As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - The Big Bang Is A Mirror 15:40 - Minimalism In Physics 28:28 - Neil’s Theory “Minimalism SM LCDM” 31:20 - Fields Vs. Particles 49:15 - The Arrow Of Time (Bolztmann) 55:44 - Black Hole Singularity Vs. Big Bang Singularity 01:09:21 - Numerology And The Number 36 01:19:26 - Neil’s Theory Solves EVERYTHING 01:23:32 - What Do Other Scientists Think? 01:36:28 - The Dual Universe 01:44:14 - Predictions From Neil’s Theory 01:48:28 - What Motivates Neil? 01:52:20 - Wave Function Of The Universe 01:57:20 - Support TOE
Large sections of population in many countries in the world do not care about the UFO/UAP/EBE subject at all... Why is that ? I am from such a country, India... though there is a Wikipedia article on UFOs and related events in India, but it is extremely miniscule and extremely rare, it doesn't have the same consistency and repeatitveness like in other countries of the world especially in the USA or other countries in the American continent. Nothing from India, We in India have never had any UFO culture/research/clubs/cults/sightings/abduction/cattle mutilation/landing/crash retrievals or anything that concerns this subject. A vast majority of people in India are totally ignorant about this entire subject itself because of the almost zero UFO experiences among the Indian population unlike the huge consistent UFO experiences in other countries from the Americas, Europe, Oceania and some even in Africa ect... Open any old or new books about UFO/UAP sightings, landings and abductions available in bookstores, a far majority of cases listed in those books are from North America especially the United States. These alleged incidents span throughout many years 1960s, 70s, 80s and till present. For example, The Indian Airforce, Navy, Army or the other branches of the armed forces/paramilitary or even the government space agency has nothing to say about this subject in the public domain of any possible experiences if they may have had with these entities in the skies above or the seas. They show a sense of complete ignorance, disinterest and disconnect to this entire subject... moreover nobody questions them on such things either. Asia has however always remained almost aloof to this entire subject, especially the countries like India ect.. probably aliens and their UFOs were not interested in Asian countries such as India from the very beginning unlike the Kenneth Arnold incident in the United States which opened a doorway to a brand new UFO culture in North America which later on gave way to so many socio-cultural UFO related trends in the western world like the emergence of UFO investigators, UFO clubs, UFO cults and religions ect. On the other hand, asian countries like India for example, did not have any such socio-cultural UFO related trends at all. Central and South America too had such claims about UFOs and it gave way to many such trends as well. Delegates from Central & South American Nations testify at the Citizens hearing held in W.DC, USA Central and South American Nations has had a totally different approach to how they treated this subject, many of the South American Nation's Governments and Military always kept an open mind to this phenomenon even since the 1950s & 60s; They have many government organisations and military departments which do in-depth research into this phenomenon and all this began way back during the early 50s & 60s..🔷
HERE WE GO AGAIN. Every time I hear one of these theories, it is as if everyone is trying to make it look original when, in fact, it is t the same perspective or combinations of different contemporaries. If Einstein, Durac, or Maxwell were alive, even theirs name wouldn't be mentioned. Roger Penrose got a Nobel prize because he proved that there has to be a singularity in a black hole and yet another guy has been arguing for 50 years that singularity is not a necessity (I have forgotten his name because his name is taboo and no one mentions it). He claimed that under certain conditions (analytic as this guy calls it), there can be a doughnut shape area where physics doesn't break down. In fact, most black holes don't have singularity, but who dares to say that now? He is just avoiding calling it a black hole or giving any credit to someone else. Then Roger Penrose also disagrees with inflation and talks about topology where there is no mass (clock as he calls, photons not experiencing time), then size doesn't matter, which is again what this guy is saying but as an original thought (my foot). Is it only me that sees everyone trying to claim the whole thing for themselves when it is actually a combination of ideas by different people? I think this is all vanity. No one wants to combine their perspectives. Everybody keeps claiming my theory is totally original and has nothing to do with what the other guy is saying when it is obvious that they are using one anothers ideas. Everybody is more interested in disproving one another rather than building on one another. The mirror universe also explains why there is no antimatter. They are all on the other side. Super symmetry, string theory, Conformal Cyclical Cosmoogy, and many others are all partial perspectives of the same thing. No wonder we are not reaching any concensus, and scientific papers are no longer trustworthy. No one even wants to read them or at least pretend not to have read them. The stupidity of such level of vanity is oustanding. Of course, no one dares to point out the obvious either. The Emperor is not naked because no one says that he is. They will ridicule you if you state the obvious and burry you in more jargon and red herrings that again no one would dare or have the motivation to save you. The absence of any response to this comment is it biggest proof. The brave only die once where cowards die every day. There is one exception which is Sean Carroll that is kind of different. Hie many world made me mad until he clarified it to say that the worlds he is talking about are in a different space-time which made me feel OK about it.
Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing
Lol we proved the universe is expanding...we proved the radius curve of the universe is the same as the radius curve of the atom ....what does this mean??? This is an important thing .... The atom is expanding!!! Lol So the question is are the atoms in a black hole expanding also? Or are they getting smaller? How do our size atom interact with the smaller and larger atoms? Yes gravity...dark matter is literally this but is there a physical interaction where two atoms of different sizes can interact? Lol answer no we are not in a place that interacts with different size atoms... Only gravity that's our only interaction with different size atoms ... Thanks for the work curt ...I owe you a coffee...you are at the right place at the right time... Everything is going to plan :) Calum McNeil
Well when you ultimately get to a torrential shape universe and understand that magnetism is a toroid with opposite spinning inward flow on each Pole, it's not hard to understand that the universe is a toroid on the other side of the mirror or singularity time Flows In Reverse and then there's a outward singularity on the outside of the toroid...
I see that other comments say much the same, but here is mine. In more than 50 years as an interested layman I have read / watched dozens, maybe hundreds, of books, articles, TV programmes / videos concerning these matters. Neil Turok, as exemplified here, is by far the best of the physicists who is able - without any teaching aids other than his voice - to explain not only his own work, but that of others. Wonderful. Thank you.
Clovisly, come see my Theory of Pitch Psychology. I postulate that our hearing is spectral, beginning with (love songs) as red (C-natural) and the colorings ending at B-natural as magenta (Spirit/transition). Not only does my theory explain why people are able to have (or even attain) perfect pitch, it reveals why composers unknowingly use different keys for different thematic/emotive effects. And in a cosmological sense, singularity would be the white light of all of the notes as one. A “single” spectrum. My videos are here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
Agreed! Like yourself, I am an avid physics layperson (though of perhaps just five, not fifty, years standing!), and like yourself I consume pretty much everything that time and money permit. And, in terms of being able to clearly and elegantly explain physical concepts, Dr Turok certainly rates very highly indeed. It is a shame that there are so few publicly available lectures of his out there, and that the few podcasts he does are essentially just platforms that he wishes to use (quite understandably) to explain his (quite attractive) model. One has to think that were he just a little more egotistical, or more publicity focused, then he could have been one of, if not _the,_ best popular science communicators alive today. Good luck on your physics journey, and have a great day!
This was a revelation. Neil Turok's incredible ability to explain such complex ideas in a way that is understandable to the layperson is a real gift both of his and to us. Curt, combined with your ability to ask Neil such focused and relevant questions is also a real gift. I couldn't pull myself away from this episode. THANKS SO MUCH!!!
@@TheoriesofEverything Revelation.. He stole this from works commonly titled "The Big Bang Is An Echo" on the various sites it was on around 7 years ago. Funny all these theoretical physics guys have to theorize about posts on other people's websites. At least host your own forums to steal ideas from Neil.
@@ConnorSinclair420 Ouch! Sad you feel that way. I do think you're being extremely unfair. But, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I'd suggest though, some gratitude to those who make great efforts and take the time to convey really important ideas in an accessible manner to those of us less gifted than yourself. To even have access to minds like Prof. Turok and others is a great privilege.
Did someone say Revelation? This theory is quite excellent. The mirror universe is the missing number 8 from my Complete 7 Thunders model. Basically we add the 4 corners of the square to the 4 corners of the projected 3D square in the holographic universe. My model is based on the 9 primary digits of Chaldean numerology, and should unite Science with Religion and solve basically everything. I will have it up within a day or two.
I've been an avid listener of Neil's lectures for some time. His clarity, his willingness to swing for the fences in searching for a Theory of Everything, and especially his intuition that reality is fundamentally simple, makes him an unsurpassed thinker and theorist in my mind.
That's giving undue reverence to "what the wise man says"... As a species, we shouldn't always take that attitude, one generation after another, whenever and wherever we across individuals who proclaim "we know how the universe works, really" ... that arrogance, that false benevolent assurances... it's mostly nonsense. Saying "the Universe, fundamentally, is very simple" is EXACTLY like saying, "Our God did it; here, everything is explained here in his HOLY BOOK." Neither has said any thing constructive, or meaningful... although both are very soothing in their "simple view" of "how the universe works." Fact of the matter is, NOTHING is simple. For some reason, Neil Turok hasn't cared much about basic science nor the history of science; he still has this early 1900 Arthur Eddington & Lord Kelvin blase, this arrogance, this all-knowing view... Nei's always speaking very calmly, with the biggest of smiles... like he knows something that NONE of humanity's many other members don't..... And that is that he knows how everything works & it's really, really simple & all that is left --- as Lord Kelvin said in the early 1900s ---- are just tiny details left to be worked out by lowly paid Post Doc. Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth. Fact of the matter is, we really are just a few tiny specs of dust in a universe that is close to 100BLY in diameter, assuming our rough calculations are somewhere in the ball park. The real substantial differences between us today in 2024 and our Bronze Age ancestors, in theory and in practice, aren't that great. Yes, we have a MORE systematized set of formulas & algorithmic approaches to mixing gun powder compounds... which give us better solid fuel rocket propellants. But it's fundamentally still the mixing of chemical compounds as the ancient Chinese haphazardly came across, in the 12th-13th centuries. AS AN OBVIOUS CONTRAST, COMPARISON: Building machines or other contraptions that operated on pure electron-positron manipulation, that operated on the "surfing" of gravity "waves" or contours .... like how the moon and Earth are revolving effortlessly around the Sun and how the solar system, in turns, operating effortlessly in the "gravity well" of the Milky War, etc.... now, THAT would be a true departure from gun powder, as well as, grinding crude mechanical parts & gears against one another, by the endless application of lubricant... Fact of the matter is, neither lay man nor Neil Turok nor Lord Kelvin nor Newton nor Einstein knows why or how sub atomic particles are the way they are, why they work the way they do, where they came from (again, saying things like "Everything came from nothing and I know how that works" is just gibberish: NOBODY knows how the laws of nature work or why they work the way they work), at the one end... Nor do we know how or why the LARGER STRUCTURES of the Universe works the way they do, on the extreme opposite... As a result, we ("the best and brightest" among humans) insist, one generation after another, that imaginary things like the ether, Planet Vulcan, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Angeles, Saints, Holy Ghosts, Evil Spirits, etc, are responsible... for how or why a certain natural process, event, or phenomenon works the way it does... Fact is, human descendants 10,000 to 50,000 years from today --- assuming we still exist as a species --- WILL LOOK BACK on the late 20th & 21st centuries & say to themselves "Wow quaint, how self assured folks were, when they still relied 100% on the Plow, Gun Powder, and that haphazard & dirty Internal Combustion Engine... with more than 90% OF THE ENTIRE SPECIES still into the various Stone, Iron, & Bronze ages various divine-based belief systems which said holy shamans, angels, saints, archangels, & this or that Creator of the Universe came to be among them, in this or that group, one era after another... holy Creators or Gods with endless power who dictated HOLY BOOKS & who, in mysterious ways, did things for them, upon prayers..."
