humbug.

Go
ahead. Delete this post. Nobody in the physics/science/mathematics
toilet wall. As far as the world is concerned, you're just another mouth
to feed, with a meaningless blog.

All the best.

20. BTW Lubos, I was reading this new book of Amanda Gefter "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn". During a discussion she had with Tom Banks (page 330) she told him that she was reading your blog and you said in one of your posts that Tom Banks with his holographic spacetime is building physics from scratch (Banks replied that you are partially right). What do you mean by that? To tell you the truth I could never understand what this Holographic spacetime is all about and nobody seems to follow it.

21. Dear Giotis,

what I meant was that Tom's HST axiomatic system hasn't been connected - and I still think it's true today - to any formulation of quantum field theory, string theory, or any other theory that is describing a large portion of the observations we use in science.

Assuming that this remains so - it won't be another dual description of QFTs or string theory - it means that the only other way to connect HST with natural science is to explain all the phenomena we know differently, using the HST tools, in a gradual way, i.e. to "repeat" the history of physics with a completely different framework than the framework that physics has actually developed.

Best wishes
Lubos

22. There is an old model due to Harrison (1970 I think), whereby primordial magnetic fields arise from vector perturbations in the baryonic plasma at the epoch of recombination. You could reverse the idea and argue that a pre-existing magnetic field would induce vortical motion in the pre-recombination plasma. However, these vector perturbations would only be correlated on sub-horizon scales (during the radiation era), so as you said this probably could not explain the observed B modes.

The second point is that it is not easy to generate large scale magnetic fields during inflation. The conformal invariance of the electromagnetric field (or of its precursor) must be broken in some manner otherwise there is no amplification of the electromagnetic field fluctuations during inflation.

23. In a simulation, extra dimensions aren't really extra dimensions, for they can be simulated in a mere three dimensions.

24. In this post you are criticizing Banks but I don't think that's the way Banks perceived your statement (at least according to what I read in the book); more as a compliment I would say.

If understood it correctly is he really saying that the metric should not fluctuate quantum mechanically according to HST? I wonder then how he reacted to the BICEP2 results.

25. It wasn't meant as a pure criticism of HST. It was meant to say that his goal is very big - unlikely to succeed, but really science-transforming if it does succeed.

I really doubt that Tom believes that metric "should not fluctuate" quantum mechanically, for whatever reason.

26. MoptopTheConservativeApr 7, 2014, 1:34:00 PM

So according to inflation, the space of the universe is expanding almost faster than thought itself, whereas the matter and energy in the universe is constrained by the speed of light, an there was a time in the early universe, before it got very big and the expansion of space overtook everything else, that matter and energy surfed on this expansion of space, but now the edge of space is so far away that for all intents and purposes to the physical universe, the universe is infinite, but it keeps on expanding anyway?

I am just trying to understand this theory in layman's terms. Maybe that is impossible.

27. I had much the same reaction as you when I heard this interview, Lubos. I was very "impressed" by his boldness in not merely arguing he had an alternative explanation, but outright stating that his explanation is correct while inflation is a "fantasy". I guess its been clear Penrose has some cooky views for some time now, but I was shocked by his attitude of certainty and his indifference to the evidence.

28. I am curious if anybody knows a venerable physicist producing ground breaking physics after the age of 50? 60? .

I lived through the Feynman and Fields era, the parton model of the nucleons , back then. All the Monte Carlo generators we used were Feynman and Fields. Then high p transverse and QCD raised its head. I very clearly remember that Feynman in the beginning was negative about it, and this influenced the experimental community. Those of us who believed we were measuring the effect of gluons had do fight in collaborations against older physicists stuck on the Feynman name.

Feynman was great enough to acknowledge his partons were the zeroth order approximation, and discuss with people the progress in QCD theory and experimental evidence., at a workshop I attended around 1980 or so. That is the difference .in the personalities.

29. Leonard Susskind

30. Also Gauss made some important contributions during his later years. (including Gauss's law): http://goo.gl/a1xbhM (But I'm afraid it's not very common in Science, hence perhaps comes the usual transit of scientists towards the Philosophy)

31. Sure, Susskind is 73 and is doing lots of valuable things, e.g. ER=EPR, and I think that 1/3 of quality stuff is being done by people above 50.

