Hi, there, in my opinion, the problem is that all great minds, dont give up about their ideas, powerfull ideias, but sometimes, we need to give up, and give oportunity to the ones that obey for certain creteria, the ones that include standart model, and other fundamental principles, all the best......
Seems to be a really interesting theory with some radical predictions: neutrinos are Majorana, lightest neutrino is massless and no primordial gravitational waves, as well as dark matter being sterile neutrinos with a huge mass, and solves the matter/antimatter asymmetry.
Dr Neil’s approach Makes most contemporary theoretical physicists seem deluded. This might be the only interview you need. (I’m sort of joking, but not really)
As a very curious working-class pensioner who grew up without the internet in the world, I cannot state too highly how much pleasure I get listening to podcasts like this and actually understanding some of it although completely self-taught, after leaving an English comprehensive school with only a couple of A levels! Thank you very much Doctor Keating for taking the time to do this so that we can all benefit and learn. P.S. Reconciling the opposites is the way of the Tao!
@@DrBrianKeating How CAN IN THE FIST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY we the NORMAL people go away physically from this Illuminati's Universal BLACK MATRIX WHO IS THE UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICAL PRISON LOPE OF THE REICHARNATIOM CREATED FROM THE ANNUNAKI, before our bio death?🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
@@CarlosElio82 taoism is obscurantist superstition, weak traditional thinking which as a fellow working class, albeit professional pensioner I advise you to reject. Take a class action against bullshit, as Turok is trynna do.
@@DrBrianKeating WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio
This was absolutely fantastic. I did my PhD in theoretical physics recently, and now I'm doing a postdoc. To be honest, modern academia is so full of bullshit that I'm seriously considering leaving it, unless I somehow manage to find a way to work on something meaningful and not on my h-index. The scientific world definitely needs more people like Neil who are not afraid to dream big, who are doing science to answer fundamental questions and not to boost their ego. Anyway, thank you so much to both of you, Brian and Neil, for your beautiful existence! You are a true inspiration, and you just gave me a bit of hope!
Talking of bullshit, I would be interested to know how you feel about non-locality, which remains unexplained, and which no-one seems interested in explaining.
Find your favorite problem/ conundrum and solve it. Let your ego die from neglect. You'll think much clearer if you do. (From an old barber and gentleman science buff to a future problem solver.)
Consider that gravity can be understood as a local accretion of the lower scale substrate of our scale of reality rather than a remote attractive force.
No one seems concerned that complex numbers do not possess order --- faking it by assigning one doesn't count --- and therefore any physical activity relying on complex numbers should have factors that can be anywhere in time & space (sort of like Feynman's everything is happening at once, we see what doesn't get cancelled). Something important is being overlooked. Plus, number "types" is a series of infinite regressions, some with order, some without. Does that imply reality is a series of infinite regressions? Lots of weird questions need answering. Consider getting a "real" job that gives you sufficient free time to answer fringe questions. (Unless you're independently wealthy) Not being pressured to have a proper result is freeing.
I mean no criticism, but please see my comment, which is only meant to supply some necessity to physics. Mathematicians sometimes spare this need for necessity. Euclid's space can not be observed.
One of your very best interviews. I am a big fan but sometimes i have thought you talk just a little too much and the guests dont talk enough. I think you did a fabulous job this time. And i am quite convinced by a heavy right handed neutrino being the dark matter . Very exciting experiments to come one way or another.
I would like to see such high level test disproving a flat earth with modern sun sticks. Relying on something espoused 500 AD seems a little suspect. And the only photo is of the "blue marble" in 1972 everything else is a computer generated image. @@DrBrianKeating
I heard that Lev Landau was saying that "Integral without measure is senseless". In the formula which is presented as a summary of all fundamental laws of physics there are two integrals without measure, and one of the measures is actually not really known/defined.
How fortunate are the students who have Dr. Turok for a professor. It is a delight to have someone articulate the major issues of contemporary physics without cluttering the landscape with esoteric mathematical proofs and share the fun of his intellectual research. It is important for the world to explain these concepts in ways less gifted or less trained minds can grasp them and appreciate the pursuit.
I heard Neil speak as a keynote speaker at a major NGO network that gave students without opportunities a chance to go to university. He also helped facilitate a major advanced mathematics institute which gave students from said backgrounds from all around the world opportunities there. He’s literally the man. I’m sure thanks to people like him, we’ll have many more Ramanujans come forward from all around the world.
That wouldn't surprise me. Growing up in South Africas apartheid system, his parents couldn't even be seen walking on the streets together, I think that would give some experience about the realities for people without opportunities.
It is very sad that modern Physics has turned into "religion" were you can't criticise the current "acceptanced theories" for fear of excommunication, no wonder we have terrible theories and we can't solve any issues.
It's also become so politicly corrupted in it's funding mechanism. Science now more than ever overwhelmingly funded by government either though direct grants or government funded proxies. Scientist in certain fields understand full well that if they don't provide the predetermined information the government desires to achieve their political objectives they will not only never receive another dime in grant money, but also have their name and reputation falsely slandered, tarnished by the massive machine who's become totally dependent on continued government funding and subsidies....
This was definitely one of the best interviews on physics I have ever seen. My new RUclips rabbit hole is to find every lecture and interview Neil has done. I might even read a book for the first time in 20 years.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
I am happy you are back to your original format - people with ideas - instead of popularizers like Sabine and Sean that don’t have original ideas. You are the only popularizer we need on your channel!
That being said, physics youtube needed a Sabine to balance all the pbs space times pushing all novelty ideas without proper context before loosing people in technicalities at the 5 minutes mark.
Sabine is a breath of fresh air. Kaku entices journalists into publishing the most outlandish and nonsensical claims like a holographic universe, Elvis is still alive in another multiverse, there are an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse….
Good god, this was a terrific conversation. Thank you for this. I'm so happy to live in a time where I can listen to experts discuss up to date ideas within their fields!
What’s wrong with physics today? The same thing that is always been wrong with mathematics and science. It is kept in a small peer group of gate keepers. So they can keep finding each other in patting each other on the back. Letting in no new information
Working out what to put in the time capsule should be easy. Just write on the outside of the capsule "If you find this, send us some particles backwards in time to tell us what's in it."
These are the BRANE guys. What I find compelling is that what I call “real science” is refined vocabulary, predominantly math, that can be reproduced by others, tested and validated. When I think of string theory - it, from my understanding, has, far too many degrees of freedom to model such that it can be tested sufficiently. My old USNA physicist joked when he mentioned QM and other, so called science, was, how can they know - they haven’t done THE WORK. And when a physicist isn’t sure - about QM - he means it could be wrong - 1 in 10^18. Not - it’s 50/50 like psychology or even economics. Chemistry and physics are gifts to the modern world. I LOVE how some of these models are like a completely BLANK spreadsheet / canvas upon which you can write anything. It is AMUSING to see that a model with 30+ particles only needs 1 we couldn’t find without the LHC. But in solving difficult problems - usually BEST to focus on FEWEST things of which we are really certain - and see what THAT SAYS. And for QM - I think - the eraser doesn’t erase - “it happened” - we just have an experiment with enough third source energy - we can put it back into a state where it looks like it hasn’t happened. Theoretical physicists I think GUESS how they think it works based on what does work. Sorry to say - it’s Guess and check - and invent the MATH. Because while it might be simple - it’s NOT OBVIOUS.
so I didn't realize that Dr. Keating interviewed Dr. Turok when I watched the video on the bad news for Loop Quantum Gravity but saw the interview with Dr. Turok on TOE and worked backwards through this interview and it was incredibly delightful. If Nobel prizes are awarded based on humility, discipline and talent, you chaps are a shoe-in. This presentation of the "A Minimal Explanation of the Primordial Cosmological Perturbations" paper or "Mirror Universe" hypothesis was even better than the Perimeter Institute lecture and maybe better than TOE. Great stuff, thank you again
I loved his fervent hope, exposition and rigour. Lotsa floatsam in the chat room though! your pushback and letting him speak without interrupting were quite well balanced. kudos and continue this...
All ok. But first, tell me what a fundamental electrical charge is, why is it unit -1 in the tiny electron but +2/3 or -1/3 in the huge quarks, and what are those numbers in anti-matter? Is it logical to assume that reversing a particle's direction in time is sufficient to reverse the electric charge? (Or is it that reversing a particle's charge sign will reverse its direction in time??) And why does whichever of those is true cause the potential for a - and + electron to disintegrate into pure Xray energy in any physical conditions, eg not needing the temperatures of fusion?
The idea of an antimatter-matter paired Universe sounds the most plausible concept I've heard from all these theories out there. The idea of anti-matter being the same matter as its counterpart but travelling back in time is rich in possibilities. One can think of even entangled particle pairs acting as the same particle with polar opposite time directions. And linking this all with a theory that bridges the classical and quantum layers with quantum gravity doesn't seem impossible, where the arrow of time is given by the collapse of the quantum world...
How does something travel backwards through time? Youd only ever be able to see any such particle for a planck length of time, before it only existed in your past.. What would you expect to see in such a universe? If anti-matter was just matter particles travelling backwards in time, and at every point in time the particle is in a specific space, then for every single matter particle, there must be a corresponding antimatter particle that will annihilate with its future self when they reach the same place at the same time, which every particle must do. So, unless dark matter ends up being the shadow gravity of future Antimatter particles that are making their way back through time, somehow affecting the present from the future or something like that, this idea seems unlikely..
@@falseprophet1024 My thoughts on the matter (no pun intended!): Think of time behaving differently in the classical world and the quantum world. The direction of time flows forwards in the classical world, but in the quantum world, there is no such direction until the collapse of the wave function. what we consider 'backwards' in time makes no sense, as the particle that is considered to be travelling in such a manner in the classical world is still travelling forwards as far as it is concerned - its arrow of time is still moving 'forwards'. In the quantum world, before wave function collapse, the arrow of time doesn't make sense. Consider a particle vibrating in 3D space, such that we 'observe' it in the classical world because its time coordinate is the same as the observers, that's us. Now consider this particle vibrating in 4D spacetime, we would only still observe this particle when its time coordinate is the same as ours, but when it is vibrating with different time coordinates, we wouldn't see this particle because it exists in another time. We would call this vibrating 'forwards' and 'backwards' in time much like we would consider it moving forwards and backwards along the X-axis. I don't think such a universe is really in contradiction to our universe. If the aforementioned vibrating particles wave function collapses such that its time coordinate matches the observers, and we measure it as an antiparticle, its corresponding oppositely charged particle can still be the same particle with opposite charge and different 4D spacetime coordinates. Think of this paired particle like a single bar magnet with north/ south poles (positive/ negative) and the whole bar is vibrating along 4D spacetime. We would observe 'two' particles if the two ends of this bar appeared with the same time coordinates, but different space coordinates. This antimatter/ matter paired particle system extended to many particles would appear as particles bubbling in and out of existence (observed with same time coordinates). If you consider this paired particle system when entangled, we can replace observables like charge with spin. Similarly, we observe entangled particles as pairs with the same time coordinates, but with different space coordinates, which itself is the same particle vibrating through the quantum world and the classical word, where observations are made in the classical world. So, travelling 'backwards' in time is a misnomer, and if this vibrating system of antimatter/ matter pairs meet at the same 4D spacetime coordinates, then we would see an antimatter/ matter collision and annihilation. What we need is a theory connecting both spacetime and quantum field theory as quantum gravity...
@@jainalabdin4923 Thats just not how the quantum world works, though.. you can calculate how a quantum system develops over time. Its always one way. Think of time like this: cause preceeds effect. Thats it. You can measure the "arrow of time" by drawing an arrow from the cause to the event. That arrow points the same way in classical and quantum physics.. I dont understand why everyone is so convinced there is this unified field theory.. Gravity doesn't appear to be a field. Or they want to "unify the 4 forces", but gravity doesn't appear to be a force, either. Quantum Gravity is a nonsensical term to me. Gravity seems to be geometric in nature. It is caused by its relative geometry within the "fabric of space". None of the forces seem to act in the same way, as their interactions seem to be algebraic in nature. Quantum loop gravity seems like it could be fruitful because it attempts to explain how the fabric that mass warps to create gravity acts in a quantum way. Gravity is the only "force" that has an infinite range of effect. It never tapers off to zero. Why would it be surprising if its also the only "force" that has a minimum limit of effect? Basically, gravity seems to be fundamentally different from the other forces, so why are we so sure they can all be "unified"?
@@falseprophet1024 Quantum Gravity isn't clearly defined and is used loosely in various ways, but my meaning is how spacetime (gravity) interacts at the quantum scale. Quantum Gravity would be the glue that explains both the classical and quantum world. I'm disagreeing with the notion that quantum systems develop one way. The quantum world, before the wavefunction collapses, suggests a particle being everywhere, where everywhere is a place in 4D spacetime, which means both 'past', 'present' and 'future'. When the wavefunction collapses, it does so to the present for us to measure observables. The notion of the arrow of time comes from this in the classical world. Prior to collapse, there is no notion of this arrow. The idea that the quantum world develops one way doesn't consider particles vibrating in 4D spacetime, rather it constrains time with an arrow, and lets the system develop in 3D space.
Electricity: 99,99% of the Universe is constituted by plasma, and yet most astropshysics ignore it as one of if not THE most important force ruling the universe. That's so frustrating.
Agreed. One can get the sparks flying when mentioning the "Electric Universe" or the "Plasma Universe"! I don't understand why works such as "Cosmic Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "The Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Peratt, and many others receive more attention from Astronomers and Cosmologists. Maybe they didn't take E&M in grad school. Images and data from JWST provide compelling evidence that the gravity-only assumptions require scrutiny.
No sale. A drop of water, released into a vacuum, assumes a circular formation, not a flat pancake. If the release of atoms takes on a flat configuration, what force constrains them in a flat form? Your conclusion requires more X factors, no fewer. It is far from economical. These unknown truths are filled with variables that, at this point, are little more than belief systems.