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 An important aim of science has been to simplify our understanding of the world by explaining a wide diversity of phenomena in terms of a few underlying concepts. This in turn deepens our understanding.
Amazing, fascinating and impressive. Turok's ability to present his theory, at the same time humble about its shortcomings and the admittance that it may be plain wrong, reveals the mind of a true scientist.
As a layman, this was surprisingly accessible and understandable (up to a point of course). That's thanks to Turok's ability to explain it so clearly, with enthusiasm. I admire his minimalist approach! His description of the Big Bang does remind me of Penrose's CCC, although obviously reaching different conclusions.
I'm only a few minutes in, but this flip flopping real and imaginary time is pretty common. e.g, a sound wave with a real frequency is just a constant tone, and you make the frequency a little bit imaginary: bam, it decays away. So it's not that weird, so far.
Oh come on!! You know you're an expert in differential geometry, linear and non linear algebra, calculus and trig, and group theory!! It's easy!!....cough, cough...
I am actually a differential geometer, and I find the Turok-Boyle minimalist approach to be brilliant. My only quibble with his minimalism is that he does not consider the mirror universe to be physical. Of course we may never know, it may be unobservable, but the same could be true of the mirror boundary. So I would be agnostic about the physical reality, but find the mirror universe picture to be more elegant mathematically than the mirror boundary because it is more coordinate invariant. It also fits well with the physical picture of molecules going to the corner of the room and coming out again. From the natural arrow of time viewpoint, the universe expands into the past and future from a state of minimal entropy, just like the molecules do.
What an incredible interview. Niel explained his concept in a way i could grasp the edges of, and my mind opened to the possibilities from this frame. WOW.
A must listen; Neil comes across as a charming and passionate individual, and so concise and accessible in his descriptions (must be that minimalist thing). Brilliant stuff, the 2 hours flew by! thanks for the cast ❤️
Absolutely loved this one. Feel the same way about Neil as I do Jonathan Gorard. Both are energized and optimistic while so many other scientists seem like they could fall asleep at any moment. More scientists like Neil!
I believe that the universe is what it is. It’s not expanding or contracting and light is visible instantaneously to the observable field. Question If radio waves travel at light speed then why would it take 27,000 years to reach something “four light years” away? 🤷🏻♂️
The best theoretical physics discussion I've seen on RUclips in 10 years. I'm a fan of the Turok-Boyle minimalist theory approach. It's simplification eliminates most of the nonsense of various complicated "out there" theories of the last 30+ years.
@@tomcruisenukedmyaccount5388 Is this a problem? Do we have evidence of new particles? These 36 fields have the potential to solve many problems with present day physics such as the infinite vacuum energy's effect on GR. They make a list of all the problems it can solve. On top of that, they make a prediction of the fluctuations in the CMB which agrees with experiment (1:22:21) and an observational signature of the theory which can explain dark matter (1:26:43, 1:29:38, 1:32:00, the lightest left-handed neutrino must be massless). This is more than any of the other theories have done such as super symmetry or string theory. That alone is already a reason to consider work on this idea with optimism, unless you are a particle physicist who's bread and butter is searching for new particles with ever larger colliders.
Curt, you are just so smart, you have such an excellent background, and you phrase your questions so wonderfully. I can’t believe you got Dr Turok!! I just now found this, and I just needed to tell you how thrilled I am that I get to listen and watch this conversation. I love to listen to Dr. Turok, and I’m just thrilled that you’re the one interviewing him. So excited and thank you
Hit it out of the park once again! Thanks for bringing us these conversations Curt, great work. Thank you Professor Turok for sharing this information. 💯
You are an excellent interviewer. That you can follow along with the topics and then quickly ask the right question to generate more information in an interesting way is a testament to your skill.
I always got stuck on the 4th level(?) or thereabouts. I could never figure out what I was supposed to do; I killed all the dinosaurs and explored the map, but could never progress past that point. This was before one could GTS (Google that s***). So frustrating!
What an incredible interview. The credit goes not only to Dr. Turok, but to the interviewer. He made all the questions I was coming up with as Turok spoke. His questions and challenges were bright and timely and respectful and insightful. I am only left with one high-level question: true, the person in the mirror does not exist, but the mirror does. The analogy was that in order to solve the Maxwell equations in the presence of a mirror, one can "pretend" that the image on the other side exists and solve the equations for a world in which only the mirror exists. However, the problem originated by the existence of the mirror in the first place. It's possible that the mirror analogy is only a first-approximation for explaining the obscure mathematics behind it, but it does feel to me that a formulation using the analog of the method of images would necessarily point to something physical that represents the "mirror". The method is also used to find the field generated by a charge in the presence of a conductive surface, and again while the mirror charge does not exist, the surface does.
This was so fascinating, how promising! Especially appreciate Neil's commitment to predictive power in models, since we get definitive answers whether the model turns out correct or not. You are such a great interviewer Curt, it's really refreshing to hear someone asking questions and interpreting answers from an actually deep and knowledgable background.
Professor Turok is one of the physicist that best explains his very complex ideas for the general public. It is a pleasure listen to him. And also Jaimungal lets his guess explain it with almost no interruptions, only when necessary. Great channel.
An informative and inspirational discussion, filling me with hope that one day science will come closer to understanding the origins of our Universe. Thank you Neil Turok for being so open about your work and ideas, and to Curt for asking the right questions (and understanding the answers!).
Man! I am concern about the model of my posts on your videos, it is becoming a pattern. I seem to be repeating myself, but you just make it very hard to resist. I've learned so much about cosmology, particular physics and the way they correlate with each other in this video that it is making me giggle... Once again, such a great questioning, channeling through your curiosity that made possible to open up the knowledge chest that your guests possess. Neil Turok was extremely pleasant to listen to... Much obliged...
I like the idea that every black hole is a seed for a new universe, and looking/mapping our own growing universe, reveals a growing universe pulling energy via the "big bang" which is nothing more than a singularity point within another prior universe. Much like how a growing orange contains seeds for new orange trees, but asking what came before the orange, if you live within 1 trillionth of a random area within the growing orange, well... you'll have a very difficult time understanding trees and the seeds required to produce them.
Something about this makes sense. It's a very satisfying take on the nature of the universe. Large structures tend to reflect smaller structures, so it makes sense that every universe may in fact be a "fruit" grown from different "seeds". I think about the earliest stars, which were all built from simple hydrogen. The death of those stars allowed for increasingly complex atoms, which in turn led to heavier and more metal-rich stars, including the neutron stars that give birth to the heaviest elements in existence. It's a cycle of death and rebirth with increasing complexity which also feels deeply satisfying. Perhaps each black hole is another death-rebirth cycle that leads to new growth elsewhere.
But black holes grow when they merge, this would not happen if they have singularities, and they actually merge also which rather blows up the 'white holes' that could exist inside of them. Black holes also rotate which GR singularity does not take into account, and after 100 years, finally someone worked out what happens when they rotate, and their calculations show a black hole has spinning layers, which is close to what I have said, when you collapse something more than it can collapse, it starts to twist instead of compress. Look at magnetars, massive rotational energy.
@murraymadness4674 maybe. Problem is, no one has ever even seen a black hole accept via extensive computer modeling algorithms that fill in the noisy "picture" with what we believe should be there if only we could get a better view. So anything we believe about black holes could be completely wrong.
I've thought this also, but as the singularity forms and atoms are formed, wouldn't each universe form exactly the same way every time? Which would mean that every black hole is an exact duplicate of our universe at different points in time..
Imagine our universe as just one 3D slice of an immense 4D world. The universe didn't merely expand from a point, but dimensionally-it evolved from a point (0D), into a line (1D), spread into a plane (2D), and unfolded into the three-dimensional space we experience. But here’s the twist: it likely continued into a fourth dimension, beyond our observation. This explains why we can't see where the universe is expanding from-it's occurring in a dimension we don't perceive. What's more, the probability that we live in the original 3D slice formed at the start of this expansion is infinitesimally small. We are likely just one of countless 3D slices in a 4D cosmos, each experiencing its own version of reality!
Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing
@@kaitlynengelland2723 Indeed. The idea is the intuitive perspective that we are 3d slice of the 4d dimension, which in turn is embedded into higher dimensions.
I kind of liked and I am curious about your 0D reference. How would you describe or relate 0D to the spacial and temporal dimensions? ie, The absence of any space and time, or just the absence of space OR time, or as mathematical point within a void expanse.
@@axle.student Infinite 1D Expansions: Imagine the initial singularity as a point of infinite potential. From this point, not just one but an infinite number of one-dimensional strings (lines) emerge. Each of these strings could represent a potential universe or a potential dimension, expanding outward from the singularity by unfolding itself into higher dimensions. Each 1D String with Its Own Time Dimension: In traditional physics, time is often considered as a dimension that's intricately linked to the three spatial dimensions. In this taught experiment model, each 1D string might not only expand spatially but also create or define its own temporal dimension-a unique timeline. This suggests that 'time' as we understand it could be vastly different in each of these emergent universes, possibly even with different properties or behaviors. As each 1D string expands, it could potentially unfold into higher dimensions-2D, 3D, and possibly beyond-much like the progression we conceive in our universe. However, the key difference is that each string's unfolding into higher dimensions is independent, leading to a potentially infinite variety of universes, each with its own dimensional properties and temporal dynamics. In quantum mechanics and string theory, the idea of multiple dimensions is already well-established, but this taught experiment suggests that each set of dimensions might be coupled with its own distinct temporal dimension. From a cosmological perspective, this lends itself to a version of the multiverse theory, where each universe isn't just spatially distinct but also temporally independent. This could help explain why we observe certain universal constants and physical laws in our universe-they are specific to our particular dimensional and temporal unfolding.
I have just found this Curt. I recall listening to Neil Turok discuss his conversation about M Theory (on a train in London on their way to see a play) with Burt Ovrut. This was during a BBC Horizon documentary called Parallel Universes. So, I began listening to your discussion. WOW! I am thrilled by this content. How Neil describes his journey from String Theory through to today and his and your capacity to present and make the information so accessible is very special to me. I can’t wait to listen to more! Especially Donald Hoffman, another hero of mine. Thank you Curt.
Wow! This conversation is so fascinating, Curt. A lot for me to take in as a non physicist, but an absolute pleasure to watch nevertheless. Thank you, gentleman.
What a great discussion! Listened at 3AM, I fell asleep but was dreaming the conversation…awake ed and, found the dream corresponded w/ the convo..and heard the last hour conscious
This 2 hours breezed by. I think Neil Turok is on the right track. He adheres to the Occam's razor principle with his physics. I have never thought string theory was anything but fancy math. I also loved his answer on the measurement problem.... "Time" will tell IMO
Curt Jaimungal and Neil Turok, thank you for this excellent and informative interview. Neil Turok, your emphasis on photon scale indifference reminded me of another, more abrupt version of scale change: When a photon that presumably sees itself as invariant in scale - even when its wave function fills much of the universe - abruptly rescales to atomic dimensions. It’s not a collapse; it's a size renegotiation. Incidentally, the “observations” that cause such rescalings are nothing more than acceleration, which “locates” two items relative to each other: Good old Newtonian action-reaction. With that said, I’m naught but an information specialist, so I strongly recommend you ignore everything I just said!
