Wow This is the news I have been waiting for for 3 years now ! I did watch Dr Neil Turok lecture "the simplicity of the universe" (or something like that ). This talk is on similar lines in that it shows how simple universe is. In this talk Dr Neil Turok unravels one of the the biggest puzzles in cosmology. A lot to unpack will look for the paper itself now.
At 50:00 I am really happy to be reminded about Bryce and Madame Dewitt. In 1972-75 I was stuck by their work. I had forgotten it was about vacuum and gravitational energy density. Prigogine and UT Austin fusion. When I got to UMD College Park, it was Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Joe Weber and Robert Forward. I was too young to know how they all knew each other, I read everything that everyone wrote. When you are doing things, it is not always clear where all the pieces come from. You just have a good feeling when you work on certain things. You really did throw in everything and the kitchen sink. But words on paper are not usable models. Words have to be filtered through human brains and memories and hands. But real models stand independent and testable, just as reality and measurements. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Very interesting talk. Thanks to Mr. Turok and to Canadian Quantum Research Center. Bravo. But if neutrino is dark matter, how do we explain the DM distributions they come with either in lensing or in the bullet cluster for example? Many thanks!
This is fascinating, way over the top of my head. I'm curious though, because astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa has recently claimed that, quote "the existence of dark matter, cold dark matter, has been falsified with more than 5 Sigma confidence". Later in the video Pavel then says, quote "... one particular very nice test which falsifies the dark matter, existence of cold dark matter, or warm dark matter, with more than 10 Sigma confidence..." Pavel is pursuing a version of MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics). He points out that galaxies have bars which rotate around as the galaxies rotate. He then uses the analogy: The bar contains a lot of mass, and so it's like a spoon stirring in a cup of coffee, and that the bar slows and becomes smaller. Quote "This effect is absolutely not in the data". So I'm really confused now. Here's the video title "The dark matter myth | Pavel Kroupa full interview".
OK, I've found an article: "Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists - Physics World" Quote "But problems aside, Turok says that the new model provides a natural candidate for dark matter. This candidate is an ultra-elusive, very massive particle called a “sterile” neutrino hypothesized to account...". Therefore, if sterile neutrinos get around Pavel's spoon stirring in a coffee cup analogy, then it would most certainly be helpful for the spoon-coffee analogy and sterile neutrinos to be directly contrasted against each other... Wouldn't it be good for Neil and Pavel to be interviewed together debating about that? What a great video that would make!
Inflation didn't solve anything. It was suggested by Slipher as an explanation for cosmological redshift, and then used by the priest Lemaître to inject his religious nonsense into physics. It was never a functional model and has been contradicted at every turn for the entire century of its existence.
An actual bang at a particular location, at a particular time, in an existing large universe. The tilt, the expansion, the turbulence, the echoes and resonances. The many swirls and rotations. Gravity is almost perfectly Newtonian in many cases.Certainly for earth and the solar system gravitational imaging arrays to look inside the sun, moon and earth. And to map inside central regions. And, just after and before the bang. Quark gluon condensation, not only CPT. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
The quantum phase change that causes inflation at the "start of the Universe" could indicate a speed of light / time "speed" change. In a black hole time goes as slow as it can, to get any slower it must jumps down to a slower quantum state, possible millions of times slower. The residual matter of the primeval "Universe blackhole" will be caused to split up because the stable particles in the new Universe are much smaller.
Time in and of itself is not a real dimension . If time was a true dimension , seperate from light , independent from light , it would cause physical changes to things regardless of light . Time doesn't in and of its self does not change anything's movements . Changing time does not change the movements of physical things directly . This is an important statement to understand . Questions to me are welcome .
Very eager to learn more about where time asymmetry fits in, or about how the universe fits into time asymmetry. How do we know time is a dimension? Because we can measure it. But increasing entropy thanks to Boltzmann is only very likely to increase, not absolutely. No other dimension can make that statement. So, does your work imply an absolute asymmetry? Would that have anything to do with gravitational entropy? Would that make entropy a field of particles?
time is movement of the wave function; the asymmetrical aspect of time only comes with a Higgs mechanism. otherwise, it would be indiscernible from a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe on all scales, including time parity. if what prof doc Turok is saying is indeed correct, the higgs is not fundamental nessecarily, and so it would take a combination of fundamental "energies" to create the Higgs mechanism, this means the universe is even potentially rarer due to; if this is fundamental. Anyway, the mutliverse part and inflation field part i dissagree with due to, inflation could happen in our model without a field, it would just be the sudden release of energy... time.... anyway time is better thought of as movement of the wave function rather than Boltzmann's interpretation of Emmy noethers take on "time", that is due to ruclips.net/video/mavmdUOEvug/видео.htmlsi=gKizNI5-vz9xnX7D in which, we actually recognize that low entropy past is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theorem, not even a theory, here: ruclips.net/video/89Mq6gmPo0s/видео.htmlsi=U0V-O4JxWb3o5Pjo at 7:58 in the video. so "time" to catch up!