The reason why a measurement of the ' Double slit ' experiment interferes with wave pattern, is because of two perameters, 1. the electron that is being fired at the double slit, is not a single solid particle, but a cluster of much smaller particles that make up a cloud that fills every available empty space throughout the universe. This cluster, which is how energy travels as quanta such as a photon of visible light. From this, it will be seen that the signal pulse being fired at the double slit barrier, is moving through a cloud of the same particles. Just like pushing water through water. 2. The measuring equipment being used, is also using the same particles, which would be like sending a jet of water through water at a different angle to the first. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
1. You just invented more untestable particles.. you sure you arent a string theorist? 2. Why do these new particles move out of the way if you try to measure the photon as it passes through the slit, changing the pattern the photon makes on the detector?
@@falseprophet1024 Thank you for the reply. I am most certainly not a string theorist, I just can't accept this theory at all. I have been working on two hypotheses, one is to do with quantum mechanics, the other with an alternative to the big bang and the idear that the universe inflated and is expanding. To help you make sense of what I am saying, I will list below a few of the anomalies of the standard model that led to me proposing an alternative hypothesis. I will also post a brie extract from my hypothesis, which you may find interesting. I Personally do not believe that the double slit experiment proves anything, because the parameters that are being used are wrong. 2. In answer to this question, it is because whatever is being used to fire at the double slit barrier, are not solid discrete particles, but a culster of very much smaller particles. These particles are negatively charged monopole particles, which are repelling each other in every direction. As these clusters of particles are travelling through a cloud of the same particles there will exist a wave pattern before the double slits are encountered, so there will exist an interference wave pattern the other side of the barrier, no matter what passes through the slits. Any measureing equipment will either be absorbing or emitting the same particles, therefore having an effect on what is passing through the slits. a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is millions of times that of the electron? b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum? c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong. d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery? e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative. F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space? Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation. I hypothesize that everything in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small particles that I have proposed. One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fills every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe, in a cloud called the ' Harveytron Cloud '. These particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion that is produced by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This is the force that keeps all of the planets suspended, and stops them from being drawn to each other, and is what is causing the expansion of the universe ( if it is ). It is also one of the forces of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. The second, is a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, called a ' Dannytron ', which, in combination with the ' Harveytrons ', make up all of the nuclei and therefore all of the nuclear matter in the universe. They are what makes up the other force of gravitational attraction between the nuclear matter of the universe. Starting with the atom, I believe that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model, are man-made, and just pieces of nuclear detritus following collider collisions. I believe that the nucleus is composed of successive layers of the two positive and negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ' and ' Dannytrons ', that I describe, like a gobstopper sweet. The different elements being determined by the number of the positively charged ' Dannytrons ' contained in the nucleus. Beyond the last layer of positively charged particles there exists just the negatively charged ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. This boundary is determined where the point of equilibrium is reached between the attractive force of the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus to the negatively charged particles in the ' Harveytron cloud ', and the repulsive force of the ' Harveytron cloud ' and the negative charge of the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the nucleus meets. Beyond this boundary, there exists only the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' monopole particles throughout every available empty space in the universe, creating a negative force of repulsion throughout the universe, and is one of the two components of gravity. I would contend that these monopoles, do not give up their charge, and the forces of each, extend through each particle, which in the case of the positive extends to the boundary of the atom and the negative extends to the centre of the nucleus. Electron. I contend that the electron is not an elementary solid particle, but a cluster of the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' particles that I propose. These clusters form due to the mass of the ' Harveytron Cloud ' trying to reach the nucleus, and as any force is applied to the atom, a pulse of energy is ejected from one atom to the next as happens with the photon. The quantity of energy in these pulses is always the same and is a constant. The charge held by these clusters, is not equal to the positive charge of the nucleus, but just a proportion of it. the amount of charge equal but opposite that of the nucleus, is distributed throughout the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom. I would be intrested in your thought, Kind regards, Tony Marsh
@Tony Marsh Sure thing. I was just making a nerd joke with the string theorist comment. Its an interesting idea, and i like trying to come up with new explanations for stuff, as well, so please dont take this the wrong way, but i think you have a few fundamental misunderstandings leading to some flaws in your thinking. The Double-Slit experiment proves that the universe is quantum at its base.. and honestly, a probabilistic universe makes the most sense to me.. I still dont understand why you would get the 2 different results according to your hypothesis. Or how your particles that actually fill the universe changes anything. The detector is only registering the position of the photon. It seems like you should get the same result, unless the 2nd detector is somehow clearing these "aether particles" from the path of the photon.. 2. If electrons were constructed as you propose, made of a cloud of distinct particles that all repel each other, atoms wouldnt be able to hold together. Okay, now let me try to answer your questions. a. Because the electron is in a superposition, actually existing in every place within the electron shell, until it is "measured". b. I dont really understand the question. It doesnt take energy to maintain your momentum, aka inertia. The electron "gets its energy" from the nucleus, more specifically it is bound to the opposite/attractive charge of the proton, and because the electrons angular momentum must be conserved, it has to act like the standard model describes. c. The "external influnece" on the electron is the protons in the nucleus through the electro-magnetic force. d. What do you mean by "charge holding capacity"? They dont exert the same force, which is why the electron spins around the nucleus, and they dont spin around each other. An analogy would be asking how the Earth has the same gravity holding capacity as the sun? e. The presence of electrons in the nucleus doesn't make the charge of the nucleus negative, due to their relative size. The nucleus has a positive charge that is slightly reduced by the presence of electrons in the nucleus, but the nucleus still has an overall positive charge.. f. The accepted view since Einstein is that space is a fabric that has an energy value (zero point energy) and can be warped. See quantum loop gravity as an example of a theory that tries to explain what the fabric is made of. You haven't actually proposed what you think you have. Your two fundamental particles are somehow both fundamental, and made of the particles in the standard model that we know exist through observation. And honestly, unless your 2 fundamental particles are quantum, and therefore probabilistic in nature, then they dont agree with observation. Which of the unbelievables do you have the hardest time accepting? A. The probabilistic nature of reality, and the idea of superposition? B. Non-locality (spooky action at a distance)? C. The measurement problem in QM? (The electron deciding where it actually wants to be, but only when we measure it.)
@@falseprophet1024 Thank You for your considered reply. Obviously, without seeing the whole of my hypotheses, it is hard to convey my thinking. I will try to respond fully tomorrow, but for now, I will just copy a section of my QM hypothesis regarding the electron. In answer to the last part of your reply, I don't agree with the SM view all three of them, and these points are discussed in my hypotheses. Anyway, have a look at the following and give me your thoughts. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. Electron. It is proposed that the accepted view, that an electron is an elementary solid particle, is incorrect, and that it is in fact a collection of the much smaller negatively charged monopole particles that I have just described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘. I believe that these particles would be the finitely smallest particles in the universe, and would constitute everything that exists in the universe, with the exception of the positively charge component contained in every nucleus that exists. Also I propose that these particles would form a cloud ‘, the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud, that fills every available empty space within the atom and the universe. Just to emphasize the point, I believe that the electron, as a solid particle does not exist. It is proposed that the electron as it is described in the standard model, is in fact a parcel of the much smaller negatively charged monopole ’ Harveytron ‘ particles described in my hypothesis, and is the quantity of negatively charged particles to be contained together, before the charge they contain is released as a Photon, or as a pulse of energy outside the spectrum of visible light. This quantity of charge is a constant, throughout the whole of the universe,and is the quantity of charge contained in a quanta of light or electromagnetic radiation, when the threshold quantity of charge able to be held within the boundary of the atom is reached. This is analogous to an electrical circuit, containing a power source, a capacitor, and an SCR, whereby, when power is applied to the circuit, the capacitor begins to charge, until the trigger voltage of the SCR is reached and it fires, at which point the capacitor discharges in a pulse. The way that these clusters form, is due to the interaction between the opposing positive and negative forces in the nucleus and any external force applied to the atom pushing the negative particles up to the point where the pressure cannot be contained by the atom, and the energy contained in these bunched particles is released to the adjoining atom. The quantity of negative charge surrounding each nucleus, is strongest nearest the nucleus, and gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus. At the point where the force of attraction to this charge from the nucleus reaches equilibrium with the force of repulsion between the negatively charged monopoles is reached, this is the boundary of the atom. This is also the boundary that the positive charge forming the strong nuclear force extends to. From this point out, there only exists the negative force of repulsion in every direction in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘. I contend that the whole of the available empty space within the boundary of the atom, as described in the standard model, is filled with these particles, and the amount of negative electrical charge equal and opposite to the positive charge carried by the nucleus, attributed to the electrons, as described in the standard model, is distributed throughout the mass of these particles. The negative electrical charge that would be carried by the electron in the standard model is in fact, just a small proportion of these particles, and of the negative charge within the area surrounding the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. I also hypothesize that these particles do not fly around at speed, but are at rest unless exited by an external force, other than trying to get closer to the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus, and contributing to the strong nuclear force. Beyond the last layer of the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles forming the nucleus, as I will describe later, there are only the negatively charged monopole ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles in a cloud that encompasses every space within the universe. This cloud is negatively charged, and forms a negative force of repulsion exerting a repulsive force in every direction. As these negatively charged particles cluster around the nucleus, they are held very strongly by the positively charged particles making up the nucleus. As the positive and negative particles are monopoles that do not give up their force of attraction and repulsion, there exists a complex interaction between these particles in the nucleus. The attractive and repulsive force of each particle, extends through adjoining particles. Although the negatively charged particles are trying to repel each other, this repulsion is a standard pressure in the ‘ Harvetron Cloud ‘. However, because the positively charged particles are trying to attract the negative particles from every direction, and their force of attraction extends beyond the boundary of their neighbouring oppositely charged particle , there is in effect, a double force pulling and pushing the nucleus extremely tightly together. This is the ‘ Strong Nuclear Force ‘. As more negatively charged particles try to get to the nucleus, a dense shell of the negatively charged particles forms due to the very strong attraction of the positive particles in the nucleus. As these negatively charged monopole particles can’t get any closer to the nucleus, this is the boundary of the atom. From this point out, there exists only the negative force of repulsion, and equilibrium is reached in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘. The negative force of attraction to the nucleus gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus until the force reaches equilibrium within the cloud, to become the weak force, and a constituent of gravity. At the point where the boundary of the atom would be defined, it is possible that the negatively charged monopole particles, might bunch up, as they are being pulled by the positive particles in the nucleus, but also being repelled by the negative particles already in this region. This could be what is visualized as an electron. Any applied force would then cause the energy contained in these bunches, to be released as a photon. Elements, Isotopes, chemistry. My model of the atom would still respond the same as in the standard model. The different element are determined by the quantity of the positively charged ‘ Dannytrons ‘ contained in the nucleus. The larger the number, the higher the atomic number element it is. As the quantity of these particles contained in the nucleus are not constrained by any given quantity, such as a whole proton or neutron, as in the standard model. The variation is infinite, as the particles are so small. There may be thousands of these particles that would make up the equivalent quantity of positive charge as one proton. This explains the capacity for Isotopes to exist. Chemical bonding. This works the same as in the standard model of the atom, the only difference, is that instead of a single solid electron forming a co-valent bond, a cluster of my ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles, or the energy they contain is what moves. The fact that there exists a threshold level in the outer boundary of the atom that has to be reached before a quanta of energy is released, means that there is a potential deficit or excess about a mean value of charge contained in the outer boundary of the atom, allowing it to receive or eject energy from or to other atoms.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970 The problem is that any theory you build that doesnt include those 3 "unbelievables" you are seeking to avoid is observably inconsistent with reality.
What a joy to hear these men of honour, integrity, and good heart, speaking about things that really matter. Both so generous of sentiment and humanity. True Gentlemen.
This was fantastic. Perfect balance between technical and simplified. Plus, Neil is just a pleasure to listen to... you can feel the boundless curiosity and passion for the field.
Thank you both Neil and Brian, for a lively and interesting conversation, really looking forward to the follow-up, it's so cool that Neil had the freedom to explore his work at the Perimeter Institute, which as a Canadian I'm so very proud of our governments put in motion and continue to support. Thank you both again very much.
This mathematical formulation explained in this video can be formed out of spherical geometry based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670, that said: “Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4π wave”. We can have the same geometry at the big bang as we have with photons interacting with electrons. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The two dimensional surface of the sphere could form a manifold for positive and negative charge and the holographic principle. No need for the extra dimensions of String Theory, the interior of the sphere is naturally 3D forming the inverse square law of EM and gravity. The wave-function ψ² is squared the electron e² is squared and the speed of the process c² is squared representing one geometrical process. When there is an exchange of energy in the form of a photon ∆E=hf electron coupling the energy levels cannot drop below the centre of the sphere because it is relative to the radius. This forms a constant of action in space and time that we see mathematically as the Planck constant h/2π. Because the square of probability is relative to the spherical surface (wave-function ψ²) and the centre of the sphere (Planck constant h/2π), it forms another constant in the form of the Fine Structure Constant 1/137.
I don't have enough time to take this pod cast in, in its entirety, at one sitting ... so I am differentiating by parts :- ) . Thanks to Neil and to you for having this discussion. I think I was one of those who made the request. Personally, I'm kind of stuck on the idea of bulk space at the fundamental level being permeated by interacting forms of Scalar fields ... the Higgs being just one example. Its going to take me a while to work through this entire discussion but I wanted to thank you and Neil for providing his unique perspectives.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
@@DrBrianKeating The thing that I loved is that , as far as I understood, physics may return to "simple theories" . I liked it because it was going to infinite universes, particles etc. So it was harder to grasp things for us ordinary people who like to follow physics and physicists 😊
I was very interested in physics at school and went on to study engineering but only at HNC level, I love problem solving and knowing how and why things work and do what they do. It’s people like you, Eric Weinstein, and Curt Jaimungal that have inspired me to start learning again. I’m only starting with Brilliant to get my feet wet again but will hopefully go on to study a degree in Math and Physics, not for want of work but just out of pure interest. I’m 37 now but it’s never too late. Thank you.