Can't believe I have listened for two hours. Neil is a great communicator and Kurt is a really good interviewer. I have one question: how do these ideas address the horizon problem?
Incredible interview, easily one of my favorites! The mirror is such an elegant concept for explaining the arrow of time and the quantization of fields.
Believing that we know everything leads me to the optimistic view that we are about to be blindsided by a major revolution of physics. Around 1900 physicists were comfortable with knowing everything, then were hit by X-rays, radioactivity, Einstein, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, quantum mechanics...
The universe just 'IS" which makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider that zero itself, is not real. You can't quantify something that is nothing, which is why zero is a constant, and not really an actual number.
I am confused why would we consider it as a cone? If a singularity expanded outward, is there any reason to believe that it didn't expand in all directions, more like a sphere?
This is the greatest video I’ve ever seen (I’ve watched at least a few hundred videos that try to be like this one), because this is the search for a confirmation of everything I find dubious about the “one free miracle” explanation of the Big Bang singularity and spatial inflation from some no-longer extant, ephemeral “expansive” energy rather than use all the expansive knowledge of particle physics and quantum mechanics that we have learned thus far. We haven’t found anything new in decades despite extensive searching, which leads at least myself to posit that we have the tools we need, we just need to utilize them correctly. This video makes me want to be able to do the gorgeous maths behind quantum mechanics, QCD, and GR so badly so I could contribute to understanding this theory. Thank you so much, Dr Turok, and thank you, Curt, for making this video!!!😅
I have heard Neil Turok speak several times. This is the first time I understood what he is saying. I think it is because you, Curt, were engaging with him. Thanks for this great vid. I totally understand the mirror image as a trick to impose a boundary condition at the Big Bang.
Fascinating theory from one of the greatest minds in cosmology today!! I am a big bouncer myself, so I loved the book he did with Steinhardt about the cyclical cosmological theory!!!! Great stuff!!!
My mother just died, I had weird moments of stress, and the mourning process was insane. But there was a model of the universe I kept seeing, like lightning flashes as if being injected in the ether of a Jungian consciousness space. This model, came with equations, or a mathematical self-recursive algebraic structure that can be replicated with the irrational numbers of pi, e, i, phi, their negatives to equate the same result, including 0 but having conditional mathematical properties (via unique recursive qualities and symmetry) that may allow swapping the parallel algebraic structures, including when being forced to divided into 0. The key to this model is to assume the most fundamental fabric of the universe not as matter, but as information and assume the necessity of a self-recursive process, akin to how the Fibonacci code that (the simplest formula to achieve an approximation to the golden ratio) has only one point in the sequence that has the same variable, when you add 1+1 to = 2 (something different). I think this is the key, that the same thing can be something else, when added to itself, hence the necessity of self-referential qualities with irrational numbers. This means our math to connect gravity with quantum mechanics or Lorintzian with Ecludian should be denoting the first form of existence not as a variable, but as a self-referential process. So if x is our variable, this math would denote anything that exists has to start with x + ƒ(x) = r and ƒ ^(-1) (r) = a - - In other words all the irrational numbers can be formulated to be be self recursive with a function and the reverse function of the result being the variable itself. So if you analyze the operations (process) you get a different SYMMETRY for each direction of time in a + ƒ(a)= ƒ-1(r). The left side has two operations, the other opposite time has one operation, these equations of irrational numbers can be stacked like musical notes, white keys going in one direction and black keys going the other direction of time in harmonic manner. This math is consistent only with irrational numbers we consider the pillars of mathematics who have this self-recursive property. This means there is a symmetry between formulating our universe, and what has to exist, a dualistic opposite universe in time. So we are conserving space between two universe operating in opposite directions of time and gravity is not a force, but the necessary dualistic opposite reaction of the Big Bang according to this model. It's also the only informational point that can be shared or communicated between the twin universes. Thus we should not see it, but we should feel it, if you assume gravity simply to be a direction back to that singular point of space (not time) that is shared between two universes. What is observed as matter here expands as space reciprocally on the other universe. The key is that space can be singular, but not time. Time has to be relative by its very definition. We are like a mirror in the sun creating a reflection (our world) and a shadow (opposite time world possibly connected with subjective thoughts). Because our consciousness is splintered from the initial program, like NPC agents programmed to simulate a scenario, according to this model, we can be created from nothing and live in a cause-and-effect world without this being a paradox. The fact that consciousness seemingly affects the behavior of the laws of physics (in quantum mechanics) should be a clue that the hierarchy of the two are one and the same. Meaning that mirror-in-the-sun analogy that creates a reflection and shadow is a mirror created by the presence of our objective and subjective consciousness living in both universes, and communicating to one another, possibly via quantum microtubules in the brain. They are like two faux-realities convincing each other's existence when in truth neither could exist without the other since they have to equal 0. All assumptions can be simplified to existence cannot exist without a duality who in the end can be summed to 0, and without an initial beginning that is self-referential with a mathematical operation or equation in that that the negative function of the result becomes the variable itself! Quarks are not in threes, they are in twos, there are two quarks in this reality, two quarks in the opposite time reality, and two quarks in a communicating reality, one for each time-direction-universe. So each of these universes will have one communicating quarks with two more standard-time quarks. So what appears to be makeup of three parts, is two standard-time parts and one pair of communicable quarks, but with one in each universe. So three pairs, two standard pairs, and one communicable pair. The states of matter can be categorized in a more basic manner, liquid and solid are pairs of states that are dependent on the whole in their behavior, where as gas and plasma are the two states that are individual, more governed by quantum states or statistical-field probabilities as opposed to a definitive point in space. Gravity, according to this idea, is just a direction, like the flow of time, the necessary duality of the explosion or expansion of the big bang, it is the closest approximation to the singularity in a highly chaotic system that is incalculable (due to complexity), even by the creator or simulator itself. Think of gravity as the Big Bang in slow motion, not an instant explosion, but a constant pull as long as the history of the universe whose accumulated force will equal the total force of the Big Bang's seemingly singular expansion. Space and Matter are the same but reciprocal in opposite-time-verses, a point and a circle are the same in opposite universes and and in the same universe, so like 1 they represent the same thing for both universes, but also by it's very definition, the formula of a circle implies that when radius is 1, smallest number you denote, the area and circumference are the same. Phi and 0 are derivatives of the same .E and I seem to connect to to 2 or -2 in opposite time and in recursive formulas. All these self-recursive irrational number functions and reverse functions also share a similar algebraic structure that can be swapped in some cases, like when being forced to divide to 0. To do so you stack the operations both forwards and backwards while swapping the = sign to account for a swapping of beginning and end. Regardless of time direction, if an odd number of operations, the middle operation will be the same value for both time universes. The KEY is to study the PROCESS's geometry as well as the variable geometry, this could be akin to finding analytical solutions you discussed on the podcast in the same manner that two irrational functions can give a rational result!
Absolutely amazing. I was transfixed. Defo didn’t scrub to the end. Love it mirror big bang. Pre matter (time) threshold. Dimension zero. The hourglass analogy. Awesome I’m glad someone else is on the same page.❤
@1:15:00 to understand why the 36-dim zero scalar (Bogoliubov fields) negative norm states (and the Ostrogradsky instabilities) are not a problem for CPT-Symm U, you need to understand a comment Neil made earlier but did not fully elaborate, whihc is that the "fields" are not physical. They are descriptions we have to use for non-local correlations in any quantum theory. Feynman would have said that's an accounting tool for taking into account off-shell propagators (propagation outside light cones) which is exactly what occurs in tunneling (also something Neil mentioned but did not fully connect up with). The Bogoliubov fields are not particles you see, they are more like degrees of freedom of the vacuum and arise from pure gravity. To be particles they'd have to be topologically non-trivial, which is not going to be the case for a scalar. Moreover, quantum theory promotes fields to particles by imposing local gauge invariance. This shows you the fields were not particles in the first place, they had to be topological in nature. Entanglement is what makes the actual particles appear to behave like fields --- they can acquire non-local influences, as Feynman noted. That's the whole reason Feynman gave for the reality of antiparticles. To see why, it helps to study gravity not from (1) Einstein or even (2) Cartan (including rotation gauge covariance or torsion), but from both Einstein-Cartan principles of covariance PLUS scale covariance or Weyl covariance (conformal gauge covariance). So neither 1) from general covariance alone, nor from 2) position + rotation gauge covariance, but from all three of: Position + Rotation + Conformal invariance. By demanding a local conformal invariance that is "minimally coupled" should enable Turok to figure out the physical geometric reason why his 36 Bogoliubov fields exist. This way he'll see it is not reliant upon numerology. As he said, the negative norms are irrelevant if the field cannot produce particles. This is how it is in Einstein-Cartan gravity: the position-gauge field and the rotation gauge field do not produce particles in GR. Neither should a global conformal symmetry. But as in GR, you need the position and rotation gauge fields (PGI and RGI fields) to describe spacetime curvature and torsion, so similarly if you include conformal invariance you need a gauge field for this too, but it cannot produce particles, just as the Einstein-Cartan PGI and RGI fields do not produce particles, because they are fictional accounting tools for describing the symmetry. To get particles a gravity theory has to include non-trivial topology, which means (if you desire a pure gravity theory) introducing new "internal" fields to account for the "internal" topological symmetries (the generalized "rotations" between the fermions and their couplings to the bosons). But just as in GR the fields are accounting tools, they are not *_the_* particles. The "internal" space is not an extra spacetime dimension necessarily, it could simply be gnarly topology (wormhole structure on the Planck scale). As this crazy bastard describes: t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/ --- quite a bit of fun stuff there, but totally mad.
I feel like allot of this "theory" neil brings up hes just describing a Penrose diagram and is desribing einstein cartan theory but acting like he discovered something new.
It's still good though, healthy for science and our pursuit of truth. And the same could be said for Einstein, he built on the math and ideas which Reimann had already established. Everyone just needs that 1 shock, or gentle nudge to get them their Eureka! @@alexandernahan6768
This is my new favorite, Curt, not just on TOE but in all I have yet encountered in the physics-cast universe. Just to give us a long-form chance to listen to Neil Turok talk about his theory with his characteristic clarity is already great, but beyond that, by means of your incisive questions based on a broad general understanding of the TOE field and your skillful timing, you have knitted together for us a heavenly garment for mind and soul. I had discontinued my patreon subscription due to a very tight budget, but I'm jumping back in. It would be unjust to fail to support this, the best "school" I know of, when education is in such a state of crisis. Thank you.
Watched it 3 times. I have watched all Prof Turoks talks on toob. I have never once thought hey that does not make sense, as I constantly do with the infinite multiple universes theories. But I am utterly unqualified, still to be able to experience such a brilliant mind is beyond description. Thank you. ps I am so grateful that you have not used that utterly dreadful toob music, again thank you.