32. I know my statement about QM sounded dogmatic but that was intentional at the time. I afterwards thought it might stir up some worthless chaff and, having given it some thought, I realize that I ought to have made a more reasoned assertion about the universality of QM.

I do apologize.

33. Penrose is very Einsteinian. Both hate qm.
I think he objects to the big bang because it implies a creator God (see Wiki).

Yet he believes the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is outside of physics laws. Which implies a creator to give the universe a purpose.

In his defence I must say that inflation is a pretty big rabbit to pull out of the hat. :)

The best crackpots are real phyisists.
After all SH has his UFOs.
And Newton did alchemy.
And t hoft is into animations to simulate qm.

Cheers. (Hope I don't get banned) :(
S.vik

34. the Hilbert space is a linear (vector) space so you may just add any pair (or group) of vectors that belong to it
Yep, you can certainly do that, if all vectors belong to the same Hilbert space.

But remember, those vectors are in fact complex valued functions over a domain which has an internal metric. If the two states have different mass distributions, internal metrics of their respective domains are also different, so you can only make a sum of the two functions if a bijection is given between their domains. However, this bijection can't be an isometric one, that is, the two geometries do not fit perfectly, because mass makes space crooked. That looks like a flaw in the formalism.

What makes things worse is the fact it can happen even in a low energy regime, with no high energy particles involved at all, you just need enough of them to ramp up their joint rest mass. To that end cats are dispensable, either dead or alive, a small cold mirror on a spring may suffice.

35. There is no flaw in the formalism, you may always add any two vectors, whether they correspond to the same metrics, geometries, or configurations of fields and positions, or - which is overwhelmingly more likely - to different ones. The Hilbert space is a damn linear space.

You are probably confusing the Hilbert space with the spacetime - they are completely different spaces - or doing something comparably stupid. Could you please reduce the self-confidence with which you are writing all this junk in this comment section? This request is a warning.

36. This is expected to increase the demand for older, pre-EU rule vacuum cleaners, which may give the reconditioned Dyson market we are in a boost at least.

The faster people vote for a party that will give us an EU referendum the better!

37. Well thas not good they should not ban these Vaccum cleaners.

http://www.mroven.org.uk/services.html#sthash.tIIuJBfe.dpbs

38. One of my friends is getting a new vacuum. He's trying to keep their offices looking properly clean. It's only partly his job, anyway. Getting a good industrial vacuum isn't easy these days. Thiago | http://www.rapidcleannewcastle.com.au/index.php

39. Sampson GreenovichSep 8, 2014, 5:50:00 PM

Whenever a government tries to ban something people always buy it up in the weeks, years, and months leading up to the event. The same will happen for this vacuum cleaner that uses a lot of electricity. The EU will see an increase in purchases of this vacuum before the end, I guarantee it.

http://www.ductedvacuumshop.com.au/v2/index.php/brands/valet.html

40. In my
country, there is still no special yardstick for toilets or even for vacuum
cleaners, but everyone does his best for cleanliness, whether with just a broom
or a vacuum cleaner ... I find that this device is more powerful, it will be
more successful, it is true that a higher power does not necessarily mean more
elevated aspiration but Technological advances make it possible to improve the
daily lives: household appliances, including lighter considerably housework.
For me, I am for the Evolution therefore I opt for powerful machines and
fashionable. I saw on this site vacuums cleaners very practical and do not
spend lot of energy for a maximum efficiency: www.archiexpo.com/architecture-design-manufacturer/vacuum-cleaner-359.html

41. Is there any reason to ban vacuum cleaners? are they doing do because of increasing demand of vacuum cleaners?

123robots.nl

42. Vacuums should suck the dust not electricity.
Regards: Florence Kate

43. What about the other electronics items that takes 1,600 watts? Its quite strange that they are trying to save electricity like this.

44. I was thinking about the same when I was using the microwave oven and a coffeemaker minutes ago. ;-) Let's hope that they won't see our conversation to get an extra idea!