I always get time to watch these as I slip into bed after putting the kids down and cannot stop watching until I totally crush my good nights sleep. I will contemplate what I heard all day tomorrow though which I enjoy, and that’s what makes an extra tired work day worth it. Great conversation as always.
So, quantum mechanics is 'simple', although we have no idea why it is necessary... and General Relativity is 'simple' although most solutions to it cannot be calculated. Hmm. Simple. Also, and more importantly, the physicists (other than me) accept that in some way the universe chose to conform with the equations of these two theories at the moment the universe arrived? Or, even if the universe goes all the way back (against even the simplest laws of logic) somehow the universe chose to conform to these equations... and you can't say it is simple, but seems to be complex to our tiny minds, for then the complexity is lost.
@@GH-oi2jf There is only one domain of knowledge, and it includes physics, maths and philosophy. The divisions are put there only to make the sub-domains manageable. So, 'no', the weight rests on the shoulders of all.
Neil Turok confirms my amateur guess, that physics has become extremely complicated. I think that science today can't afford to change their models because many institutions and careers etc depend on the models staying, which leads to adding fudge factors instead of claiming falsification. Similar or even worse compared to the increased complexity of the epicycle theories centuries ago.
This was wonderful. I'm an English teacher (yeah, really). But I love reading ABOUT physics, well truthfully about the history of physics. The subject is fascinating, though I'm barely able to skim the surface. Yet this conversation was a thrill; I'd watched a lecture by Turok before on the Royal Institute website, but the informal discussion format here allowed Turok's warmth and humanity to shine. Keating and Turok are thoroughly engaging, even for a physics tyro. Thanks to you both.
All of mainstream cosmology is wrong. The very approach of using Einstein's field equations which are gravity equations in a situation where there is no center of gravity is absurd to begin with.
I love Neil's ideas. Although I find it hard to distinguish between his idea of cyclical cosmology and Roger Penrose's CCC. I would love to see the two of them talking about that, that would be epic.
I would argue that physicists, far from being in crisis, are in their most welcome state: Knowing they don't know something and trying to answer a big question.
A physicist describing the Higgs Boson as water is very refreshing (about bloody time too IMO). Dark matter is an ocean of HBs, black holes are an ocean of dark matter that is spinning.
Great interview Brian. I’m American but was a post-doc doing colloidal physics at Edinburgh back in the 90’s. It is great to see they have Neil Turok there now.
Thanks Phil Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Einstein's "blunders" -- I studied ancient history under a brilliant scholar. When critiquing my dissertation drafts he would occasionally say something that I, who had studied a point in detail, knew was wrong. When I revisited the question, though, I found that he with his vast knowledge of the field, was right. Even when he was wrong, he was right.
"Whereas when we look at our theories, they have become unbelievably complex, arcane with a million assumptions, and 'fixes'. And starting about five years ago I basically decided this has all become a bit of a joke, to be honest. What we should be doing is being strongly guided by the data to constructing much simpler models of the universe. And by 'simpler' I don't mean less precise, or vaguer, or anything like that, I mean the evidence is that we've been missing something." Neil Turok.
Thanx for getting Neil on! Indeed one of the top minds, and one of the few who realizes we need to re-built physics from a more basic fundamental setup. That is not easy when our main way of trying to understand the architecture physics and our cosmos is basically reversed and bottom up from mathematical approximations. Yes we get very helpful mathematical approximation (GR and QP) but no we cannot derive the simplest physical architecture from that in reverse (the standard model is not a helpful in between for that). Mathematical Correlation to the architecture does not equal causation and this bottom up approach generated too many 'epicycle' assumptions to unlock true simplification. DM, DE Mass- energy 'equivalence' being the top 3. Let me give you an example of how easy we make implicit assumptions which we are not even aware of; On the subject of cosmic flatness; we observe the outer cosmos to be flat. Correct. But does that mean it IS actually flat? If in QP terms, energy is the inverse of space and mass the inverse of time (Penrose 2019). From this it follows that cosmic flatness may very well be the result of POSITIVELY curved spacetime outside of our galaxy and NEGATIVELY curved spacetime inside our galactic orb. Like wearing glasses, positively curved spacetime seen trough our galactic glasses of negative curved (Riemann) spacetime would appear flat. This diffraction effect would suggest that spacetime near galaxies further away would be diffracted most, which means any light propagating in it would have most REDSHIFT, indicating redshift asa function of DISTANCE, not SPEED which in turn voids the NEED for dark energy. I earlier explained why indeed the grid inside our galactic orb would be dominated by the energy mass grid (explaining the strange effect we fill in with dark matter). So I would suggest you and Neil collect all major paradoxes (DM, DE, inflation, mature galaxy) and see what approach VOIDS them before we treat them as givens. I could assist you in the reversed engineering principles for getting to the real simple fundamental principles. The answer is clear, but top physics people need to walk this road yourself, otherwise you will never believe how many roadblocks are human created.
Always refreshing to hear pleas to humility, simplicity, and the recognition that modern physics and cosmology are likely barking up a lot of wrong trees. In that spirit, why not let us perform a simple gravity experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632, an experiment that is often discussed, but has not yet been done? Drop a test mass into a hole through the center of a larger spherical mass and see what happens. The apparatus may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. Most physicists respond to this idea by saying something like: “No need to do the experiment, because we already know what would happen if we did.” I would love to discover that Keating and/or Turok are exceptional for actually seeing the value in doing the experiment as soon as possible. For to do so would simply be to abide by the empirical ideals of science and at last fill this large gap in our empirical knowledge of gravity.
Neil is just a Humble person and seems to be the best guy to, bring his views to the world and Arguing his point,but will agree rightly and to all criticisms of them, what seems so hard for others to do.Thats the only way to move it all forward. Brian always,Always great conversation and Topic.
Glad to see more people talking about this. Science has been misused for a long time as a tool to justify mistakes instead of learning from them, as a real scientist would seek to do. Sincerely I would be so grateful if this type of thinking became the norm.
What an enjoyable dialogue. His ethical will statement reminded me of something said by D.T. Suzuki. Not exact but along the lines: "Nature created us so as to marvel in itself."
What a tremendously elegant, disciplined, and economic way of approaching some of the deepest open problems in modern physics ! Enjoyed each one of his insights and proposals: even if they turned out to be wrong, his approach should be an example to other theoreticians. Thank you Brian for arranging such an illuminating interview !
My Son studying in University of Edinburgh BSc. (Hons) theoretical physics , He emailed you so many times to discuss about work he has been doing of very high level in quantum gravity and you also gave response to meet in September last year but you were busy. Your assistant also given time to meet in November last year but till now you haven’t given time my Son emailed you so many times. Please meet him as early as possible.
I can't tell you how proud we are in Scotland to be able to attract such influential scientists to our wonderful country. This was one of your finest interviews Brian for a number of reasons. Chief amongst which was the change in your approach. More of this please Brian, your podcast is becoming a "must watch" and your guests are stellar. Thanks for this one...so good that I've watched twice already.
Thinking that I know and love the standard model so much that I bought the T-shirt. Now with fancying the model however equipped me to understand the immensity beyond the standard model. Fortunate to awe about the life time accomplishments of
I can’t help but contextualize his view that theoretical physics is off the rails and into the weeds of complexity in terms of biological reality, specifically age-as in his. As we get older we tend to proceed with more caution and hold more firmly to simplicity. It is natural and even beautiful. The older tend to stand up for boundaries, classic achievement, and tradition. In the words of Grandpa Simpson: “I used to be with it, then they changed what it is. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what is it seems weird and scary to me. It will happen to YOU!” We need smart young people to push boundaries and head in wayward directions or science hardens into religion, even if only one in a hundred thousand stumbles onto something of fundamental consequence.
The reason for some of the issues is that light slows down over time. This is why Hubble's observation of redshift getting more significant the further it's source gets sort of works. If the light is slowing the longer it travels then obviously the redshift will increase the further away we look. So space isn't expanding like we need to happen trying to deal from our perspective. And we don't need the dark matter because it's not expanding. Some is going away, some coming closer. But the big red shift is a result of photons slowing because light speed is not a constant. We know this as it changes in other mediums, but we dismiss it when looking up. And no expansion means no need for a big bang. So the problems with the big bang go away.
I found real satisfaction in what Turok was saying all along, and restated at the end: The Universe is telling us what it is, that it is simple, and DON'T get lost in the details of your theory. Not being a mathematician, I'm aMAZed at how some get lost in things that math says MAY be true, and lose sight of the fact they may NOT be true.
The starting point of physics is the idea of inertia, but "The knowledge of the straightness of the movement of a body left to itself does not follow from experience. On the contrary!" (Einstein). The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces. (Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law.) GR reduced gravity to inertia by generalizing the first law: the free movement of test bodies occurs along geodesic lines, but the theory did not find out anything new about the nature of the cause of inertia forces. "... the complete geometrization established by GR introduces a hierarchized cosmos on the plane, indicating indirectly the presence of an elusive source." (Tonnelat). It seems that this source of external-external inertia forces is an "absolute vacuum" - instead of Newtonian "absolute space", which "... as a cause, does not satisfy the need for a causal explanation." (Born). Finally, the search for the root cause became possible after Friedmann spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the "creation of the world", and even then there was an opportunity to abandon the a priori nature of the law (more precisely, the axiom) of inertia, and build physics on a more reliable basis. P.S. "The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10 ± 27." (See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921). Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2, where i is inertial constant:k*=1/i =7,429*10^-29[cm/g] {=r(pl)/m(pl)}. k*=(1/8π)k. From Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), and without the need to involve the concept of curvature of space-time), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: фG=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w=-(1/2)[c^2/w(pl)]w: "Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein). The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum expression of Kepler's second law: the quantum inertial flow Ф(i)= (½)S(pl)w(pl)= h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).
the problem with testing a theory of everything is that we are certainly limited in our potential actions and there are certainly fields that we cannot measure that are fundamental to understanding the Universe in its entirety. Also the reason why the Universe appears to be flap the farther out we observe is simply because energy takes the path of least resistance and the path of least resistance across vast and nearly "empty" space (aside from virtual particles of course) will always be a straight line to the observer, in that when we measure fields and wavelengths that exist within fields what we notice is that relative to any location in space time the information density of a wave is always higher in the center of the wave because we simply see the way energy travels around the densest points in relation to the observer in the shortest route possible because the brain and the Universe at large wants to save resources.
This was thoroughly enjoyable to listen to. it is such a treat to herd Prof. Neil Turok speak because he makes these difficult physics concept so accessible to laymen like myself. Also, the interview by Dr.Brian Keating was extremely professional; great questions and alwayss allowing Neil to speak without ever interrupting unnecessarily. Loved the content!!
The universe is unseeable, if knowable. When we look in the sky we see layers of time superimposed on our image of the cosmos. Supposition, the universe rotates. When we look we see multiple revolutions, we see the same galaxies, all at once, from different places and times in the past showing up in our array. This would mean the universe is smaller and the number of galaxies is fewer. We are seeing the same galaxies over and over. I know light is fast. The universe is big and old. Do the math. Remember, the observer is moving over time as well. From an experimental point of view. Pick an object(s) (a cluster(s)?). Characterize them. Look for them elswhere. Where? I'm working on that.
They have become "Scinetific Religion" as far as I can see. The proponents state if you don't believe your not smart enough. They can't prove or predict, you must beleive. They sound great... like a good Sci fi story. Then you have the "if it can happen it did/does somewhere in the (marvel😂cough cough) multiverse!
The way to combine QM and spacetime is to accept that QM is a small consequence of spacetime. QM is the study of the play, the rock concert, the conference but it does not describe the theatre. The theatre has to be built before any events take place. The creation of the CMB marks the beginning of EM, it does not exist before then. The early universe was just spacetime, colder and denser, a flowing liquid.
Physics main challenge comes down to better understanding the relationship between the epistemological and the ontological. Essentially, "what" we think about the Cosmos and "how" we've arrived at those thoughts actually effect Universal properties and behaviors. Even on a superficial level, we see this truth embodied in all the many artifacts now populating our daily lives. And yet, there's more to be seen than that. It may prove out that the very substance of which all such things are made have undergone a subtle change in essence. By this way of thinking, we are not simply crafting things based on their intrinsic properties, but actually shaping those properties ourselves...