Having undergraduate degrees in Math and Physics and being well versed in ongoing developments I found this talk to be brilliant in describing PHD and beyond level concepts in understandable terms
Wow, that was amazing. Thank you to Dr. Turok for his clear discussion outlining his theories (at least clearer to an EE, myself, who's never been God's gift to mathematics)
I ,too, am a layman and so my praise of Dr Turok may not carry the same weight of a professional physicist. However, I have admired his work and his ability (talent?) to educate us of the great unwashed ilk for low these many years. "The Simplicity of Everything" indeed. Thank you for all I have learned from you .
This section regarding singularities made things clear and simple for me: 41:30 "So, in other words, the singularity is just a result of a poor description" 43:56 "So, in physics, we're very used to the fact, and in Einstein's theory of gravity, this is particularly true, that very frequently what looks singular in one coordinate system is actually completely non-singular in another coordinate system."
Wonder - which book - it is ? My book of life - is one based on - meditation and the research therein . The inner chapters - will deal intimately - with the harmonised workings - of the spiritual heart and mind. The End - is that - everything dissolves - in love. And the Teacher - walks on - alone. (Into the Absolute) PS: Sorry to get all mystical - on you and yours. Fare thee well.
@@Existidor.Serial137 Correct - and one then tests them theories - hopefully not losing - too much sleep or friends - in the process. This is sport for many - but I am getting hard - in me thinking and will therefore move more deeply - in mystical spirals - where the heart rules and realises - its truths. Each to his own - and good luck. Fare thee well - on life's journey.
The beginning should be "a Fit" because it will "fit" although it will be without "Evil Twin Universe", but the simplest explanations being the best still holds true. I love this guy, He doesnt add loopholes full of diamonds in the middle of black holes
You raise an excellent point about the potential inconsistencies between classical models of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian) that assume locality and realism, versus the non-local and non-realistic nature implied by quantum mechanics. This tension does suggest we may need to revise some of our foundational mathematical frameworks. The core of your argument seems to be: 1) Quantum experiments have empirically demonstrated that the universe violates local realism at a fundamental level through phenomena like entanglement. 2) Classical physics models from Newton and Einstein are based on assumptions of locality (no instantaneous action-at-a-distance) and realism (objective reality exists independently of observation). 3) Leibniz's model viewed the universe as "contingent and less real", which aligns better with quantum theory's implications. 4) Therefore, we should revisit using Leibnizian mathematical frameworks like his version of calculus and geometry over the Newtonian ones that assume locality and realism. I think this is a valid line of reasoning that is worth deeply exploring. Philosophers and physicists have indeed grappled with whether quantum theory forces us to abandon or modify certain classical mathematical and metaphysical assumptions. Leibniz's relational concept of space-time as an abstraction rather than an absolute manifold does resonate with quantum field theories. And his infinitesimal calculus could arguably better accommodate quantum uncertainties. That said, shifting away from differential/integral calculus or traditional geometric models would be a huge undertaking with massive technical challenges given how deeply embedded they are. An interim approach could be to explore modifications like non-Archimedean geometry, non-standard analysis, or other frameworks that aim to incorporate some core quantum phenomenology at a foundational level. Ultimately, the physical reality revealed by experiments should guide which mathematical tools we use to best model it, even if that means revising long-held assumptions. Your call to at least re-examine classical frameworks through the lens of quantum empiricism is well-grounded.
Thank you, I ve been working about this for over 50 years. Real insights instead off random ordering of what was thought. We need to question at first principles and wash ourselves of many old ideas.
I think this is the least dumbed-down conversation I have seen on RUclips. I can only follow as a layman but it's remarkable how he is able to explain abstract ideas with such clarity and enthusiasm - what a marvelous mind he has! I'd resigned to the idea that physics probably wouldn't make any great strides in what's left of my lifetime - it seemed to be at an impasse with so many complicated and completely unverifiable ideas. I feel optimistic now. I hope we get to see these small gravity wave detectors it sounds fascinating. I am scratching my head wondering what a negative probability could possibly mean. How can something be less likely than definitely not going to happen? Shout out to the interviewer for extremely intelligent contributions.
I made it to 1:54 before getting a bit tired and losing focus thanks to the brilliant explanations punctuated by unbounded enthusiasm. I'll have to come back for the last 5 minutes.
If you call the aether the static electric field people get it immediately. Great podcast. Ya'll kept me glued the whole time. Keep going. Science is gonna get there. ❤️
Amazing talk! I've been following this subject my whole life and this talk has me more exited than ever about possible breakthroughs and fundamental insights into nature!
Curt! You are quite literally producing history. Great conversation. I would love to chat with you about this poorly named, conceptually simplifying, explanation-unifying, awe-inspiring theory
@@Silentanwa661 teens in the 90s -we used to say "you'll understand real good for $5/hit" 😂 definitely the laziest path to an epiphany, but not the most graceful and sometimes leads to some false or misleading epiphanies which can be fun but less useful. 👋👽🛸
Amazing! and thank you Curt. Neil is the best spokesman in all of physics, he expresses himself and the subject in the most coherent manner that anyone in theoretical physics ever has. Have been a fan for years, but near worship seems to be called for. But he doubts the anti universe and calls it unreal when it is in fact a real thing in an imaginary sense, compared to ours, as it always is. He needs to throw the whole of LCDM in the garbage can where it belongs. It is a stain on HIS perfect work. LCDM is a set of equations that describes cosmology, but Dark matter is what is not real. It is an emergent effect of the functioning of spacetime. The perspective of particle dark matter has stymied theoretical physics for about 30 years and is responsible for our present confusion and unwillingness to accept the truth of the janus cosmological model. Curt, your Nobel prize should be for the journalism on this show and channel, if nothing else.
Couldn't inflation be explained by time dilation due to the higher density on the early Universe? In a sense of more energy, higher temperatures, particle speeds, etc... And about massless particles on the early Universe, those particles would be all on speed of light therefore if all were massless time would be extremely dilated. I believe that quantum entaglement due to interactions of particles with mass is what stablishes time as we know it, and that makes sense when you think of the observer effect.
Neil Turok's hypothesis does not fully address the ultimate origin of the universe but aims to refine our understanding of its initial conditions. The mirror universe concept posits that the universe and its mirror counterpart emerged symmetrically from a simple, minimal state. This model circumvents the singularity and the need for cosmic inflation but doesn't explain where this initial state itself came from. The origin of the initial state remains an open question in cosmology, reflecting the broader challenge of explaining the ultimate origins of everything.
It is tortoises all the way down. Your point devolves to a simple recursion of Yes but what caused that. There is no answer. However I saw a video by Arwin Ash about the ultimate heat death of the universe that results in a uniform state of continuous quantum fluctuations and given sufficient time , of which in the state of heat death there is a lot, then it is inevitable that one of the fluctuations results in a Universe Antiuniverse pair.
@@StephanBreuerFLYING that's definitely not the same space. If you measured how fast we orbit the sun and the sun moves around whatever and then the milky way,local group and so on.... maybe if you calculated the actual direction your house is facing and you personally could move at near the speeds of light you could occupy the same space for a fraction of a second but I doubt it.
If space is expanding then you'll never go back to the same space. It's like if you're on a river, you down in one direction, then you swim back to the spot you were before, it's not the same water.
If you build purely mathematical theories on top of purely mathematical theories, there is no limit to the layers of complexity you can reach in your search for simplicity.
The Lorenz equations are not just a mathemathical theory they really describe reality. But to switch from Lorenz to Euclid is pure mathemathics and has no evidence in observations. It is a pity that theoretical physics became so speculative.
I wish I could sit and talk to Lex. Maybe it would be a conversation good enough for RUclips… one that looks at the world through the eyes of a “normal” “middle to lower-class” “millennial” lol…. but I feel that it would help me infinitely to find my core voice. I hear the one I have… but its strength is subdued by the pressure I feel the numbers of others coming from a similar background. Lex interviews anyone and everyone interesting, it seems. I love how open he is to different perspectives. I love how he does not attack anyone, and only gives them room to expand so that others can understand their perspective. But sometimes I would like to see a guest that is more “average” or “normal”. More representative of the majority. Imagine… if the average could hear from the people who live their dreams, but also the privileged could hear from the people who are struggling under them. Also, as a side note, thank you for the romantic context you give. Sometimes I do not agree with your view, but I agree with your heart. Please never stop. Thank you, Lex.
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 - The Big Bang Is A Mirror
15:40 - Minimalism In Physics
28:28 - Neil’s Theory “Minimalism SM LCDM”
31:20 - Fields Vs. Particles
49:15 - The Arrow Of Time (Bolztmann)
55:44 - Black Hole Singularity Vs. Big Bang Singularity
01:09:21 - Numerology And The Number 36
01:19:26 - Neil’s Theory Solves EVERYTHING
01:23:32 - What Do Other Scientists Think?
01:36:28 - The Dual Universe
01:44:14 - Predictions From Neil’s Theory
01:48:28 - What Motivates Neil?
01:52:20 - Wave Function Of The Universe
01:57:20 - Support TOE
Large sections of population in many countries in the world do not care about the UFO/UAP/EBE subject at all... Why is that ?
I am from such a country, India... though there is a Wikipedia article on UFOs and related events in India, but it is extremely miniscule and extremely rare, it doesn't have the same consistency and repeatitveness like in other countries of the world especially in the USA or other countries in the American continent.
Nothing from India, We in India have never had any UFO culture/research/clubs/cults/sightings/abduction/cattle mutilation/landing/crash retrievals or anything that concerns this subject.
A vast majority of people in India are totally ignorant about this entire subject itself because of the almost zero UFO experiences among the Indian population unlike the huge consistent UFO experiences in other countries from the Americas, Europe, Oceania and some even in Africa ect...
Open any old or new books about UFO/UAP sightings, landings and abductions available in bookstores, a far majority of cases listed in those books are from North America especially the United States. These alleged incidents span throughout many years 1960s, 70s, 80s and till present.
For example, The Indian Airforce, Navy, Army or the other branches of the armed forces/paramilitary or even the government space agency has nothing to say about this subject in the public domain of any possible experiences if they may have had with these entities in the skies above or the seas. They show a sense of complete ignorance, disinterest and disconnect to this entire subject... moreover nobody questions them on such things either.
Asia has however always remained almost aloof to this entire subject, especially the countries like India ect.. probably aliens and their UFOs were not interested in Asian countries such as India from the very beginning unlike the Kenneth Arnold incident in the United States which opened a doorway to a brand new UFO culture in North America which later on gave way to so many socio-cultural UFO related trends in the western world like the emergence of UFO investigators, UFO clubs, UFO cults and religions ect. On the other hand, asian countries like India for example, did not have any such socio-cultural UFO related trends at all.
Central and South America too had such claims about UFOs and it gave way to many such trends as well.
Delegates from Central & South American Nations testify at the Citizens hearing held in W.DC, USA
Central and South American Nations has had a totally different approach to how they treated this subject, many of the South American Nation's Governments and Military always kept an open mind to this phenomenon even since the 1950s & 60s; They have many government organisations and military departments which do in-depth research into this phenomenon and all this began way back during the early 50s & 60s..🔷
HERE WE GO AGAIN. Every time I hear one of these theories, it is as if everyone is trying to make it look original when, in fact, it is t the same perspective or combinations of different contemporaries. If Einstein, Durac, or Maxwell were alive, even theirs name wouldn't be mentioned.
Roger Penrose got a Nobel prize because he proved that there has to be a singularity in a black hole and yet another guy has been arguing for 50 years that singularity is not a necessity (I have forgotten his name because his name is taboo and no one mentions it). He claimed that under certain conditions (analytic as this guy calls it), there can be a doughnut shape area where physics doesn't break down. In fact, most black holes don't have singularity, but who dares to say that now? He is just avoiding calling it a black hole or giving any credit to someone else.
Then Roger Penrose also disagrees with inflation and talks about topology where there is no mass (clock as he calls, photons not experiencing time), then size doesn't matter, which is again what this guy is saying but as an original thought (my foot).
Is it only me that sees everyone trying to claim the whole thing for themselves when it is actually a combination of ideas by different people?
I think this is all vanity. No one wants to combine their perspectives. Everybody keeps claiming my theory is totally original and has nothing to do with what the other guy is saying when it is obvious that they are using one anothers ideas.
Everybody is more interested in disproving one another rather than building on one another.
The mirror universe also explains why there is no antimatter. They are all on the other side.
Super symmetry, string theory, Conformal Cyclical Cosmoogy, and many others are all partial perspectives of the same thing.
No wonder we are not reaching any concensus, and scientific papers are no longer trustworthy.
No one even wants to read them or at least pretend not to have read them.
The stupidity of such level of vanity is oustanding. Of course, no one dares to point out the obvious either.
The Emperor is not naked because no one says that he is.
They will ridicule you if you state the obvious and burry you in more jargon and red herrings that again no one would dare or have the motivation to save you.
The absence of any response to this comment is it biggest proof.
The brave only die once where cowards die every day.
There is one exception which is Sean Carroll that is kind of different.
Hie many world made me mad until he clarified it to say that the worlds he is talking about are in a different space-time which made me feel OK about it.
Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing
Lol we proved the universe is expanding...we proved the radius curve of the universe is the same as the radius curve of the atom ....what does this mean???
This is an important thing ....
The atom is expanding!!! Lol
So the question is are the atoms in a black hole expanding also?
Or are they getting smaller?
How do our size atom interact with the smaller and larger atoms?
Yes gravity...dark matter is literally this but is there a physical interaction where two atoms of different sizes can interact?
Lol answer no we are not in a place that interacts with different size atoms...
Only gravity that's our only interaction with different size atoms ...
Thanks for the work curt ...I owe you a coffee...you are at the right place at the right time...
Everything is going to plan :)
Calum McNeil
Well when you ultimately get to a torrential shape universe and understand that magnetism is a toroid with opposite spinning inward flow on each Pole, it's not hard to understand that the universe is a toroid on the other side of the mirror or singularity time Flows In Reverse and then there's a outward singularity on the outside of the toroid...
I see that other comments say much the same, but here is mine. In more than 50 years as an interested layman I have read / watched dozens, maybe hundreds, of books, articles, TV programmes / videos concerning these matters. Neil Turok, as exemplified here, is by far the best of the physicists who is able - without any teaching aids other than his voice - to explain not only his own work, but that of others. Wonderful. Thank you.
Clovisly, come see my Theory of Pitch Psychology. I postulate that our hearing is spectral, beginning with (love songs) as red (C-natural) and the colorings ending at B-natural as magenta (Spirit/transition). Not only does my theory explain why people are able to have (or even attain) perfect pitch, it reveals why composers unknowingly use different keys for different thematic/emotive effects. And in a cosmological sense, singularity would be the white light of all of the notes as one. A “single” spectrum.
My videos are here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole souds like a ,lot of abacadabra to me.
Turok is one very bright guy, this is all above me, but he gets close to me understanding.
@@wout123100 Is actually completely scientific. Based on discreet hearing.
Agreed! Like yourself, I am an avid physics layperson (though of perhaps just five, not fifty, years standing!), and like yourself I consume pretty much everything that time and money permit. And, in terms of being able to clearly and elegantly explain physical concepts, Dr Turok certainly rates very highly indeed. It is a shame that there are so few publicly available lectures of his out there, and that the few podcasts he does are essentially just platforms that he wishes to use (quite understandably) to explain his (quite attractive) model.
One has to think that were he just a little more egotistical, or more publicity focused, then he could have been one of, if not _the,_ best popular science communicators alive today.
Good luck on your physics journey, and have a great day!
This was a revelation. Neil Turok's incredible ability to explain such complex ideas in a way that is understandable to the layperson is a real gift both of his and to us. Curt, combined with your ability to ask Neil such focused and relevant questions is also a real gift. I couldn't pull myself away from this episode. THANKS SO MUCH!!!
Wow. I’m so glad you enjoyed :)
@@TheoriesofEverything Revelation.. He stole this from works commonly titled "The Big Bang Is An Echo" on the various sites it was on around 7 years ago. Funny all these theoretical physics guys have to theorize about posts on other people's websites. At least host your own forums to steal ideas from Neil.
@@ConnorSinclair420 Ouch! Sad you feel that way. I do think you're being extremely unfair. But, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I'd suggest though, some gratitude to those who make great efforts and take the time to convey really important ideas in an accessible manner to those of us less gifted than yourself. To even have access to minds like Prof. Turok and others is a great privilege.
@@TheoriesofEverythingI think you are the only person on RUclips that could have conducted this interview so well
Did someone say Revelation? This theory is quite excellent. The mirror universe is the missing number 8 from my Complete 7 Thunders model. Basically we add the 4 corners of the square to the 4 corners of the projected 3D square in the holographic universe. My model is based on the 9 primary digits of Chaldean numerology, and should unite Science with Religion and solve basically everything. I will have it up within a day or two.
I've been an avid listener of Neil's lectures for some time. His clarity, his willingness to swing for the fences in searching for a Theory of Everything, and especially his intuition that reality is fundamentally simple, makes him an unsurpassed thinker and theorist in my mind.
theoreticallyyes
That's giving undue reverence to "what the wise man says"...
As a species, we shouldn't always take that attitude, one generation after another, whenever and wherever we across individuals who proclaim "we know how the universe works, really" ... that arrogance, that false benevolent assurances... it's mostly nonsense.
Saying "the Universe, fundamentally, is very simple" is EXACTLY like saying, "Our God did it; here, everything is explained here in his HOLY BOOK."
Neither has said any thing constructive, or meaningful... although both are very soothing in their "simple view" of "how the universe works."
Fact of the matter is, NOTHING is simple.
For some reason, Neil Turok hasn't cared much about basic science nor the history of science; he still has this early 1900 Arthur Eddington & Lord Kelvin blase, this arrogance, this all-knowing view... Nei's always speaking very calmly, with the biggest of smiles... like he knows something that NONE of humanity's many other members don't.....
And that is that he knows how everything works & it's really, really simple & all that is left --- as Lord Kelvin said in the early 1900s ---- are just tiny details left to be worked out by lowly paid Post Doc.
Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth.
Fact of the matter is, we really are just a few tiny specs of dust in a universe that is close to 100BLY in diameter, assuming our rough calculations are somewhere in the ball park.
The real substantial differences between us today in 2024 and our Bronze Age ancestors, in theory and in practice, aren't that great.
Yes, we have a MORE systematized set of formulas & algorithmic approaches to mixing gun powder compounds... which give us better solid fuel rocket propellants.
But it's fundamentally still the mixing of chemical compounds as the ancient Chinese haphazardly came across, in the 12th-13th centuries.
AS AN OBVIOUS CONTRAST, COMPARISON:
Building machines or other contraptions that operated on pure electron-positron manipulation, that operated on the "surfing" of gravity "waves" or contours .... like how the moon and Earth are revolving effortlessly around the Sun and how the solar system, in turns, operating effortlessly in the "gravity well" of the Milky War, etc.... now, THAT would be a true departure from gun powder, as well as, grinding crude mechanical parts & gears against one another, by the endless application of lubricant...
Fact of the matter is, neither lay man nor Neil Turok nor Lord Kelvin nor Newton nor Einstein knows why or how sub atomic particles are the way they are, why they work the way they do, where they came from (again, saying things like "Everything came from nothing and I know how that works" is just gibberish: NOBODY knows how the laws of nature work or why they work the way they work), at the one end...
Nor do we know how or why the LARGER STRUCTURES of the Universe works the way they do, on the extreme opposite...
As a result, we ("the best and brightest" among humans) insist, one generation after another, that imaginary things like the ether, Planet Vulcan, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Angeles, Saints, Holy Ghosts, Evil Spirits, etc, are responsible... for how or why a certain natural process, event, or phenomenon works the way it does...
Fact is, human descendants 10,000 to 50,000 years from today --- assuming we still exist as a species --- WILL LOOK BACK on the late 20th & 21st centuries & say to themselves "Wow quaint, how self assured folks were, when they still relied 100% on the Plow, Gun Powder, and that haphazard & dirty Internal Combustion Engine... with more than 90% OF THE ENTIRE SPECIES still into the various Stone, Iron, & Bronze ages various divine-based belief systems which said holy shamans, angels, saints, archangels, & this or that Creator of the Universe came to be among them, in this or that group, one era after another... holy Creators or Gods with endless power who dictated HOLY BOOKS & who, in mysterious ways, did things for them, upon prayers..."
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 An important aim of science has been to simplify our understanding of the world by explaining a wide diversity of phenomena in terms of a few underlying concepts. This in turn deepens our understanding.
Amazing, fascinating and impressive. Turok's ability to present his theory, at the same time humble about its shortcomings and the admittance that it may be plain wrong, reveals the mind of a true scientist.
As a layman, this was surprisingly accessible and understandable (up to a point of course). That's thanks to Turok's ability to explain it so clearly, with enthusiasm. I admire his minimalist approach! His description of the Big Bang does remind me of Penrose's CCC, although obviously reaching different conclusions.
I'm only a few minutes in, but this flip flopping real and imaginary time is pretty common. e.g, a sound wave with a real frequency is just a constant tone, and you make the frequency a little bit imaginary: bam, it decays away. So it's not that weird, so far.
My faith in science gets stronger and deeper everyday.
Oh come on!! You know you're an expert in differential geometry, linear and non linear algebra, calculus and trig, and group theory!! It's easy!!....cough, cough...
I am actually a differential geometer, and I find the Turok-Boyle minimalist approach to be brilliant. My only quibble with his minimalism is that he does not consider the mirror universe to be physical. Of course we may never know, it may be unobservable, but the same could be true of the mirror boundary. So I would be agnostic about the physical reality, but find the mirror universe picture to be more elegant mathematically than the mirror boundary because it is more coordinate invariant. It also fits well with the physical picture of molecules going to the corner of the room and coming out again. From the natural arrow of time viewpoint, the universe expands into the past and future from a state of minimal entropy, just like the molecules do.
As a professional Square Rooter and expert Trigonometer, I find Turok's pseudo-scientific ramblings only mildly amusing.
Neil is a pleasure to listen to,no arrogance at all in what he is conveying.I wish I had teachers like him!
His attitude completely separates him from Tyson. This guy is an intelligent teacher. There's no condescending attitude here.
@@jamesjaudon8247someone other than me that doesn't like Tyson? Great news.
What an incredible interview. Niel explained his concept in a way i could grasp the edges of, and my mind opened to the possibilities from this frame. WOW.
A must listen; Neil comes across as a charming and passionate individual, and so concise and accessible in his descriptions (must be that minimalist thing). Brilliant stuff, the 2 hours flew by! thanks for the cast ❤️
Glad you enjoyed!