On the flip side sometimes the reason a theory goes wrong isn't the theory per say but rather the use of bad assumptions to simplify our models in such a way that they become prescriptive rather than predictive. A perfect example is the whole "we only need 5 numbers claim to describe the universe" as work last year by Nathan Secrest et al (2021) has built on the huge body of evidence that observationally contradicts that by showing there is up to 4.9 sigma discrepancy between the CMB dipole and a dipole constructed from 1.36 million cosmologically distant quasars. As the cosmological principal is predicated on the assumption that the dipole in the CMB is purely kinematic i.e. not due to large scale structure of the universe. The whole "evidence" for this "simplicity" in cosmology is entirely predicated on the *assumption* that the Universe is homogeneous and thus you can average observations over the whole sky for cosmologically distant sources if you don't assume that you no longer can use redshift as a direct measurement of distance as space can move/flow. As a perfect example of things in physics that are on surprisingly shaky ground, @Dr Brian Keating have you looked at the implications of Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology? One "surprising" finding is that there hadn't been any real tests of the metamathematical domain of the Einstein field equations in the inhomogeneous and anisotropic limit, i.e. what does the set of all solutions to the Einstein field equations that obey the axioms of general relativity and preserve information. If you run through the implications of the proof by contradiction used to derive the "no big crunch theorem" in "inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology" (Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore 2016) it implies that the conditions cosmologists have used to justify the assumption that the Universe can be approximated as a small deviation from the Friedman Lemaitre Robertson Walker(FLRW) metric solution. It has been argued that because the early Universe was highly homogenous and isotropic that the universe should stay isotropic and homogenous at some distance scale. However the No big crunch theorem tells us that deviations from the FLRW metric solution must be *divergent* as this is the only way to avoid the possibility of logical discontinuities in the metric and we can check this as one of the defining properties of any system of differential equations is that there must exist a *unique* solution for each and every valid set of initial conditions, if the cosmological principal assumption were valid this would be violated at large scales and thus the left hand side of the Einstein field equations would be unable to match the right hand side with the degree of error growing along the temporal axis, that is to say the assumption requires a cosmological deletion of information at every timestep that violates causality as you need to erase photons that have expanded beyond the late universe cosmological event horizon. In other words the assumption that FLRW can be applicable at some size scale is logically and causally forbidden in the large scale limit, as the size of the universe approaches infinity, for each and every possible choice of initial conditions. Note that the only reason I can't tell for sure if this isn't more general comes from a limitation in the original proof by contradiction rather than a reason to think it will not apply there as well) As a result the whole claim that the universe is simple to describe can quickly be falsified both observationally and theoretically The only way I can find to avoid this turns out to be to allow the metric at all points in spacetime to be *uniquely defined* this comes with some other interesting consequences for example as terms in the off diagonal metric tensor can't cancel out perfectly and rather these terms grow to dominate with expansion it can therefore be stated that a natural prediction of the unconstrained Einstein field equations is that for any sufficiently large universe that is initially expanding it must nonlinearly expand forever. By the way you might also notice that this is virtually identical (read is observationally indistinguishable from what we observe of the universe when we *don't* automatically assume the cosmological principal is valid which has a nice effect of automatically reproducing an inhomogeneous and anisotropic form of "dark energy" without requiring any additions to the model, i.e. its purely an effect of gravity and the initial anisotropy of the universe and causality in an expanding universe eliminating the possibility of spacetime expansion coming to a halt and contracting. Recent observations which take this into account show to the extent our highly data limited observations(anything with a sample size less than a million is too data deficient to confirm or eliminate any possible cosmological models allow i.e. they have a hard limit well below 4 sigma statistical significance without the assumption that the sky is isotropic and homogeneous) that the best fit for lambda is zero or close to it. The no big crunch theorem also results in an interesting link between the total volume of the universe at any interval slice of time and time that outside of having units of volume is for all other intents and purposes is identical to the second law of thermodynamics. In order to see if there is anything more to this link its important to think about the problem in the context of information propagating outwards from initial points as 3 dimensional light cones accounting for interactions within each expanding bubble's light cones and now we apply gravitational path integrals that is to say sum of all the both possible and impossible paths. In this context it is fairly easy to see that this enclosed volume in this limit is in fact the cosmological event horizon and thus the volume in any time slice is directly related to the total entropy of that time slice of spacetime. As in the context of information theory information is that which is needed to fully describe the system we see the reason the FLRW solution is allowed is precisely because a classical FLRW universe is conformally invariant and thus contains no information. FLRW is in effect only valid in the case of a purely classical empty universe. It should also be noticeable that this also implies there must be a nonzero gravitational potential between any two elements within the Energy stress tensor or alternatively that gravity is quantized. In some sense this isn't surprising but it does notably mean that the metric at any place in spacetime will have an additional nonlocal component with both diagonal and off diagonal components. For the off diagonal elements these simply serve to help amplify the magnitude of the "dark energy" but the diagonal elements should effectively help matter clump together due to the gravity of distant massive bodies which would result in a mathematical limit of Einsteinian gravity suspiciously analogous to MOND. In truth there are enough observations to suggest that this can't fully explain dark matter but it does mean that far less particle dark matter is needed to explain observations in the relativistic limit and thus the density of dark matter can be far lower. And with the nonlocal acausal connection between any two elements in the metric tensor this will naturally mean that every black hole as well as everything else is mutually entangled and the metric tensor thus can be thought of as the sum of all entangled states in the universe. Really this shouldn't have been so hard to describe I can understand why this wasn't done more than a century ago because back them modern metamathematics had not yet been derived as the theories formal "founder" Kurt Gödel hadn't been born yet. However we have had a long time to test this and see what is truly allowed or forbidden, the fact that virtually all our modern models fall well outside the set of all possible valid solutions to the Einstein field equations is sad. Had we done this earlier we could have seen that dark energy, entropy and the other laws of thermodynamics as well as quantum entanglement are all natural implications of informational symmetry and causality in the true unconstrained Einstein field equations. In other words just the equations with no prior assumptions to simplify them will give you a self quantizing spacetime complete with dark energy thermodynamics and entanglement all for free as causally enforced constraints. Ultimately its looking like we likely don't need any new mathematics or theories we have already *had* the solution to quantum gravity for more than a century we were just not ready to understand it.
Imaginary time has always bothered me and not because it's imaginary. The assignment I've seen used for its derivation should only be true when ||dx||=0 unless one dx is proper length and the other is coordinate (related by lorentz factor) then the derivation breaks as you can't cancel them. To me, a more sensible route would seem to be just rearranging the metric since ds²=c²d𝜏² if you start with both coordinate dt and dx. You might need a negative sign in there depending on your preferred signature. I personally prefer to start with the metric c²d𝜏² = c²dt² - dx and rearrange to c²d𝜏² + dx = c²dt² and treat those as the norm of a Split-complex and Complex, respectively. Quaternion and hyperbolic quaternion if dx is a 3-vector. Note here I'm using imaginary space rather than time mainly because I'm used to using imaginary 3-vectors to represent Quaternions and the +--- signature never bothered me as that's what I expect from Split-complex and Hyperbolic quaternions. You do have to deal with the fiddly issue of imaginary ds values beyond 45 degrees and the indeterminate sign but they are relatively easy to handle with a little thought. I doubt if that would fix the issue Turok ran into. One thing that still bothers me is that the transform between hyperbolic and circular rotational metrics requires TWO lorentz transforms on time intervals or lengths. The lorentz factor takes you from a hyperbola to a straight line or a straight line to a circle but not from a hyperbola to circle. That has never made any sense to me. A proper transform between Minkowski and Euclidean space should take a hyperbola and invert it into a circle just as a implicit plot of 1=x² - k y² does as you vary k from 1 to -1. It makes me worry we aren't actually working in the space we think we are in. Maybe I've missed something, though. Physicists and mathematicians seem to be a lazy lot (compared to programmers who have well defined best practices for naming of variables and our notations rigorously avoid ambiguity) and are rarely as explicit as I'd like about whether things are functions of t or 𝜏 and they seem to not really care all that much that they call something velocity when it is actually dx(𝜏)/d𝜏. That's one of the reasons I've been thinking the Hubble tension is a mistake somewhere because it's exactly the split I'd expect for a confusion over 𝜏 vs t.
Excellent interview. Difficult challenge to get to the interesting depths of insight lingering in such insightful people. Thanks! I love listening to Neil Turok and its aim for simplicity in mind bogging complexity.
Ronald *thanks for sharing favorite takeaway from this conversation!* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
@1:06:00 Like Turok says, the anti-verse is a perfect mirror reflection, used formally to derive the likely boundary conditions. It cannot be a real backwards time universe however because of quantum mechanics, which would rapidly mix up any reverse bounce. So it truly is just like the electromagnetic method of images. Having noted that, I'm rather inclined to go back to Penrose's CCC, since the boundary Turok and Boyle find can be interpreted as Penrose's conformally rescaled pseudo-boundary. I'd have loved to hear Turok be more generous to Penrose on this and think more on whether there is some compatibility there between the two models?
A phrase which is most important to me is "bounded rationality", and as I see it the boundaries are indicated by evidence (with repeatability) but assumptions and fix-factors are the antithesis of bounded rationality. To put my personal "oar" into the argument, I see time as a social construct, which in itself cannot be measured. We can measure "periodicity" in our own terms but seemingly otherwise "actual" time does not exist outside our technology. It seems to be pointless to extrapolate from a circular argument.
Thank you. For who you are and what you do. You and your guests. Few things are as enlightening, inspiring and uplifting than these deep conversations of yours.
Too many people trying to sound smart and not being smart. It's also creativity, it puting information together that we all know but seeing it from a different perspective
Wow awesome. I like thinking of different ways the universe could work whenever I'm learning physics. The copied time-reverse universe was an idea that came up, I like how it's articulated here since I can't really do the math yet. I also thought off universes in blackholes and that matter is space-time fabric in a knot. Not sure how it's helpful but it's like a big puzzle. All of the ideas I come up with have already been described by others though.
If you make such an assumption that our universe is finite , then what you are talking about must be merely an extremely tiny part of the largest universe which contains or is composed of all the multi-universes, which you can make up , and thus the question about how large the largest universe is will still remain unanswered at all. In other words, no human scientist has ever been , nor ever will be able to know the size nor the boundary of the largest universe. That is why have been repeating that the space of the universe is infinite , and the universe here is the one which contains all the universes which you guys have imagined or assumed to be existing Even if you were to be able to define the size or boundary of the largest universe of all, containing all the assumed multi-universes, then, you would have to answer the question about what would be outside the boundary of that largest universe, and the same question will keep repeating forever because every time when you keep answering that there is another larger universe which covers the universe which you are talking about , and it would be merely a waste of time
I'm pretty sure it's turtles all the way down. If there is a multi-verse, what are its boundaries. Is that multi-verse just another bubble in another multi-verse in another multi-verse adinfinium.
Why would the Higgs Boson, a particle thats exponentially larger and more massive than a proton - be a building block of SMALLER matter lol. The higgs boson isnt necessary for for literally any fundamental force or property. It is purely a lab-created particle by colliding two particles causing them to spin in such a way that its radius expands to a frequency which resonates at the energy of the higgs -- and all spin resonances of particles are quantized steps so obviously you can predict where youre most likely to find a new particle -- at the quantized step of the doubling of the same basic particles gyroscopic motion.. All matter are photons spinning and doubling the spin radius, which increases the photons radius and mass, from radio wave -- to Proton, to Neutron, Higgs Boson -- its All photons with different stacked spin amounts . The small builds up to larger and larger -- not he verse. MASSIVE particles do nto give infintesimal particles mass. Small particles are what give massive particles mass. ANd that mass is given through Drag. It's mass is simply the photon drag which a particle with a radius larger than a photon experiences, as its bombarded and swarmed by the smaller photons its accelerations are resisted and there is a convergence of photons towards less lense configurations which basically migrates baryons towards the same convergence just like the wind was all blowing towards the center of a large object. because the photons are all doing exactly that and colliding against the larger particles while they're moving. If you think matter is not photons and that mass comes from higgs bosons you are leading us astray.
1) 'Adding another parameter' is known as Skinner's Constant: the number you apply to the number you have to get the number you want. 2) Adding an 'antiverse' is Skinner's Constant writ large.
Is physics in trouble? Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list to stay in touch with all my guests.
Hi, there, in my opinion, the problem is that all great minds, dont give up about their ideas, powerfull ideias, but sometimes, we need to give up, and give oportunity to the ones that obey for certain creteria, the ones that include standart model, and other fundamental principles, all the best......
No, not really in trouble, just out of balance, theory and experiments should be reïnforcing each other♾
Physics is like a bus that is bound for "quantum gravity city", but has somehow gotten stuck in a muddy swamp.
Seems to be a really interesting theory with some radical predictions: neutrinos are Majorana, lightest neutrino is massless and no primordial gravitational waves, as well as dark matter being sterile neutrinos with a huge mass, and solves the matter/antimatter asymmetry.
Dr Neil’s approach Makes most contemporary theoretical physicists seem deluded. This might be the only interview you need. (I’m sort of joking, but not really)
As a very curious working-class pensioner who grew up without the internet in the world, I cannot state too highly how much pleasure I get listening to podcasts like this and actually understanding some of it although completely self-taught, after leaving an English comprehensive school with only a couple of A levels! Thank you very much Doctor Keating for taking the time to do this so that we can all benefit and learn. P.S. Reconciling the opposites is the way of the Tao!
Steve Thanks very much Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet
Echoes my sentiments
@@DrBrianKeating How CAN IN THE FIST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY we the NORMAL people go away physically from this Illuminati's Universal BLACK MATRIX WHO IS THE UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICAL PRISON LOPE OF THE REICHARNATIOM CREATED FROM THE ANNUNAKI, before our bio death?🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
@@CarlosElio82 taoism is obscurantist superstition, weak traditional thinking which as a fellow working class, albeit professional pensioner I advise you to reject. Take a class action against bullshit, as Turok is trynna do.
@@DrBrianKeating WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank DiMeglio
This was absolutely fantastic. I did my PhD in theoretical physics recently, and now I'm doing a postdoc. To be honest, modern academia is so full of bullshit that I'm seriously considering leaving it, unless I somehow manage to find a way to work on something meaningful and not on my h-index. The scientific world definitely needs more people like Neil who are not afraid to dream big, who are doing science to answer fundamental questions and not to boost their ego. Anyway, thank you so much to both of you, Brian and Neil, for your beautiful existence! You are a true inspiration, and you just gave me a bit of hope!
Talking of bullshit, I would be interested to know how you feel about non-locality, which remains unexplained, and which no-one seems interested in explaining.
Find your favorite problem/ conundrum and solve it. Let your ego die from neglect. You'll think much clearer if you do. (From an old barber and gentleman science buff to a future problem solver.)
Consider that gravity can be understood as a local accretion of the lower scale substrate of our scale of reality rather than a remote attractive force.