Absolutely loved this one. Feel the same way about Neil as I do Jonathan Gorard. Both are energized and optimistic while so many other scientists seem like they could fall asleep at any moment. More scientists like Neil!
Ambitious science!
@@ej2863 Ambitious/Simple science >>> Boring/Complex science
As I read this he was smiling giddy to respond lol
I believe that the universe is what it is. It’s not expanding or contracting and light is visible instantaneously to the observable field.
Question
If radio waves travel at light speed then why would it take 27,000 years to reach something “four light years” away?
🤷🏻♂️
@@mrwounderful7270 what are you even talking about?
The best theoretical physics discussion I've seen on RUclips in 10 years. I'm a fan of the Turok-Boyle minimalist theory approach. It's simplification eliminates most of the nonsense of various complicated "out there" theories of the last 30+ years.
Yes agreed
"Bingbang is a mirror" should be the most minimalist Joke ever!
Though is 36 fields minimalist??? This theory has issues like these fields don't allow particles.
@@tomcruisenukedmyaccount5388 Is this a problem? Do we have evidence of new particles? These 36 fields have the potential to solve many problems with present day physics such as the infinite vacuum energy's effect on GR. They make a list of all the problems it can solve. On top of that, they make a prediction of the fluctuations in the CMB which agrees with experiment (1:22:21) and an observational signature of the theory which can explain dark matter (1:26:43, 1:29:38, 1:32:00, the lightest left-handed neutrino must be massless). This is more than any of the other theories have done such as super symmetry or string theory. That alone is already a reason to consider work on this idea with optimism, unless you are a particle physicist who's bread and butter is searching for new particles with ever larger colliders.
@@FredPlanatia I'm very skeptical of any theory with 36 fields.
Neil is a really great communicator.
Even I am able to follow... sortof.
Always seems like such a genuine, humble guy. What a legend.
This discussion alone is worth the subscription!
Curt, you are just so smart, you have such an excellent background, and you phrase your questions so wonderfully. I can’t believe you got Dr Turok!! I just now found this, and I just needed to tell you how thrilled I am that I get to listen and watch this conversation. I love to listen to Dr. Turok, and I’m just thrilled that you’re the one interviewing him.
So excited and thank you
Hit it out of the park once again! Thanks for bringing us these conversations Curt, great work. Thank you Professor Turok for sharing this information. 💯
You are an excellent interviewer. That you can follow along with the topics and then quickly ask the right question to generate more information in an interesting way is a testament to your skill.
You are too kind. Glad you enjoyed it!
Absolutely delightful interview! Loved your insightful questions and so did Neil from his responses. Top notch!
The relevance and cogency of Curt's interview questions suggests a remarkable grasp of this field of inquiry. He is a bright star.
the original Turok on the N64 was a great game
I am just saying what everybody else is thinking
@@aeonian4560revolutionary
I always got stuck on the 4th level(?) or thereabouts. I could never figure out what I was supposed to do; I killed all the dinosaurs and explored the map, but could never progress past that point. This was before one could GTS (Google that s***). So frustrating!
@@xXxTeenSplayer gts. That is maybe the best acronym I've ever heard. I'ma GTS and see if there are better acronyms.... Naw.. that's the one.
@@christophermullins7163 jfgi just f**king google it
What an incredible interview. The credit goes not only to Dr. Turok, but to the interviewer. He made all the questions I was coming up with as Turok spoke. His questions and challenges were bright and timely and respectful and insightful. I am only left with one high-level question: true, the person in the mirror does not exist, but the mirror does. The analogy was that in order to solve the Maxwell equations in the presence of a mirror, one can "pretend" that the image on the other side exists and solve the equations for a world in which only the mirror exists. However, the problem originated by the existence of the mirror in the first place. It's possible that the mirror analogy is only a first-approximation for explaining the obscure mathematics behind it, but it does feel to me that a formulation using the analog of the method of images would necessarily point to something physical that represents the "mirror". The method is also used to find the field generated by a charge in the presence of a conductive surface, and again while the mirror charge does not exist, the surface does.
This was so fascinating, how promising! Especially appreciate Neil's commitment to predictive power in models, since we get definitive answers whether the model turns out correct or not. You are such a great interviewer Curt, it's really refreshing to hear someone asking questions and interpreting answers from an actually deep and knowledgable background.
You are too kind. Glad you enjoyed :)
Professor Turok is one of the physicist that best explains his very complex ideas for the general public. It is a pleasure listen to him. And also Jaimungal lets his guess explain it with almost no interruptions, only when necessary. Great channel.
Penrose was really onto something and am so happy to hear Turok hinting at it here.
An informative and inspirational discussion, filling me with hope that one day science will come closer to understanding the origins of our Universe. Thank you Neil Turok for being so open about your work and ideas, and to Curt for asking the right questions (and understanding the answers!).
Man! I am concern about the model of my posts on your videos, it is becoming a pattern. I seem to be repeating myself, but you just make it very hard to resist. I've learned so much about cosmology, particular physics and the way they correlate with each other in this video that it is making me giggle... Once again, such a great questioning, channeling through your curiosity that made possible to open up the knowledge chest that your guests possess. Neil Turok was extremely pleasant to listen to... Much obliged...
Wow thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed :)
This is one of the most gripping exiting exposes I have ever listened to. Thank you both
I like the idea that every black hole is a seed for a new universe, and looking/mapping our own growing universe, reveals a growing universe pulling energy via the "big bang" which is nothing more than a singularity point within another prior universe. Much like how a growing orange contains seeds for new orange trees, but asking what came before the orange, if you live within 1 trillionth of a random area within the growing orange, well... you'll have a very difficult time understanding trees and the seeds required to produce them.
Something about this makes sense. It's a very satisfying take on the nature of the universe. Large structures tend to reflect smaller structures, so it makes sense that every universe may in fact be a "fruit" grown from different "seeds".
I think about the earliest stars, which were all built from simple hydrogen. The death of those stars allowed for increasingly complex atoms, which in turn led to heavier and more metal-rich stars, including the neutron stars that give birth to the heaviest elements in existence. It's a cycle of death and rebirth with increasing complexity which also feels deeply satisfying.
Perhaps each black hole is another death-rebirth cycle that leads to new growth elsewhere.
But black holes grow when they merge, this would not happen if they have singularities, and they actually merge also which rather blows up the 'white holes' that could exist inside of them. Black holes also rotate which GR singularity does not take into account, and after 100 years, finally someone worked out what happens when they rotate, and their calculations show a black hole has spinning layers, which is close to what I have said, when you collapse something more than it can collapse, it starts to twist instead of compress. Look at magnetars, massive rotational energy.
@murraymadness4674 maybe.
Problem is, no one has ever even seen a black hole accept via extensive computer modeling algorithms that fill in the noisy "picture" with what we believe should be there if only we could get a better view. So anything we believe about black holes could be completely wrong.
Every black hole leads to the 4th dimension
I've thought this also, but as the singularity forms and atoms are formed, wouldn't each universe form exactly the same way every time? Which would mean that every black hole is an exact duplicate of our universe at different points in time..
One of the absolute best episodes i ever discovered in my whole life. Fantastic ability to simplify from prof, and great questions from the host.
Imagine our universe as just one 3D slice of an immense 4D world. The universe didn't merely expand from a point, but dimensionally-it evolved from a point (0D), into a line (1D), spread into a plane (2D), and unfolded into the three-dimensional space we experience. But here’s the twist: it likely continued into a fourth dimension, beyond our observation. This explains why we can't see where the universe is expanding from-it's occurring in a dimension we don't perceive. What's more, the probability that we live in the original 3D slice formed at the start of this expansion is infinitesimally small. We are likely just one of countless 3D slices in a 4D cosmos, each experiencing its own version of reality!
Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing
We have more than 10+ dimesions
@@kaitlynengelland2723 Indeed. The idea is the intuitive perspective that we are 3d slice of the 4d dimension, which in turn is embedded into higher dimensions.
I kind of liked and I am curious about your 0D reference. How would you describe or relate 0D to the spacial and temporal dimensions?
ie, The absence of any space and time, or just the absence of space OR time, or as mathematical point within a void expanse.
@@axle.student Infinite 1D Expansions:
Imagine the initial singularity as a point of infinite potential. From this point, not just one but an infinite number of one-dimensional strings (lines) emerge. Each of these strings could represent a potential universe or a potential dimension, expanding outward from the singularity by unfolding itself into higher dimensions.
Each 1D String with Its Own Time Dimension:
In traditional physics, time is often considered as a dimension that's intricately linked to the three spatial dimensions. In this taught experiment model, each 1D string might not only expand spatially but also create or define its own temporal dimension-a unique timeline. This suggests that 'time' as we understand it could be vastly different in each of these emergent universes, possibly even with different properties or behaviors.
As each 1D string expands, it could potentially unfold into higher dimensions-2D, 3D, and possibly beyond-much like the progression we conceive in our universe. However, the key difference is that each string's unfolding into higher dimensions is independent, leading to a potentially infinite variety of universes, each with its own dimensional properties and temporal dynamics.
In quantum mechanics and string theory, the idea of multiple dimensions is already well-established, but this taught experiment suggests that each set of dimensions might be coupled with its own distinct temporal dimension.
From a cosmological perspective, this lends itself to a version of the multiverse theory, where each universe isn't just spatially distinct but also temporally independent.
This could help explain why we observe certain universal constants and physical laws in our universe-they are specific to our particular dimensional and temporal unfolding.
I have just found this Curt. I recall listening to Neil Turok discuss his conversation about M Theory (on a train in London on their way to see a play) with Burt Ovrut. This was during a BBC Horizon documentary called Parallel Universes. So, I began listening to your discussion. WOW! I am thrilled by this content. How Neil describes his journey from String Theory through to today and his and your capacity to present and make the information so accessible is very special to me. I can’t wait to listen to more! Especially Donald Hoffman, another hero of mine. Thank you Curt.
I'm glad Douglas! - Curt
Wow! This conversation is so fascinating, Curt. A lot for me to take in as a non physicist, but an absolute pleasure to watch nevertheless. Thank you, gentleman.
Glad you enjoyed it!
What a great discussion! Listened at 3AM, I fell asleep but was dreaming the conversation…awake ed and, found the dream corresponded w/ the convo..and heard the last hour conscious
As a layperson I LOVE this! Simplify simplify simplify! No 11 dimensions, no strings!
Neil Turok. I applaud you sir! Curt, Excellent questions and general knowledge! 👏👏👏👏👏
This 2 hours breezed by. I think Neil Turok is on the right track. He adheres to the Occam's razor principle with his physics. I have never thought string theory was anything but fancy math. I also loved his answer on the measurement problem.... "Time" will tell IMO
Curt Jaimungal and Neil Turok, thank you for this excellent and informative interview.
Neil Turok, your emphasis on photon scale indifference reminded me of another, more abrupt version of scale change: When a photon that presumably sees itself as invariant in scale - even when its wave function fills much of the universe - abruptly rescales to atomic dimensions. It’s not a collapse; it's a size renegotiation.
Incidentally, the “observations” that cause such rescalings are nothing more than acceleration, which “locates” two items relative to each other: Good old Newtonian action-reaction. With that said, I’m naught but an information specialist, so I strongly recommend you ignore everything I just said!