No one seems concerned that complex numbers do not possess order --- faking it by assigning one doesn't count --- and therefore any physical activity relying on complex numbers should have factors that can be anywhere in time & space (sort of like Feynman's everything is happening at once, we see what doesn't get cancelled).
Something important is being overlooked.
Plus, number "types" is a series of infinite regressions, some with order, some without. Does that imply reality is a series of infinite regressions?
Lots of weird questions need answering. Consider getting a "real" job that gives you sufficient free time to answer fringe questions. (Unless you're independently wealthy) Not being pressured to have a proper result is freeing.
@@havenbastion Brilliant - now I understand everything perfectly🙂
Best guest ever award goes to Neil Turok! Love the way he thinks and that he presents his ideas in very accessible ways.
Thanks very much. Please do me a favor and share it with two friends!
Neil is the man. He gets a lot of flack but he’s the only guy in physics that’s really making any sense at this point in time
Thanks very much
The only? What about Roger Penrose?
What is your designation?
I mean no criticism, but please see my comment, which is only meant to supply some necessity to physics. Mathematicians sometimes spare this need for necessity. Euclid's space can not be observed.
And what about Lawrence Krauss?
One of your very best interviews. I am a big fan but sometimes i have thought you talk just a little too much and the guests dont talk enough. I think you did a fabulous job this time.
And i am quite convinced by a heavy right handed neutrino being the dark matter . Very exciting experiments to come one way or another.
34:09 great formula for all of physics
51:53 CMB
Problems in physics:
The big Bang, inflation, Dark matter, dark energy, black holes
We really live in a fantastic time in human history and hearing Neil Turok lecturing is part of it. Thank you for this video.
Thanks
I would like to see such high level test disproving a flat earth with modern sun sticks. Relying on something espoused 500 AD seems a little suspect. And the only photo is of the "blue marble" in 1972 everything else is a computer generated image. @@DrBrianKeating
I heard that Lev Landau was saying that "Integral without measure is senseless". In the formula which is presented as a summary of all fundamental laws of physics there are two integrals without measure, and one of the measures is actually not really known/defined.
How fortunate are the students who have Dr. Turok for a professor. It is a delight to have someone articulate the major issues of contemporary physics without cluttering the landscape with esoteric mathematical proofs and share the fun of his intellectual research. It is important for the world to explain these concepts in ways less gifted or less trained minds can grasp them and appreciate the pursuit.
There so few material from dr. Neil on youtube. Thank you so much Brian I love him!!
I hope you enjoy it!
Excellent interview with Neil Turok, thanks Brian. We need more physicists that questions the reality and the theories that are mainstream today.
Thanks Deniz please share it with two friends
I heard Neil speak as a keynote speaker at a major NGO network that gave students without opportunities a chance to go to university. He also helped facilitate a major advanced mathematics institute which gave students from said backgrounds from all around the world opportunities there. He’s literally the man. I’m sure thanks to people like him, we’ll have many more Ramanujans come forward from all around the world.
That wouldn't surprise me. Growing up in South Africas apartheid system, his parents couldn't even be seen walking on the streets together, I think that would give some experience about the realities for people without opportunities.
@@ingvarhallstrom2306 That’s really interesting. Didn’t know that bit about his background. Thanks for sharing
It is very sad that modern Physics has turned into "religion" were you can't criticise the current "acceptanced theories" for fear of excommunication, no wonder we have terrible theories and we can't solve any issues.
It's also become so politicly corrupted in it's funding mechanism.
Science now more than ever overwhelmingly funded by government either though direct grants or government funded proxies.
Scientist in certain fields understand full well that if they don't provide the predetermined information the government desires to achieve their political objectives they will not only never receive another dime in grant money, but also have their name and reputation falsely slandered, tarnished by the massive machine who's become totally dependent on continued government funding and subsidies....
This was definitely one of the best interviews on physics I have ever seen. My new RUclips rabbit hole is to find every lecture and interview Neil has done. I might even read a book for the first time in 20 years.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
I am happy you are back to your original format - people with ideas - instead of popularizers like Sabine and Sean that don’t have original ideas. You are the only popularizer we need on your channel!
That being said, physics youtube needed a Sabine to balance all the pbs space times pushing all novelty ideas without proper context before loosing people in technicalities at the 5 minutes mark.
Sabine is a breath of fresh air. Kaku entices journalists into publishing the most outlandish and nonsensical claims like a holographic universe, Elvis is still alive in another multiverse, there are an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse….
Good god, this was a terrific conversation. Thank you for this. I'm so happy to live in a time where I can listen to experts discuss up to date ideas within their fields!
This is very nice! I've always wanted to see more from Neil after having stumbled upon Perimeter institute's public lecture series on RUclips.
What’s wrong with physics today? The same thing that is always been wrong with mathematics and science. It is kept in a small peer group of gate keepers. So they can keep finding each other in patting each other on the back. Letting in no new information
One of the best interviews yet! Thank you
Thanks ! Please share!
Working out what to put in the time capsule should be easy. Just write on the outside of the capsule "If you find this, send us some particles backwards in time to tell us what's in it."
These are the BRANE guys. What I find compelling is that what I call “real science” is refined vocabulary, predominantly math, that can be reproduced by others, tested and validated. When I think of string theory - it, from my understanding, has, far too many degrees of freedom to model such that it can be tested sufficiently.
My old USNA physicist joked when he mentioned QM and other, so called science, was, how can they know - they haven’t done THE WORK.
And when a physicist isn’t sure - about QM - he means it could be wrong - 1 in 10^18. Not - it’s 50/50 like psychology or even economics.
Chemistry and physics are gifts to the modern world.
I LOVE how some of these models are like a completely BLANK spreadsheet / canvas upon which you can write anything.
It is AMUSING to see that a model with 30+ particles only needs 1 we couldn’t find without the LHC.
But in solving difficult problems - usually BEST to focus on FEWEST things of which we are really certain - and see what THAT SAYS.
And for QM - I think - the eraser doesn’t erase - “it happened” - we just have an experiment with enough third source energy - we can put it back into a state where it looks like it hasn’t happened.
Theoretical physicists I think GUESS how they think it works based on what does work. Sorry to say - it’s Guess and check - and invent the MATH. Because while it might be simple - it’s NOT OBVIOUS.
so I didn't realize that Dr. Keating interviewed Dr. Turok when I watched the video on the bad news for Loop Quantum Gravity but saw the interview with Dr. Turok on TOE and worked backwards through this interview and it was incredibly delightful. If Nobel prizes are awarded based on humility, discipline and talent, you chaps are a shoe-in. This presentation of the "A Minimal Explanation of the Primordial Cosmological Perturbations" paper or "Mirror Universe" hypothesis was even better than the Perimeter Institute lecture and maybe better than TOE. Great stuff, thank you again
I loved his fervent hope, exposition and rigour. Lotsa floatsam in the chat room though! your pushback and letting him speak without interrupting were quite well balanced. kudos and continue this...
All ok. But first, tell me what a fundamental electrical charge is, why is it unit -1 in the tiny electron but +2/3 or -1/3 in the huge quarks, and what are those numbers in anti-matter?
Is it logical to assume that reversing a particle's direction in time is sufficient to reverse the electric charge? (Or is it that reversing a particle's charge sign will reverse its direction in time??) And why does whichever of those is true cause the potential for a - and + electron to disintegrate into pure Xray energy in any physical conditions, eg not needing the temperatures of fusion?
The idea of an antimatter-matter paired Universe sounds the most plausible concept I've heard from all these theories out there. The idea of anti-matter being the same matter as its counterpart but travelling back in time is rich in possibilities. One can think of even entangled particle pairs acting as the same particle with polar opposite time directions. And linking this all with a theory that bridges the classical and quantum layers with quantum gravity doesn't seem impossible, where the arrow of time is given by the collapse of the quantum world...
Nice
How does something travel backwards through time? Youd only ever be able to see any such particle for a planck length of time, before it only existed in your past..
What would you expect to see in such a universe?
If anti-matter was just matter particles travelling backwards in time, and at every point in time the particle is in a specific space, then for every single matter particle, there must be a corresponding antimatter particle that will annihilate with its future self when they reach the same place at the same time, which every particle must do.
So, unless dark matter ends up being the shadow gravity of future Antimatter particles that are making their way back through time, somehow affecting the present from the future or something like that, this idea seems unlikely..
@@falseprophet1024 My thoughts on the matter (no pun intended!): Think of time behaving differently in the classical world and the quantum world. The direction of time flows forwards in the classical world, but in the quantum world, there is no such direction until the collapse of the wave function. what we consider 'backwards' in time makes no sense, as the particle that is considered to be travelling in such a manner in the classical world is still travelling forwards as far as it is concerned - its arrow of time is still moving 'forwards'. In the quantum world, before wave function collapse, the arrow of time doesn't make sense.
Consider a particle vibrating in 3D space, such that we 'observe' it in the classical world because its time coordinate is the same as the observers, that's us. Now consider this particle vibrating in 4D spacetime, we would only still observe this particle when its time coordinate is the same as ours, but when it is vibrating with different time coordinates, we wouldn't see this particle because it exists in another time. We would call this vibrating 'forwards' and 'backwards' in time much like we would consider it moving forwards and backwards along the X-axis.
I don't think such a universe is really in contradiction to our universe. If the aforementioned vibrating particles wave function collapses such that its time coordinate matches the observers, and we measure it as an antiparticle, its corresponding oppositely charged particle can still be the same particle with opposite charge and different 4D spacetime coordinates. Think of this paired particle like a single bar magnet with north/ south poles (positive/ negative) and the whole bar is vibrating along 4D spacetime. We would observe 'two' particles if the two ends of this bar appeared with the same time coordinates, but different space coordinates.
This antimatter/ matter paired particle system extended to many particles would appear as particles bubbling in and out of existence (observed with same time coordinates). If you consider this paired particle system when entangled, we can replace observables like charge with spin. Similarly, we observe entangled particles as pairs with the same time coordinates, but with different space coordinates, which itself is the same particle vibrating through the quantum world and the classical word, where observations are made in the classical world.
So, travelling 'backwards' in time is a misnomer, and if this vibrating system of antimatter/ matter pairs meet at the same 4D spacetime coordinates, then we would see an antimatter/ matter collision and annihilation. What we need is a theory connecting both spacetime and quantum field theory as quantum gravity...
@@jainalabdin4923
Thats just not how the quantum world works, though.. you can calculate how a quantum system develops over time. Its always one way.
Think of time like this: cause preceeds effect. Thats it. You can measure the "arrow of time" by drawing an arrow from the cause to the event. That arrow points the same way in classical and quantum physics..
I dont understand why everyone is so convinced there is this unified field theory.. Gravity doesn't appear to be a field. Or they want to "unify the 4 forces", but gravity doesn't appear to be a force, either.
Quantum Gravity is a nonsensical term to me. Gravity seems to be geometric in nature. It is caused by its relative geometry within the "fabric of space". None of the forces seem to act in the same way, as their interactions seem to be algebraic in nature.
Quantum loop gravity seems like it could be fruitful because it attempts to explain how the fabric that mass warps to create gravity acts in a quantum way.
Gravity is the only "force" that has an infinite range of effect. It never tapers off to zero. Why would it be surprising if its also the only "force" that has a minimum limit of effect?
Basically, gravity seems to be fundamentally different from the other forces, so why are we so sure they can all be "unified"?
@@falseprophet1024 Quantum Gravity isn't clearly defined and is used loosely in various ways, but my meaning is how spacetime (gravity) interacts at the quantum scale. Quantum Gravity would be the glue that explains both the classical and quantum world.
I'm disagreeing with the notion that quantum systems develop one way. The quantum world, before the wavefunction collapses, suggests a particle being everywhere, where everywhere is a place in 4D spacetime, which means both 'past', 'present' and 'future'. When the wavefunction collapses, it does so to the present for us to measure observables. The notion of the arrow of time comes from this in the classical world. Prior to collapse, there is no notion of this arrow.
The idea that the quantum world develops one way doesn't consider particles vibrating in 4D spacetime, rather it constrains time with an arrow, and lets the system develop in 3D space.
Electricity: 99,99% of the Universe is constituted by plasma, and yet most astropshysics ignore it as one of if not THE most important force ruling the universe. That's so frustrating.
Agreed. One can get the sparks flying when mentioning the "Electric Universe" or the "Plasma Universe"!
I don't understand why works such as "Cosmic Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "The Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Anthony Peratt, and many others receive more attention from Astronomers and Cosmologists. Maybe they didn't take E&M in grad school.
Images and data from JWST provide compelling evidence that the gravity-only assumptions require scrutiny.
I love his humility. Science needs more of it.
No sale. A drop of water, released into a vacuum, assumes a circular formation, not a flat pancake. If the release of atoms takes on a flat configuration, what force constrains them in a flat form? Your conclusion requires more X factors, no fewer. It is far from economical. These unknown truths are filled with variables that, at this point, are little more than belief systems.
The reason why a measurement of the ' Double slit ' experiment interferes with wave pattern, is because of two perameters, 1. the electron that is being fired at the double slit, is not a single solid particle, but a cluster of much smaller particles that make up a cloud that fills every available empty space throughout the universe. This cluster, which is how energy travels as quanta such as a photon of visible light. From this, it will be seen that the signal pulse being fired at the double slit barrier, is moving through a cloud of the same particles. Just like pushing water through water.
2. The measuring equipment being used, is also using the same particles, which would be like sending a jet of water through water at a different angle to the first. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
1. You just invented more untestable particles.. you sure you arent a string theorist?
2. Why do these new particles move out of the way if you try to measure the photon as it passes through the slit, changing the pattern the photon makes on the detector?
@@falseprophet1024 Thank you for the reply. I am most certainly not a string theorist, I just can't accept this theory at all. I have been working on two hypotheses, one is to do with quantum mechanics, the other with an alternative to the big bang and the idear that the universe inflated and is expanding.
To help you make sense of what I am saying, I will list below a few of the anomalies of the standard model that led to me proposing an alternative hypothesis. I will also post a brie extract from my hypothesis, which you may find interesting.
I Personally do not believe that the double slit experiment proves anything, because the parameters that are being used are wrong.
2. In answer to this question, it is because whatever is being used to fire at the double slit barrier, are not solid discrete particles, but a culster of very much smaller particles. These particles are negatively charged monopole particles, which are repelling each other in every direction.
As these clusters of particles are travelling through a cloud of the same particles there will exist a wave pattern before the double slits are encountered, so there will exist an interference wave pattern the other side of the barrier, no matter what passes through the slits. Any measureing equipment will either be absorbing or emitting the same particles, therefore having an effect on what is passing through the slits.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is millions of times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong.
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative.
F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space?
Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation.
I hypothesize that everything in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small particles that I have proposed.
One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fills every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe, in a cloud called the ' Harveytron Cloud '.
These particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion that is produced by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This is the force that keeps all of the planets suspended, and stops them from being drawn to each other, and is what is causing the expansion of the universe ( if it is ). It is also one of the forces of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion.
The second, is a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, called a ' Dannytron ', which, in combination with the ' Harveytrons ', make up all of the nuclei and therefore all of the nuclear matter in the universe. They are what makes up the other force of gravitational attraction between the nuclear matter of the universe.
Starting with the atom, I believe that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model, are man-made, and just pieces of nuclear detritus following collider collisions.
I believe that the nucleus is composed of successive layers of the two positive and negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ' and ' Dannytrons ', that I describe, like a gobstopper sweet.
The different elements being determined by the number of the positively charged ' Dannytrons ' contained in the nucleus. Beyond the last layer of positively charged particles there exists just the negatively charged ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. This boundary is determined where the point of equilibrium is reached between the attractive force of the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus to the negatively charged particles in the ' Harveytron cloud ', and the repulsive force of the ' Harveytron cloud ' and the negative charge of the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the nucleus meets.
Beyond this boundary, there exists only the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' monopole particles throughout every available empty space in the universe, creating a negative force of repulsion throughout the universe, and is one of the two components of gravity.
I would contend that these monopoles, do not give up their charge, and the forces of each, extend through each particle, which in the case of the positive extends to the boundary of the atom and the negative extends to the centre of the nucleus.
Electron.
I contend that the electron is not an elementary solid particle, but a cluster of the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' particles that I propose. These clusters form due to the mass of the ' Harveytron Cloud ' trying to reach the nucleus, and as any force is applied to the atom, a pulse of energy is ejected from one atom to the next as happens with the photon.
The quantity of energy in these pulses is always the same and is a constant. The charge held by these clusters, is not equal to the positive charge of the nucleus, but just a proportion of it. the amount of charge equal but opposite that of the nucleus, is distributed throughout the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom.
I would be intrested in your thought, Kind regards,
Tony Marsh
@Tony Marsh
Sure thing. I was just making a nerd joke with the string theorist comment.
Its an interesting idea, and i like trying to come up with new explanations for stuff, as well, so please dont take this the wrong way, but i think you have a few fundamental misunderstandings leading to some flaws in your thinking.
The Double-Slit experiment proves that the universe is quantum at its base.. and honestly, a probabilistic universe makes the most sense to me.. I still dont understand why you would get the 2 different results according to your hypothesis. Or how your particles that actually fill the universe changes anything. The detector is only registering the position of the photon. It seems like you should get the same result, unless the 2nd detector is somehow clearing these "aether particles" from the path of the photon..
2. If electrons were constructed as you propose, made of a cloud of distinct particles that all repel each other, atoms wouldnt be able to hold together.
Okay, now let me try to answer your questions.
a. Because the electron is in a superposition, actually existing in every place within the electron shell, until it is "measured".
b. I dont really understand the question. It doesnt take energy to maintain your momentum, aka inertia. The electron "gets its energy" from the nucleus, more specifically it is bound to the opposite/attractive charge of the proton, and because the electrons angular momentum must be conserved, it has to act like the standard model describes.
c. The "external influnece" on the electron is the protons in the nucleus through the electro-magnetic force.
d. What do you mean by "charge holding capacity"? They dont exert the same force, which is why the electron spins around the nucleus, and they dont spin around each other. An analogy would be asking how the Earth has the same gravity holding capacity as the sun?
e. The presence of electrons in the nucleus doesn't make the charge of the nucleus negative, due to their relative size. The nucleus has a positive charge that is slightly reduced by the presence of electrons in the nucleus, but the nucleus still has an overall positive charge..
f. The accepted view since Einstein is that space is a fabric that has an energy value (zero point energy) and can be warped. See quantum loop gravity as an example of a theory that tries to explain what the fabric is made of.
You haven't actually proposed what you think you have. Your two fundamental particles are somehow both fundamental, and made of the particles in the standard model that we know exist through observation. And honestly, unless your 2 fundamental particles are quantum, and therefore probabilistic in nature, then they dont agree with observation.
Which of the unbelievables do you have the hardest time accepting?
A. The probabilistic nature of reality, and the idea of superposition?
B. Non-locality (spooky action at a distance)?
C. The measurement problem in QM? (The electron deciding where it actually wants to be, but only when we measure it.)
@@falseprophet1024 Thank You for your considered reply. Obviously, without seeing the whole of my hypotheses, it is hard to convey my thinking.
I will try to respond fully tomorrow, but for now, I will just copy a section of my QM hypothesis regarding the electron. In answer to the last part of your reply, I don't agree with the SM view all three of them, and these points are discussed in my hypotheses. Anyway, have a look at the following and give me your thoughts. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Electron.
It is proposed that the accepted view, that an electron is an elementary solid particle, is incorrect, and that it is in fact a collection of the much smaller negatively charged monopole particles that I have just described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘. I believe that these particles would be the finitely smallest particles in the universe, and would constitute everything that exists in the universe, with the exception of the positively charge component contained in every nucleus that exists. Also I propose that these particles would form a cloud ‘, the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud, that fills every available empty space within the atom and the universe.
Just to emphasize the point, I believe that the electron, as a solid particle does not exist.
It is proposed that the electron as it is described in the standard model, is in fact a parcel of the much smaller negatively charged monopole ’ Harveytron ‘ particles described in my hypothesis, and is the quantity of negatively charged particles to be contained together, before the charge they contain is released as a Photon, or as a pulse of energy outside the spectrum of visible light. This quantity of charge is a constant, throughout the whole of the universe,and is the quantity of charge contained in a quanta of light or electromagnetic radiation, when the threshold quantity of charge able to be held within the boundary of the atom is reached.
This is analogous to an electrical circuit, containing a power source, a capacitor, and an SCR, whereby, when power is applied to the circuit, the capacitor begins to charge, until the trigger voltage of the SCR is reached and it fires, at which point the capacitor discharges in a pulse.
The way that these clusters form, is due to the interaction between the opposing positive and negative forces in the nucleus and any external force applied to the atom pushing the negative particles up to the point where the pressure cannot be contained by the atom, and the energy contained in these bunched particles is released to the adjoining atom. The quantity of negative charge surrounding each nucleus, is strongest nearest the nucleus, and gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus. At the point where the force of attraction to this charge from the nucleus reaches equilibrium with the force of repulsion between the negatively charged monopoles is reached, this is the boundary of the atom. This is also the boundary that the positive charge forming the strong nuclear force extends to. From this point out, there only exists the negative force of repulsion in every direction in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
I contend that the whole of the available empty space within the boundary of the atom, as described in the standard model, is filled with these particles, and the amount of negative electrical charge equal and opposite to the positive charge carried by the nucleus, attributed to the electrons, as described in the standard model, is distributed throughout the mass of these particles.
The negative electrical charge that would be carried by the electron in the standard model is in fact, just a small proportion of these particles, and of the negative charge within the area surrounding the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. I also hypothesize that these particles do not fly around at speed, but are at rest unless exited by an external force, other than trying to get closer to the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus, and contributing to the strong nuclear force.
Beyond the last layer of the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles forming the nucleus, as I will describe later, there are only the negatively charged monopole ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles in a cloud that encompasses every space within the universe. This cloud is negatively charged, and forms a negative force of repulsion exerting a repulsive force in every direction.
As these negatively charged particles cluster around the nucleus, they are held very strongly by the positively charged particles making up the nucleus. As the positive and negative particles are monopoles that do not give up their force of attraction and repulsion, there exists a complex interaction between these particles in the nucleus. The attractive and repulsive force of each particle, extends through adjoining particles. Although the negatively charged particles are trying to repel each other, this repulsion is a standard pressure in the ‘ Harvetron Cloud ‘. However, because the positively charged particles are trying to attract the negative particles from every direction, and their force of attraction extends beyond the boundary of their neighbouring oppositely charged particle , there is in effect, a double force pulling and pushing the nucleus extremely tightly together. This is the ‘ Strong Nuclear Force ‘.
As more negatively charged particles try to get to the nucleus, a dense shell of the negatively charged particles forms due to the very strong attraction of the positive particles in the nucleus. As these negatively charged monopole particles can’t get any closer to the nucleus, this is the boundary of the atom. From this point out, there exists only the negative force of repulsion, and equilibrium is reached in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘.
The negative force of attraction to the nucleus gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus until the force reaches equilibrium within the cloud, to become the weak force, and a constituent of gravity.
At the point where the boundary of the atom would be defined, it is possible that the negatively charged monopole particles, might bunch up, as they are being pulled by the positive particles in the nucleus, but also being repelled by the negative particles already in this region. This could be what is visualized as an electron. Any applied force would then cause the energy contained in these bunches, to be released as a photon.
Elements, Isotopes, chemistry.
My model of the atom would still respond the same as in the standard model.
The different element are determined by the quantity of the positively charged ‘ Dannytrons ‘ contained in the nucleus. The larger the number, the higher the atomic number element it is.
As the quantity of these particles contained in the nucleus are not constrained by any given quantity, such as a whole proton or neutron, as in the standard model. The variation is infinite, as the particles are so small. There may be thousands of these particles that would make up the equivalent quantity of positive charge as one proton. This explains the capacity for Isotopes to exist.
Chemical bonding.
This works the same as in the standard model of the atom, the only difference, is that instead of a single solid electron forming a co-valent bond, a cluster of my ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles, or the energy they contain is what moves.
The fact that there exists a threshold level in the outer boundary of the atom that has to be reached before a quanta of energy is released, means that there is a potential deficit or excess about a mean value of charge contained in the outer boundary of the atom, allowing it to receive or eject energy from or to other atoms.
@@tonymarshharveytron1970
The problem is that any theory you build that doesnt include those 3 "unbelievables" you are seeking to avoid is observably inconsistent with reality.
What a joy to hear these men of honour, integrity, and good heart, speaking about things that really matter. Both so generous of sentiment and humanity. True Gentlemen.
This was fantastic. Perfect balance between technical and simplified. Plus, Neil is just a pleasure to listen to... you can feel the boundless curiosity and passion for the field.
Thanks very much
You talk about simple Universe... But simply did not know 70% of it, but you define it simple... What a miracle of human creativity!
Thank you both Neil and Brian, for a lively and interesting conversation, really looking forward to the follow-up, it's so cool that Neil had the freedom to explore his work at the Perimeter Institute, which as a Canadian I'm so very proud of our governments put in motion and continue to support. Thank you both again very much.
Well said
Neil.
@@MrDino1953 Thank you, corrected my mistake.
This mathematical formulation explained in this video can be formed out of spherical geometry based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670, that said: “Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4π wave”. We can have the same geometry at the big bang as we have with photons interacting with electrons. Light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’. The two dimensional surface of the sphere could form a manifold for positive and negative charge and the holographic principle. No need for the extra dimensions of String Theory, the interior of the sphere is naturally 3D forming the inverse square law of EM and gravity. The wave-function ψ² is squared the electron e² is squared and the speed of the process c² is squared representing one geometrical process. When there is an exchange of energy in the form of a photon ∆E=hf electron coupling the energy levels cannot drop below the centre of the sphere because it is relative to the radius. This forms a constant of action in space and time that we see mathematically as the Planck constant h/2π. Because the square of probability is relative to the spherical surface (wave-function ψ²) and the centre of the sphere (Planck constant h/2π), it forms another constant in the form of the Fine Structure Constant 1/137.
I don't have enough time to take this pod cast in, in its entirety, at one sitting ... so I am differentiating by parts :- ) . Thanks to Neil and to you for having this discussion. I think I was one of those who made the request. Personally, I'm kind of stuck on the idea of bulk space at the fundamental level being permeated by interacting forms of Scalar fields ... the Higgs being just one example. Its going to take me a while to work through this entire discussion but I wanted to thank you and Neil for providing his unique perspectives.
As a physics fan on youtube, I always loved Neil Turok. He has been always kind and honest.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
@@DrBrianKeating The thing that I loved is that , as far as I understood, physics may return to "simple theories" . I liked it because it was going to infinite universes, particles etc. So it was harder to grasp things for us ordinary people who like to follow physics and physicists 😊
This episode was a treat. My favorite guest of yours.
I was very interested in physics at school and went on to study engineering but only at HNC level, I love problem solving and knowing how and why things work and do what they do. It’s people like you, Eric Weinstein, and Curt Jaimungal that have inspired me to start learning again. I’m only starting with Brilliant to get my feet wet again but will hopefully go on to study a degree in Math and Physics, not for want of work but just out of pure interest. I’m 37 now but it’s never too late. Thank you.
37 is definitely not too late. There are people in their 60s going at it.
I always get time to watch these as I slip into bed after putting the kids down and cannot stop watching until I totally crush my good nights sleep. I will contemplate what I heard all day tomorrow though which I enjoy, and that’s what makes an extra tired work day worth it. Great conversation as always.