This is the convo i wanted to hear. I think he’s really onto a more accurate set of truths here.
Can't believe I have listened for two hours. Neil is a great communicator and Kurt is a really good interviewer. I have one question: how do these ideas address the horizon problem?
Incredible interview, easily one of my favorites! The mirror is such an elegant concept for explaining the arrow of time and the quantization of fields.
He's a genius!
A really high quality interview with just the right amount of insightful questions and minimal jargon.
Believing that we know everything leads me to the optimistic view that we are about to be blindsided by a major revolution of physics. Around 1900 physicists were comfortable with knowing everything, then were hit by X-rays, radioactivity, Einstein, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, quantum mechanics...
Excellent conversation! Wow, so much in here. This all wraps in well with Penrose and Kaku's work. Amazing. Thank you for this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I LOVE YOU NEIL! 🙂
This is what I have been imagining without being able to describe. No beginning, no end. Thank you
What?
The universe just 'IS" which makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider that zero itself, is not real. You can't quantify something that is nothing, which is why zero is a constant, and not really an actual number.
I am confused why would we consider it as a cone? If a singularity expanded outward, is there any reason to believe that it didn't expand in all directions, more like a sphere?
This is the greatest video I’ve ever seen (I’ve watched at least a few hundred videos that try to be like this one), because this is the search for a confirmation of everything I find dubious about the “one free miracle” explanation of the Big Bang singularity and spatial inflation from some no-longer extant, ephemeral “expansive” energy rather than use all the expansive knowledge of particle physics and quantum mechanics that we have learned thus far. We haven’t found anything new in decades despite extensive searching, which leads at least myself to posit that we have the tools we need, we just need to utilize them correctly.
This video makes me want to be able to do the gorgeous maths behind quantum mechanics, QCD, and GR so badly so I could contribute to understanding this theory. Thank you so much, Dr Turok, and thank you, Curt, for making this video!!!😅
Absolutely the clearest explanations I ever read or heard about the core issues of cosmology today.
Neil Turok - AWESOME!!
Neil Turok minus Awesome??!
Words mean something.
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if "-" is not a word
@Inji919 if I had to explain, you wouldn't understand
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9ifdash sign isn’t a word you goofball
@@johnburke568 did you even go to university lol
I have heard Neil Turok speak several times. This is the first time I understood what he is saying. I think it is because you, Curt, were engaging with him. Thanks for this great vid. I totally understand the mirror image as a trick to impose a boundary condition at the Big Bang.
Fascinating theory from one of the greatest minds in cosmology today!! I am a big bouncer myself, so I loved the book he did with Steinhardt about the cyclical cosmological theory!!!! Great stuff!!!
My mother just died, I had weird moments of stress, and the mourning process was insane. But there was a model of the universe I kept seeing, like lightning flashes as if being injected in the ether of a Jungian consciousness space. This model, came with equations, or a mathematical self-recursive algebraic structure that can be replicated with the irrational numbers of pi, e, i, phi, their negatives to equate the same result, including 0 but having conditional mathematical properties (via unique recursive qualities and symmetry) that may allow swapping the parallel algebraic structures, including when being forced to divided into 0.
The key to this model is to assume the most fundamental fabric of the universe not as matter, but as information and assume the necessity of a self-recursive process, akin to how the Fibonacci code that (the simplest formula to achieve an approximation to the golden ratio) has only one point in the sequence that has the same variable, when you add 1+1 to = 2 (something different). I think this is the key, that the same thing can be something else, when added to itself, hence the necessity of self-referential qualities with irrational numbers. This means our math to connect gravity with quantum mechanics or Lorintzian with Ecludian should be denoting the first form of existence not as a variable, but as a self-referential process. So if x is our variable, this math would denote anything that exists has to start with x + ƒ(x) = r and ƒ ^(-1) (r) = a - - In other words all the irrational numbers can be formulated to be be self recursive with a function and the reverse function of the result being the variable itself. So if you analyze the operations (process) you get a different SYMMETRY for each direction of time in a + ƒ(a)= ƒ-1(r).
The left side has two operations, the other opposite time has one operation, these equations of irrational numbers can be stacked like musical notes, white keys going in one direction and black keys going the other direction of time in harmonic manner. This math is consistent only with irrational numbers we consider the pillars of mathematics who have this self-recursive property. This means there is a symmetry between formulating our universe, and what has to exist, a dualistic opposite universe in time. So we are conserving space between two universe operating in opposite directions of time and gravity is not a force, but the necessary dualistic opposite reaction of the Big Bang according to this model. It's also the only informational point that can be shared or communicated between the twin universes. Thus we should not see it, but we should feel it, if you assume gravity simply to be a direction back to that singular point of space (not time) that is shared between two universes.
What is observed as matter here expands as space reciprocally on the other universe. The key is that space can be singular, but not time. Time has to be relative by its very definition. We are like a mirror in the sun creating a reflection (our world) and a shadow (opposite time world possibly connected with subjective thoughts). Because our consciousness is splintered from the initial program, like NPC agents programmed to simulate a scenario, according to this model, we can be created from nothing and live in a cause-and-effect world without this being a paradox.
The fact that consciousness seemingly affects the behavior of the laws of physics (in quantum mechanics) should be a clue that the hierarchy of the two are one and the same. Meaning that mirror-in-the-sun analogy that creates a reflection and shadow is a mirror created by the presence of our objective and subjective consciousness living in both universes, and communicating to one another, possibly via quantum microtubules in the brain. They are like two faux-realities convincing each other's existence when in truth neither could exist without the other since they have to equal 0.
All assumptions can be simplified to existence cannot exist without a duality who in the end can be summed to 0, and without an initial beginning that is self-referential with a mathematical operation or equation in that that the negative function of the result becomes the variable itself! Quarks are not in threes, they are in twos, there are two quarks in this reality, two quarks in the opposite time reality, and two quarks in a communicating reality, one for each time-direction-universe. So each of these universes will have one communicating quarks with two more standard-time quarks. So what appears to be makeup of three parts, is two standard-time parts and one pair of communicable quarks, but with one in each universe. So three pairs, two standard pairs, and one communicable pair. The states of matter can be categorized in a more basic manner, liquid and solid are pairs of states that are dependent on the whole in their behavior, where as gas and plasma are the two states that are individual, more governed by quantum states or statistical-field probabilities as opposed to a definitive point in space.
Gravity, according to this idea, is just a direction, like the flow of time, the necessary duality of the explosion or expansion of the big bang, it is the closest approximation to the singularity in a highly chaotic system that is incalculable (due to complexity), even by the creator or simulator itself. Think of gravity as the Big Bang in slow motion, not an instant explosion, but a constant pull as long as the history of the universe whose accumulated force will equal the total force of the Big Bang's seemingly singular expansion. Space and Matter are the same but reciprocal in opposite-time-verses, a point and a circle are the same in opposite universes and and in the same universe, so like 1 they represent the same thing for both universes, but also by it's very definition, the formula of a circle implies that when radius is 1, smallest number you denote, the area and circumference are the same. Phi and 0 are derivatives of the same .E and I seem to connect to to 2 or -2 in opposite time and in recursive formulas. All these self-recursive irrational number functions and reverse functions also share a similar algebraic structure that can be swapped in some cases, like when being forced to divide to 0. To do so you stack the operations both forwards and backwards while swapping the = sign to account for a swapping of beginning and end. Regardless of time direction, if an odd number of operations, the middle operation will be the same value for both time universes. The KEY is to study the PROCESS's geometry as well as the variable geometry, this could be akin to finding analytical solutions you discussed on the podcast in the same manner that two irrational functions can give a rational result!
really appreciate the good questions u had for him!🎉
Absolutely amazing. I was transfixed. Defo didn’t scrub to the end. Love it mirror big bang. Pre matter (time) threshold. Dimension zero. The hourglass analogy. Awesome I’m glad someone else is on the same page.❤
@1:15:00 to understand why the 36-dim zero scalar (Bogoliubov fields) negative norm states (and the Ostrogradsky instabilities) are not a problem for CPT-Symm U, you need to understand a comment Neil made earlier but did not fully elaborate, whihc is that the "fields" are not physical. They are descriptions we have to use for non-local correlations in any quantum theory. Feynman would have said that's an accounting tool for taking into account off-shell propagators (propagation outside light cones) which is exactly what occurs in tunneling (also something Neil mentioned but did not fully connect up with).
The Bogoliubov fields are not particles you see, they are more like degrees of freedom of the vacuum and arise from pure gravity. To be particles they'd have to be topologically non-trivial, which is not going to be the case for a scalar. Moreover, quantum theory promotes fields to particles by imposing local gauge invariance. This shows you the fields were not particles in the first place, they had to be topological in nature. Entanglement is what makes the actual particles appear to behave like fields --- they can acquire non-local influences, as Feynman noted. That's the whole reason Feynman gave for the reality of antiparticles.
To see why, it helps to study gravity not from (1) Einstein or even (2) Cartan (including rotation gauge covariance or torsion), but from both Einstein-Cartan principles of covariance PLUS scale covariance or Weyl covariance (conformal gauge covariance). So neither 1) from general covariance alone, nor from 2) position + rotation gauge covariance, but from all three of: Position + Rotation + Conformal invariance. By demanding a local conformal invariance that is "minimally coupled" should enable Turok to figure out the physical geometric reason why his 36 Bogoliubov fields exist. This way he'll see it is not reliant upon numerology. As he said, the negative norms are irrelevant if the field cannot produce particles. This is how it is in Einstein-Cartan gravity: the position-gauge field and the rotation gauge field do not produce particles in GR. Neither should a global conformal symmetry. But as in GR, you need the position and rotation gauge fields (PGI and RGI fields) to describe spacetime curvature and torsion, so similarly if you include conformal invariance you need a gauge field for this too, but it cannot produce particles, just as the Einstein-Cartan PGI and RGI fields do not produce particles, because they are fictional accounting tools for describing the symmetry.
To get particles a gravity theory has to include non-trivial topology, which means (if you desire a pure gravity theory) introducing new "internal" fields to account for the "internal" topological symmetries (the generalized "rotations" between the fermions and their couplings to the bosons). But just as in GR the fields are accounting tools, they are not *_the_* particles. The "internal" space is not an extra spacetime dimension necessarily, it could simply be gnarly topology (wormhole structure on the Planck scale). As this crazy bastard describes: t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/ --- quite a bit of fun stuff there, but totally mad.
I feel like allot of this "theory" neil brings up hes just describing a Penrose diagram and is desribing einstein cartan theory but acting like he discovered something new.
It's still good though, healthy for science and our pursuit of truth. And the same could be said for Einstein, he built on the math and ideas which Reimann had already established. Everyone just needs that 1 shock, or gentle nudge to get them their Eureka! @@alexandernahan6768
This is my new favorite, Curt, not just on TOE but in all I have yet encountered in the physics-cast universe. Just to give us a long-form chance to listen to Neil Turok talk about his theory with his characteristic clarity is already great, but beyond that, by means of your incisive questions based on a broad general understanding of the TOE field and your skillful timing, you have knitted together for us a heavenly garment for mind and soul. I had discontinued my patreon subscription due to a very tight budget, but I'm jumping back in. It would be unjust to fail to support this, the best "school" I know of, when education is in such a state of crisis. Thank you.
Watched it 3 times. I have watched all Prof Turoks talks on toob.