Thanks very much. Please do me a favor and share it with two friends. Thanks ! Have a great week
So, quantum mechanics is 'simple', although we have no idea why it is necessary... and General Relativity is 'simple' although most solutions to it cannot be calculated. Hmm. Simple. Also, and more importantly, the physicists (other than me) accept that in some way the universe chose to conform with the equations of these two theories at the moment the universe arrived? Or, even if the universe goes all the way back (against even the simplest laws of logic) somehow the universe chose to conform to these equations... and you can't say it is simple, but seems to be complex to our tiny minds, for then the complexity is lost.
“Why” is not a scientific question. It’s for philosophers.
@@GH-oi2jf Fair enough. The bother is that there is just one world, so necessarily all well-founded knowledge must span all disciplines.
@@GH-oi2jf There is only one domain of knowledge, and it includes physics, maths and philosophy. The divisions are put there only to make the sub-domains manageable. So, 'no', the weight rests on the shoulders of all.
"The evidence is we've been missing something." - Neil Turok
This is inspiring. Let's get empirical. Back to first principles?
get rid of "gravity" being the answer to everything. Think electric, plasma magnetic fields.
Neil Turok confirms my amateur guess, that physics has become extremely complicated. I think that science today can't afford to change their models because many institutions and careers etc depend on the models staying, which leads to adding fudge factors instead of claiming falsification. Similar or even worse compared to the increased complexity of the epicycle theories centuries ago.
So like the efforts of neo Darwinism to explain organized complexity
This was wonderful. I'm an English teacher (yeah, really). But I love reading ABOUT physics, well truthfully about the history of physics. The subject is fascinating, though I'm barely able to skim the surface. Yet this conversation was a thrill; I'd watched a lecture by Turok before on the Royal Institute website, but the informal discussion format here allowed Turok's warmth and humanity to shine. Keating and Turok are thoroughly engaging, even for a physics tyro. Thanks to you both.
Molly Thanks very much ! Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝
If you haven’t already
Dr. Keating, if you'd like to explore alternative views, please do an interview with Eric Lerner and talk about the big bang theory.
When you show what time the video will be available, you should maybe mention what time zone that applies to. It’s a big world out here.
GMT -8 (PST/PDT)
All of mainstream cosmology is wrong. The very approach of using Einstein's field equations which are gravity equations in a situation where there is no center of gravity is absurd to begin with.
I love Neil's ideas. Although I find it hard to distinguish between his idea of cyclical cosmology and Roger Penrose's CCC. I would love to see the two of them talking about that, that would be epic.
Penrose idea runs forward in time, where as this anti universe has time and entropy going in reverse.
I would argue that physicists, far from being in crisis, are in their most welcome state: Knowing they don't know something and trying to answer a big question.
It's exactly where physics belongs.
Neil is very clear presenter, I really liked his lecture and respect his thoughts on the philosophy and direction of physics.
Thanks
A physicist describing the Higgs Boson as water is very refreshing (about bloody time too IMO). Dark matter is an ocean of HBs, black holes are an ocean of dark matter that is spinning.
The universe is the most the most simple simplex said TUROK! I really miss his lectures!
Great interview Brian. I’m American but was a post-doc doing colloidal physics at Edinburgh back in the 90’s. It is great to see they have Neil Turok there now.
Thanks Phil Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Really enjoyed this. Pure gold 😊. I hope you can have Neil back to update on his work.
My pleasure. Please share far and wide.
Einstein's "blunders" -- I studied ancient history under a brilliant scholar. When critiquing my dissertation drafts he would occasionally say something that I, who had studied a point in detail, knew was wrong. When I revisited the question, though, I found that he with his vast knowledge of the field, was right. Even when he was wrong, he was right.
IF Turok IS right, what are the implications for Physics pedagogy? Is there a better way to teach physics and get more people to study it?
"Whereas when we look at our theories, they have become unbelievably complex, arcane with a million assumptions, and 'fixes'. And starting about five years ago I basically decided this has all become a bit of a joke, to be honest. What we should be doing is being strongly guided by the data to constructing much simpler models of the universe. And by 'simpler' I don't mean less precise, or vaguer, or anything like that, I mean the evidence is that we've been missing something." Neil Turok.
Thanx for getting Neil on! Indeed one of the top minds, and one of the few who realizes we need to re-built physics from a more basic fundamental setup. That is not easy when our main way of trying to understand the architecture physics and our cosmos is basically reversed and bottom up from mathematical approximations. Yes we get very helpful mathematical approximation (GR and QP) but no we cannot derive the simplest physical architecture from that in reverse (the standard model is not a helpful in between for that). Mathematical Correlation to the architecture does not equal causation and this bottom up approach generated too many 'epicycle' assumptions to unlock true simplification. DM, DE Mass- energy 'equivalence' being the top 3. Let me give you an example of how easy we make implicit assumptions which we are not even aware of; On the subject of cosmic flatness; we observe the outer cosmos to be flat. Correct. But does that mean it IS actually flat? If in QP terms, energy is the inverse of space and mass the inverse of time (Penrose 2019). From this it follows that cosmic flatness may very well be the result of POSITIVELY curved spacetime outside of our galaxy and NEGATIVELY curved spacetime inside our galactic orb. Like wearing glasses, positively curved spacetime seen trough our galactic glasses of negative curved (Riemann) spacetime would appear flat. This diffraction effect would suggest that spacetime near galaxies further away would be diffracted most, which means any light propagating in it would have most REDSHIFT, indicating redshift asa function of DISTANCE, not SPEED which in turn voids the NEED for dark energy. I earlier explained why indeed the grid inside our galactic orb would be dominated by the energy mass grid (explaining the strange effect we fill in with dark matter). So I would suggest you and Neil collect all major paradoxes (DM, DE, inflation, mature galaxy) and see what approach VOIDS them before we treat them as givens. I could assist you in the reversed engineering principles for getting to the real simple fundamental principles. The answer is clear, but top physics people need to walk this road yourself, otherwise you will never believe how many roadblocks are human created.
Always refreshing to hear pleas to humility, simplicity, and the recognition that modern physics and cosmology are likely barking up a lot of wrong trees. In that spirit, why not let us perform a simple gravity experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632, an experiment that is often discussed, but has not yet been done?
Drop a test mass into a hole through the center of a larger spherical mass and see what happens. The apparatus may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. Most physicists respond to this idea by saying something like: “No need to do the experiment, because we already know what would happen if we did.”
I would love to discover that Keating and/or Turok are exceptional for actually seeing the value in doing the experiment as soon as possible. For to do so would simply be to abide by the empirical ideals of science and at last fill this large gap in our empirical knowledge of gravity.
Neil is just a Humble person and seems to be the best guy to, bring his views to the world and Arguing his point,but will agree rightly and to all criticisms of them, what seems so hard for others to do.Thats the only way to move it all forward. Brian always,Always great conversation and Topic.
Thanks again Shawn
Glad to see more people talking about this. Science has been misused for a long time as a tool to justify mistakes instead of learning from them, as a real scientist would seek to do. Sincerely I would be so grateful if this type of thinking became the norm.
All physicist should be as humbly intelligent - thanks for this surprise presentation with NEIL !
What an enjoyable dialogue. His ethical will statement reminded me of something said by D.T. Suzuki. Not exact but along the lines: "Nature created us so as to marvel in itself."
What a tremendously elegant, disciplined, and economic way of approaching some of the deepest open problems in modern physics ! Enjoyed each one of his insights and proposals: even if they turned out to be wrong, his approach should be an example to other theoreticians. Thank you Brian for arranging such an illuminating interview !
thanks soooo much -- *Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 **briankeating.com/list*
My Son studying in University of Edinburgh BSc. (Hons) theoretical physics , He emailed you so many times to discuss about work he has been doing of very high level in quantum gravity and you also gave response to meet in September last year but you were busy. Your assistant also given time to meet in November last year but till now you haven’t given time my Son emailed you so many times. Please meet him as early as possible.
So how did the mountains form on other planets then? Mars, Pluto? Lots of carbon from algae?
I can't tell you how proud we are in Scotland to be able to attract such influential scientists to our wonderful country.
This was one of your finest interviews Brian for a number of reasons. Chief amongst which was the change in your approach.
More of this please Brian, your podcast is becoming a "must watch" and your guests are stellar.
Thanks for this one...so good that I've watched twice already.
Thank you, very much. Reward me by sharing it with at least two friends
Our wonderful UK indeed.
Thinking that I know and love the standard model so much that I bought the T-shirt. Now with fancying the model however equipped me to understand the immensity beyond the standard model. Fortunate to awe about the life time accomplishments of
I can’t help but contextualize his view that theoretical physics is off the rails and into the weeds of complexity in terms of biological reality, specifically age-as in his.
As we get older we tend to proceed with more caution and hold more firmly to simplicity. It is natural and even beautiful. The older tend to stand up for boundaries, classic achievement, and tradition.
In the words of Grandpa Simpson: “I used to be with it, then they changed what it is. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what is it seems weird and scary to me. It will happen to YOU!”
We need smart young people to push boundaries and head in wayward directions or science hardens into religion, even if only one in a hundred thousand stumbles onto something of fundamental consequence.
The reason for some of the issues is that light slows down over time. This is why Hubble's observation of redshift getting more significant the further it's source gets sort of works. If the light is slowing the longer it travels then obviously the redshift will increase the further away we look. So space isn't expanding like we need to happen trying to deal from our perspective. And we don't need the dark matter because it's not expanding. Some is going away, some coming closer. But the big red shift is a result of photons slowing because light speed is not a constant. We know this as it changes in other mediums, but we dismiss it when looking up.
And no expansion means no need for a big bang. So the problems with the big bang go away.
I found real satisfaction in what Turok was saying all along, and restated at the end: The Universe is telling us what it is, that it is simple, and DON'T get lost in the details of your theory. Not being a mathematician, I'm aMAZed at how some get lost in things that math says MAY be true, and lose sight of the fact they may NOT be true.
The starting point of physics is the idea of inertia, but "The knowledge of the straightness of the movement of a body left to itself does not follow from experience. On the contrary!" (Einstein). The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces. (Newton's first law is not a special case of Newton's second law.) GR reduced gravity to inertia by generalizing the first law: the free movement of test bodies occurs along geodesic lines, but the theory did not find out anything new about the nature of the cause of inertia forces. "... the complete geometrization established by GR introduces a hierarchized cosmos on the plane, indicating indirectly the presence of an elusive source." (Tonnelat). It seems that this source of external-external inertia forces is an "absolute vacuum" - instead of Newtonian "absolute space", which "... as a cause, does not satisfy the need for a causal explanation." (Born). Finally, the search for the root cause became possible after Friedmann spoke for the first time in a scientific way about the "creation of the world", and even then there was an opportunity to abandon the a priori nature of the law (more precisely, the axiom) of inertia, and build physics on a more reliable basis.
P.S. "The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10 ± 27." (See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921). Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2, where i is inertial constant:k*=1/i =7,429*10^-29[cm/g] {=r(pl)/m(pl)}. k*=(1/8π)k.
From Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), and without the need to involve the concept of curvature of space-time), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: фG=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w=-(1/2)[c^2/w(pl)]w:
"Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein).
The constant c^2 / 2w(pl) in the final formula is a quantum expression of Kepler's second law: the quantum inertial flow Ф(i)= (½)S(pl)w(pl)= h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).
One of my favorite discussions in a long while. So great to listen to you both
Thanks
the problem with testing a theory of everything is that we are certainly limited in our potential actions and there are certainly fields that we cannot measure that are fundamental to understanding the Universe in its entirety. Also the reason why the Universe appears to be flap the farther out we observe is simply because energy takes the path of least resistance and the path of least resistance across vast and nearly "empty" space (aside from virtual particles of course) will always be a straight line to the observer, in that when we measure fields and wavelengths that exist within fields what we notice is that relative to any location in space time the information density of a wave is always higher in the center of the wave because we simply see the way energy travels around the densest points in relation to the observer in the shortest route possible because the brain and the Universe at large wants to save resources.
This was thoroughly enjoyable to listen to. it is such a treat to herd Prof. Neil Turok speak because he makes these difficult physics concept so accessible to laymen like myself. Also, the interview by Dr.Brian Keating was extremely professional; great questions and alwayss allowing Neil to speak without ever interrupting unnecessarily. Loved the content!!
Thanks very much Bari
The universe is unseeable, if knowable. When we look in the sky we see layers of time superimposed on our image of the cosmos. Supposition, the universe rotates. When we look we see multiple revolutions, we see the same galaxies, all at once, from different places and times in the past showing up in our array. This would mean the universe is smaller and the number of galaxies is fewer. We are seeing the same galaxies over and over. I know light is fast. The universe is big and old. Do the math. Remember, the observer is moving over time as well. From an experimental point of view. Pick an object(s) (a cluster(s)?). Characterize them. Look for them elswhere. Where? I'm working on that.
I love his approach and feel he’s on the right track. Btw, String theory and multiverses are utter nonsense, imho
They have become "Scinetific Religion" as far as I can see. The proponents state if you don't believe your not smart enough. They can't prove or predict, you must beleive. They sound great... like a good Sci fi story. Then you have the "if it can happen it did/does somewhere in the (marvel😂cough cough) multiverse!
The way to combine QM and spacetime is to accept that QM is a small consequence of spacetime. QM is the study of the play, the rock concert, the conference but it does not describe the theatre. The theatre has to be built before any events take place. The creation of the CMB marks the beginning of EM, it does not exist before then. The early universe was just spacetime, colder and denser, a flowing liquid.
An outstanding interview - many thanks !!!
Thanks please share with two friends
Physics main challenge comes down to better understanding the relationship between the epistemological and the ontological. Essentially, "what" we think about the Cosmos and "how" we've arrived at those thoughts actually effect Universal properties and behaviors. Even on a superficial level, we see this truth embodied in all the many artifacts now populating our daily lives. And yet, there's more to be seen than that. It may prove out that the very substance of which all such things are made have undergone a subtle change in essence. By this way of thinking, we are not simply crafting things based on their intrinsic properties, but actually shaping those properties ourselves...
On the flip side sometimes the reason a theory goes wrong isn't the theory per say but rather the use of bad assumptions to simplify our models in such a way that they become prescriptive rather than predictive.
A perfect example is the whole "we only need 5 numbers claim to describe the universe" as work last year by Nathan Secrest et al (2021) has built on the huge body of evidence that observationally contradicts that by showing there is up to 4.9 sigma discrepancy between the CMB dipole and a dipole constructed from 1.36 million cosmologically distant quasars.
As the cosmological principal is predicated on the assumption that the dipole in the CMB is purely kinematic i.e. not due to large scale structure of the universe.
The whole "evidence" for this "simplicity" in cosmology is entirely predicated on the *assumption* that the Universe is homogeneous and thus you can average observations over the whole sky for cosmologically distant sources if you don't assume that you no longer can use redshift as a direct measurement of distance as space can move/flow.
As a perfect example of things in physics that are on surprisingly shaky ground, @Dr Brian Keating have you looked at the implications of Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology? One "surprising" finding is that there hadn't been any real tests of the metamathematical domain of the Einstein field equations in the inhomogeneous and anisotropic limit, i.e. what does the set of all solutions to the Einstein field equations that obey the axioms of general relativity and preserve information.
If you run through the implications of the proof by contradiction used to derive the "no big crunch theorem" in "inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology" (Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore 2016) it implies that the conditions cosmologists have used to justify the assumption that the Universe can be approximated as a small deviation from the Friedman Lemaitre Robertson Walker(FLRW) metric solution.
It has been argued that because the early Universe was highly homogenous and isotropic that the universe should stay isotropic and homogenous at some distance scale. However the No big crunch theorem tells us that deviations from the FLRW metric solution must be *divergent* as this is the only way to avoid the possibility of logical discontinuities in the metric and we can check this as one of the defining properties of any system of differential equations is that there must exist a *unique* solution for each and every valid set of initial conditions, if the cosmological principal assumption were valid this would be violated at large scales and thus the left hand side of the Einstein field equations would be unable to match the right hand side with the degree of error growing along the temporal axis, that is to say the assumption requires a cosmological deletion of information at every timestep that violates causality as you need to erase photons that have expanded beyond the late universe cosmological event horizon.
In other words the assumption that FLRW can be applicable at some size scale is logically and causally forbidden in the large scale limit, as the size of the universe approaches infinity, for each and every possible choice of initial conditions. Note that the only reason I can't tell for sure if this isn't more general comes from a limitation in the original proof by contradiction rather than a reason to think it will not apply there as well) As a result the whole claim that the universe is simple to describe can quickly be falsified both observationally and theoretically
The only way I can find to avoid this turns out to be to allow the metric at all points in spacetime to be *uniquely defined* this comes with some other interesting consequences for example as terms in the off diagonal metric tensor can't cancel out perfectly and rather these terms grow to dominate with expansion it can therefore be stated that a natural prediction of the unconstrained Einstein field equations is that for any sufficiently large universe that is initially expanding it must nonlinearly expand forever.
By the way you might also notice that this is virtually identical (read is observationally indistinguishable from what we observe of the universe when we *don't* automatically assume the cosmological principal is valid which has a nice effect of automatically reproducing an inhomogeneous and anisotropic form of "dark energy" without requiring any additions to the model, i.e. its purely an effect of gravity and the initial anisotropy of the universe and causality in an expanding universe eliminating the possibility of spacetime expansion coming to a halt and contracting. Recent observations which take this into account show to the extent our highly data limited observations(anything with a sample size less than a million is too data deficient to confirm or eliminate any possible cosmological models allow i.e. they have a hard limit well below 4 sigma statistical significance without the assumption that the sky is isotropic and homogeneous) that the best fit for lambda is zero or close to it.
The no big crunch theorem also results in an interesting link between the total volume of the universe at any interval slice of time and time that outside of having units of volume is for all other intents and purposes is identical to the second law of thermodynamics. In order to see if there is anything more to this link its important to think about the problem in the context of information propagating outwards from initial points as 3 dimensional light cones accounting for interactions within each expanding bubble's light cones and now we apply gravitational path integrals that is to say sum of all the both possible and impossible paths. In this context it is fairly easy to see that this enclosed volume in this limit is in fact the cosmological event horizon and thus the volume in any time slice is directly related to the total entropy of that time slice of spacetime.
As in the context of information theory information is that which is needed to fully describe the system we see the reason the FLRW solution is allowed is precisely because a classical FLRW universe is conformally invariant and thus contains no information. FLRW is in effect only valid in the case of a purely classical empty universe. It should also be noticeable that this also implies there must be a nonzero gravitational potential between any two elements within the Energy stress tensor or alternatively that gravity is quantized. In some sense this isn't surprising but it does notably mean that the metric at any place in spacetime will have an additional nonlocal component with both diagonal and off diagonal components. For the off diagonal elements these simply serve to help amplify the magnitude of the "dark energy" but the diagonal elements should effectively help matter clump together due to the gravity of distant massive bodies which would result in a mathematical limit of Einsteinian gravity suspiciously analogous to MOND. In truth there are enough observations to suggest that this can't fully explain dark matter but it does mean that far less particle dark matter is needed to explain observations in the relativistic limit and thus the density of dark matter can be far lower. And with the nonlocal acausal connection between any two elements in the metric tensor this will naturally mean that every black hole as well as everything else is mutually entangled and the metric tensor thus can be thought of as the sum of all entangled states in the universe.
Really this shouldn't have been so hard to describe I can understand why this wasn't done more than a century ago because back them modern metamathematics had not yet been derived as the theories formal "founder" Kurt Gödel hadn't been born yet. However we have had a long time to test this and see what is truly allowed or forbidden, the fact that virtually all our modern models fall well outside the set of all possible valid solutions to the Einstein field equations is sad.
Had we done this earlier we could have seen that dark energy, entropy and the other laws of thermodynamics as well as quantum entanglement are all natural implications of informational symmetry and causality in the true unconstrained Einstein field equations. In other words just the equations with no prior assumptions to simplify them will give you a self quantizing spacetime complete with dark energy thermodynamics and entanglement all for free as causally enforced constraints.
Ultimately its looking like we likely don't need any new mathematics or theories we have already *had* the solution to quantum gravity for more than a century we were just not ready to understand it.
I have to say I find it hopeful and encouraging that the theory of inflation finally has a cogent challenger. Keep up the good work!
Thanks, will do!
Imaginary time has always bothered me and not because it's imaginary. The assignment I've seen used for its derivation should only be true when ||dx||=0 unless one dx is proper length and the other is coordinate (related by lorentz factor) then the derivation breaks as you can't cancel them.
To me, a more sensible route would seem to be just rearranging the metric since ds²=c²d𝜏² if you start with both coordinate dt and dx. You might need a negative sign in there depending on your preferred signature. I personally prefer to start with the metric c²d𝜏² = c²dt² - dx and rearrange to c²d𝜏² + dx = c²dt² and treat those as the norm of a Split-complex and Complex, respectively. Quaternion and hyperbolic quaternion if dx is a 3-vector. Note here I'm using imaginary space rather than time mainly because I'm used to using imaginary 3-vectors to represent Quaternions and the +--- signature never bothered me as that's what I expect from Split-complex and Hyperbolic quaternions. You do have to deal with the fiddly issue of imaginary ds values beyond 45 degrees and the indeterminate sign but they are relatively easy to handle with a little thought.
I doubt if that would fix the issue Turok ran into. One thing that still bothers me is that the transform between hyperbolic and circular rotational metrics requires TWO lorentz transforms on time intervals or lengths. The lorentz factor takes you from a hyperbola to a straight line or a straight line to a circle but not from a hyperbola to circle. That has never made any sense to me. A proper transform between Minkowski and Euclidean space should take a hyperbola and invert it into a circle just as a implicit plot of 1=x² - k y² does as you vary k from 1 to -1. It makes me worry we aren't actually working in the space we think we are in.
Maybe I've missed something, though. Physicists and mathematicians seem to be a lazy lot (compared to programmers who have well defined best practices for naming of variables and our notations rigorously avoid ambiguity) and are rarely as explicit as I'd like about whether things are functions of t or 𝜏 and they seem to not really care all that much that they call something velocity when it is actually dx(𝜏)/d𝜏. That's one of the reasons I've been thinking the Hubble tension is a mistake somewhere because it's exactly the split I'd expect for a confusion over 𝜏 vs t.
Excellent interview. Difficult challenge to get to the interesting depths of insight lingering in such insightful people. Thanks!
I love listening to Neil Turok and its aim for simplicity in mind bogging complexity.
Ronald *thanks for sharing favorite takeaway from this conversation!* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
@1:06:00 Like Turok says, the anti-verse is a perfect mirror reflection, used formally to derive the likely boundary conditions. It cannot be a real backwards time universe however because of quantum mechanics, which would rapidly mix up any reverse bounce. So it truly is just like the electromagnetic method of images. Having noted that, I'm rather inclined to go back to Penrose's CCC, since the boundary Turok and Boyle find can be interpreted as Penrose's conformally rescaled pseudo-boundary. I'd have loved to hear Turok be more generous to Penrose on this and think more on whether there is some compatibility there between the two models?
Physics today is mathematical sci-fi.
The general ledger can be tampered with by adding adjustments, but if it doesn't match the sub ledger one knows it's been tampered with.
Thanks Brian for these interviews, its is such a privilege to be able to here thoughts and ideas to this level.
A phrase which is most important to me is "bounded rationality", and as I see it the boundaries are indicated by evidence (with repeatability) but assumptions and fix-factors are the antithesis of bounded rationality. To put my personal "oar" into the argument, I see time as a social construct, which in itself cannot be measured. We can measure "periodicity" in our own terms but seemingly otherwise "actual" time does not exist outside our technology. It seems to be pointless to extrapolate from a circular argument.
Neil is brilliant, interesting views on world science festival a few years back. Thank you Brian for the work you do and the great guests you have on
My pleasure Ian. Please share far and wide.
Imagine that! A theoretical physicist advocating for a common sense approach to understanding the Universe. Astounding and refreshing!
Thank you. For who you are and what you do. You and your guests. Few things are as enlightening, inspiring and uplifting than these deep conversations of yours.
Wow, thank you! Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet. *_And stay tuned for more._*
Too many people trying to sound smart and not being smart. It's also creativity, it puting information together that we all know but seeing it from a different perspective
Wow awesome. I like thinking of different ways the universe could work whenever I'm learning physics. The copied time-reverse universe was an idea that came up, I like how it's articulated here since I can't really do the math yet.
I also thought off universes in blackholes and that matter is space-time fabric in a knot. Not sure how it's helpful but it's like a big puzzle. All of the ideas I come up with have already been described by others though.
K😊
If you make such an assumption that our universe is finite , then what you are talking about must be merely an extremely tiny part of the largest universe which contains or is composed of all the multi-universes, which you can make up , and thus the question about how large the largest universe is will still remain unanswered at all. In other words, no human scientist has ever been , nor ever will be able to know the size nor the boundary of the largest universe. That is why have been repeating that the space of the universe is infinite , and the universe here is the one which contains all the universes which you guys have imagined or assumed to be existing
Even if you were to be able to define the size or boundary of the largest universe of all, containing all the assumed
multi-universes, then, you would have to answer the question about what would be outside the boundary of that largest universe, and the same question will keep repeating forever because every time when you keep answering that there is another larger universe which covers the universe which you are talking about , and it would be merely a waste of time
I'm pretty sure it's turtles all the way down.
If there is a multi-verse, what are its boundaries. Is that multi-verse just another bubble in another multi-verse in another multi-verse adinfinium.
This was a great interview, I really enjoyed it. Thank you for bringing Neil on! Bring him back sometime soon!
Sure Please share the channel
1:07:13 the "transactional interpretation" of QM by John G. Cramer, seems like something worth looking more seriously into.
Very good job Brian, one of the best interviews i have seen. Very inspirational and well prepared guest.
Thanks very much. Please share it with two friends
Why would the Higgs Boson, a particle thats exponentially larger and more massive than a proton - be a building block of SMALLER matter lol. The higgs boson isnt necessary for for literally any fundamental force or property. It is purely a lab-created particle by colliding two particles causing them to spin in such a way that its radius expands to a frequency which resonates at the energy of the higgs -- and all spin resonances of particles are quantized steps so obviously you can predict where youre most likely to find a new particle -- at the quantized step of the doubling of the same basic particles gyroscopic motion..
All matter are photons spinning and doubling the spin radius, which increases the photons radius and mass, from radio wave -- to Proton, to Neutron, Higgs Boson -- its All photons with different stacked spin amounts .
The small builds up to larger and larger -- not he verse. MASSIVE particles do nto give infintesimal particles mass. Small particles are what give massive particles mass. ANd that mass is given through Drag. It's mass is simply the photon drag which a particle with a radius larger than a photon experiences, as its bombarded and swarmed by the smaller photons its accelerations are resisted and there is a convergence of photons towards less lense configurations which basically migrates baryons towards the same convergence just like the wind was all blowing towards the center of a large object. because the photons are all doing exactly that and colliding against the larger particles while they're moving. If you think matter is not photons and that mass comes from higgs bosons you are leading us astray.
Always love listening to Neil,amazing mind,amazing parents.
1) 'Adding another parameter' is known as Skinner's Constant: the number you apply to the number you have to get the number you want.
2) Adding an 'antiverse' is Skinner's Constant writ large.