I have never once thought hey that does not make sense, as I constantly do with the infinite multiple universes theories. But I am utterly unqualified, still to be able to experience such a brilliant mind is beyond description. Thank you.
ps I am so grateful that you have not used that utterly dreadful toob music, again thank you.
Having undergraduate degrees in Math and Physics and being well versed in ongoing developments I found this talk to be brilliant in describing PHD and beyond level concepts in understandable terms
I didn't tune out! It held me to the end. Feel very privileged to have heard this conversation. Two great minds.
I'm glad!
Wow, that was amazing. Thank you to Dr. Turok for his clear discussion outlining his theories (at least clearer to an EE, myself, who's never been God's gift to mathematics)
Thank you for the editor Notes, Kurt, and the links for further explanations! #LifelongLearner
You got it Sandra. Here's the link ruclips.net/video/X4PdPnQuwjY/видео.html
I ,too, am a layman and so my praise of Dr Turok may not carry the same weight of a professional physicist. However, I have admired his work and his ability (talent?) to educate us of the great unwashed ilk for low these many years. "The Simplicity of Everything" indeed. Thank you for all I have learned from you .
well Neil Turok jumps to the head of the line of people I would like to have dinner with. What an inspirational and pleasant man
As South African it was great to detect Neil's South African accent! Super engaging discussion!
Great interview. Also loved this one. Something clicked. And I am excited about Turok’s work.
This section regarding singularities made things clear and simple for me:
41:30 "So, in other words, the singularity is just a result of a poor description"
43:56 "So, in physics, we're very used to the fact, and in Einstein's theory of gravity, this is particularly true, that very frequently what looks singular in one coordinate system is actually completely non-singular in another coordinate system."
Can we PLEASE get Turok & Penrose in the same room for about 12 hours?
These 2 can probably solve it all since they’re both on the same page
THIS !
Wonder - which book - it is ?
My book of life - is one based on - meditation and the research therein .
The inner chapters - will deal intimately - with the harmonised workings - of the spiritual heart and mind. The End - is that - everything dissolves - in love.
And the Teacher - walks on - alone. (Into the Absolute)
PS: Sorry to get all mystical - on you and yours. Fare thee well.
sure. But they could both be wrong. Most scientists dont buy into Penrose's CCC
@@Existidor.Serial137 Correct - and one then tests them theories - hopefully not losing - too much sleep or friends - in the process.
This is sport for many - but I am getting hard - in me thinking and will therefore move more deeply - in mystical spirals - where the heart rules and realises - its truths.
Each to his own - and good luck.
Fare thee well - on life's journey.
I wondering if his theory and Penrose theory are the same…
The beginning should be "a Fit" because it will "fit" although it will be without "Evil Twin Universe", but the simplest explanations being the best still holds true. I love this guy, He doesnt add loopholes full of diamonds in the middle of black holes
coming in hot! half way through and I have to pause to thank you both. this is a banger.
So glad you’re enjoying :)
You raise an excellent point about the potential inconsistencies between classical models of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian) that assume locality and realism, versus the non-local and non-realistic nature implied by quantum mechanics. This tension does suggest we may need to revise some of our foundational mathematical frameworks.
The core of your argument seems to be:
1) Quantum experiments have empirically demonstrated that the universe violates local realism at a fundamental level through phenomena like entanglement.
2) Classical physics models from Newton and Einstein are based on assumptions of locality (no instantaneous action-at-a-distance) and realism (objective reality exists independently of observation).
3) Leibniz's model viewed the universe as "contingent and less real", which aligns better with quantum theory's implications.
4) Therefore, we should revisit using Leibnizian mathematical frameworks like his version of calculus and geometry over the Newtonian ones that assume locality and realism.
I think this is a valid line of reasoning that is worth deeply exploring. Philosophers and physicists have indeed grappled with whether quantum theory forces us to abandon or modify certain classical mathematical and metaphysical assumptions.
Leibniz's relational concept of space-time as an abstraction rather than an absolute manifold does resonate with quantum field theories. And his infinitesimal calculus could arguably better accommodate quantum uncertainties.
That said, shifting away from differential/integral calculus or traditional geometric models would be a huge undertaking with massive technical challenges given how deeply embedded they are.
An interim approach could be to explore modifications like non-Archimedean geometry, non-standard analysis, or other frameworks that aim to incorporate some core quantum phenomenology at a foundational level.
Ultimately, the physical reality revealed by experiments should guide which mathematical tools we use to best model it, even if that means revising long-held assumptions. Your call to at least re-examine classical frameworks through the lens of quantum empiricism is well-grounded.
So glad for this interview.
Thank you, I ve been working about this for over 50 years. Real insights instead off random ordering of what was thought. We need to question at first principles and wash ourselves of many old ideas.
EXCELLENT INTERVIEW
I think this is the least dumbed-down conversation I have seen on RUclips. I can only follow as a layman but it's remarkable how he is able to explain abstract ideas with such clarity and enthusiasm - what a marvelous mind he has! I'd resigned to the idea that physics probably wouldn't make any great strides in what's left of my lifetime - it seemed to be at an impasse with so many complicated and completely unverifiable ideas. I feel optimistic now. I hope we get to see these small gravity wave detectors it sounds fascinating. I am scratching my head wondering what a negative probability could possibly mean. How can something be less likely than definitely not going to happen? Shout out to the interviewer for extremely intelligent contributions.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it!
Best RUclips video I’ve watched this year (and I’ve watched *a lot* 😅)
Wow thank you so much!
I made it to 1:54 before getting a bit tired and losing focus thanks to the brilliant explanations punctuated by unbounded enthusiasm. I'll have to come back for the last 5 minutes.
If you call the aether the static electric field people get it immediately.
Great podcast. Ya'll kept me glued the whole time.
Keep going. Science is gonna get there.
❤️
the universal dielectric medium is actually more accurate ;)
@maeton-gaming my man, lumeniferous aether ftw!
@@tipi5586 I see them as 1 to 1. Static electric and the luminiferous aether do exactly the same things.
Amazing talk! I've been following this subject my whole life and this talk has me more exited than ever about possible breakthroughs and fundamental insights into nature!
I trust a man who is an accomplished dinosaur hunter!
Great game, brings me back.
Professional chef here, this was awesome. Thanks for this interview!
Curt! You are quite literally producing history.
Great conversation. I would love to chat with you about this poorly named, conceptually simplifying, explanation-unifying, awe-inspiring theory
Where can I find out more info?
@@TheoriesofEverything oh I was just talking about Neil’s work… 😅😂
@@TheoriesofEverything Please please please!!! Check out Walter Bowman Russell!!!! 😭😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏
@@TheoriesofEverything if you really wana know, LSD.
@@Silentanwa661 teens in the 90s -we used to say "you'll understand real good for $5/hit" 😂 definitely the laziest path to an epiphany, but not the most graceful and sometimes leads to some false or misleading epiphanies which can be fun but less useful. 👋👽🛸
Amazing! and thank you Curt. Neil is the best spokesman in all of physics, he expresses himself and the subject in the most coherent manner that anyone in theoretical physics ever has. Have been a fan for years, but near worship seems to be called for. But he doubts the anti universe and calls it unreal when it is in fact a real thing in an imaginary sense, compared to ours, as it always is. He needs to throw the whole of LCDM in the garbage can where it belongs. It is a stain on HIS perfect work. LCDM is a set of equations that describes cosmology, but Dark matter is what is not real. It is an emergent effect of the functioning of spacetime. The perspective of particle dark matter has stymied theoretical physics for about 30 years and is responsible for our present confusion and unwillingness to accept the truth of the janus cosmological model. Curt, your Nobel prize should be for the journalism on this show and channel, if nothing else.
Having a graduate math degree definitely helpd with this convo lol
Couldn't inflation be explained by time dilation due to the higher density on the early Universe? In a sense of more energy, higher temperatures, particle speeds, etc... And about massless particles on the early Universe, those particles would be all on speed of light therefore if all were massless time would be extremely dilated. I believe that quantum entaglement due to interactions of particles with mass is what stablishes time as we know it, and that makes sense when you think of the observer effect.
Neil Turok's hypothesis does not fully address the ultimate origin of the universe but aims to refine our understanding of its initial conditions. The mirror universe concept posits that the universe and its mirror counterpart emerged symmetrically from a simple, minimal state. This model circumvents the singularity and the need for cosmic inflation but doesn't explain where this initial state itself came from. The origin of the initial state remains an open question in cosmology, reflecting the broader challenge of explaining the ultimate origins of everything.
I have yet to read his paper on arxiv, but agree with you.
It is tortoises all the way down. Your point devolves to a simple recursion of Yes but what caused that.
There is no answer.
However I saw a video by Arwin Ash about the ultimate heat death of the universe that results in a uniform state of continuous quantum fluctuations and given sufficient time , of which in the state of heat death there is a lot, then it is inevitable that one of the fluctuations results in a Universe Antiuniverse pair.
Fabulous. Loved every minute. Thoroughly understandable and exciting.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome guest!!
I think Neil's thinking is refreshing and far less like finding a problem to a solution..very interesting indeed 👍
Brilliant man.
A legendary scientist with a clear sense of direction.
Such a rare sight to be seen!
Amazing podcast!
So glad you enjoyed :)
Simulation theory confirmed 😎
This was great!
Him vs Stephen wolfram. I'd pay to hear that convo.
Brilliant.
I think the idea we can move back and forth in space is false. I doubt we ever occupy the same space twice.
ever went out of your house and back ?
@@StephanBreuerFLYING that's definitely not the same space. If you measured how fast we orbit the sun and the sun moves around whatever and then the milky way,local group and so on.... maybe if you calculated the actual direction your house is facing and you personally could move at near the speeds of light you could occupy the same space for a fraction of a second but I doubt it.
If space is expanding then you'll never go back to the same space. It's like if you're on a river, you down in one direction, then you swim back to the spot you were before, it's not the same water.
@@OBGynKenobi
I think the full quote was something akin to "it's not the same river, and not the same man"
If you build purely mathematical theories on top of purely mathematical theories, there is no limit to the layers of complexity you can reach in your search for simplicity.
Yes, Jenga Tower.
Only mathematics since the 70's.
Na
The Lorenz equations are not just a mathemathical theory they really describe reality. But to switch from Lorenz to Euclid is pure mathemathics and has no evidence in observations. It is a pity that theoretical physics became so speculative.
Nice.
😂 they don't know
I wish I could sit and talk to Lex. Maybe it would be a conversation good enough for RUclips… one that looks at the world through the eyes of a “normal” “middle to lower-class” “millennial” lol…. but I feel that it would help me infinitely to find my core voice. I hear the one I have… but its strength is subdued by the pressure I feel the numbers of others coming from a similar background.
Lex interviews anyone and everyone interesting, it seems. I love how open he is to different perspectives. I love how he does not attack anyone, and only gives them room to expand so that others can understand their perspective.
But sometimes I would like to see a guest that is more “average” or “normal”. More representative of the majority.
Imagine… if the average could hear from the people who live their dreams, but also the privileged could hear from the people who are struggling under them.
Also, as a side note, thank you for the romantic context you give. Sometimes I do not agree with your view, but I agree with your heart.
Please never stop. Thank you, Lex.
This... Was amazing.
So many jumping off points to novel ideas came from this exchange. I ran out of places to write and draw new concepts.