@@helicalactual that time in and of its self moves anything is wrong , time does not actually move any physical thing . time moves no thing . Time is not a motive force . Hence the existences of engines and motors . And foot power .
Why has no one thought that initially inflation came about because matter in the form of neutrons and protons was forming as the temperature cooled. Matter is not very compressible so they took up more and more space in those Planck moments. Then expansion continued because of momentum. I hope someone puts me right.
Inflation of space never happened , never could , never will , for infinity . Space always is . Space can never not exist . Room for things to exist always is . Space never contracts nor expands . Ever . Room never contracts nor expands .
Год назад+1
I wonder if Dr.Turok have thought of Bose-Einstein Condensate as a possible origin of Dark matter.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the
How do Curve Space in the first place ? Up close this twist is physical . Fine . But that does not mean nor should imply that space therefore can be actually contorted or twisted . You have to prove physically , that space can actually be twisted .
@@philharmer198 Thank you for the kind response. They are very rare these days. If you put Iron fillings in a jar and pump the air out of the jar, those tiny pieces of Iron will still line up with a powerful magnetic field outside the jar. That field can be curved. Can that magnetic field represent a curvature of the space around those Iron fillings inside that empty jar? Is the Earth's magnetic field going through you now, even though it may be much weaker? Are millions of neutrinos passing through your body every second and most of them hit nothing inside your body? If an electromagnetic wave, like light, travels from the sun to the earth, what is waving in outer space as this wave travels?
@@philharmer198 Hot electrically exited gases, like a spark made up of electrons moving through the air, is definitely a plasma. However, a plasma is normally made up of hot gases.
Not really . Complexity and Simplicity exist together . The simplist thing I know is Hydrogen Atom . The complexity is the Understanding of this Atom .
By definition, a dimension has spatial existence. But if time is indeed yet simply another dimension, what then position in space does time have ? Wouldn't I be able to comprehend the universe if I could see time in the same way that I see the other three dimensions ? Something without any beginning, or something without any ending ? It's my concept of time that seems to screw this up. I am not able to conceive of an existence without the fourth dimension. Why not ? Time seems to be alike gravity or consciousness, maybe concept or percept just won't ever make it. If this is true, then where do I go then ?
Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city, with no interaction with each other until they used the subway, complain about the same time paradox unless it was effected by it? Maybe a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. Maybe random waves of time distortion hitting the earth? Maybe they're given off by the sun. Maybe they're from outside our Terran system and reach us in intervals. ???? Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!
@@philharmer198 If you can think of a better way to do a blind survey - of an entire city - in that small window of opportunity, well then, I'm all in. Until then, I invite you to spend a couple years in the subways. Between 2pm -10pm and you'll see for yourself. Just listen as an entire city gets off of work and gets out of school. You'll see it's more than a, "coincidence of circumstances."
Perception of the passage of time changes with age and with processing level (i.e. being busy) The brain perceives time based on 'new and unique' stimuli. When you're busy, you don't notice new stimuli. As you age, new stimuli comes in less frequently. The lack of new information as we age makes days appear to fly by. The intense processing while focussed has a similar effect. I don't think these people are actually doing any scientific measurements of the passage of time around them. Occam's razor. The assumptions you posited re time changing speed randomly are too numerous and highly illogical to be of any insight. It's OK to say 'I don't know!" We don't need to make things up, nature is far too interesting for that.
WOW WOW WOW WOW It occurs to me that this theory also explains the origin of MASS. CPT symmetry is btoken in our universe but is conserved across both our Universe and the mirror Universe. Mass is a consequence of a broken symmetry in our Universe and Matter results, in the mirror Universe the same broken symmetry results in Antimatter. However in total symmetry is conserved between our Universe and the Mirror Universe. Matter/Mass exists as a necessary and very simple consequence , a side effect, of the Universe/Antiuniverse creation and the fact a broken symmetry in each universe results in a field that manifests as mass. Presently the Universe/Antiuniverse are in the Time dimension moving away from each other. Should the dimension, I cannot imagine what the Universes are moving through, be spherical, then the Universes are simultaneously moving away and toward each other through the Time dimension and when they meet they will annihilate. Also because Photons are their own antiparticle and photons travel only through space and have zero mass there is nothing stopping photons from travelling between the Universe/Antiuniverse. Consequently we should be able to see the Antiuniverse. The recent JWST so called anomalous findings of galaxies at the beginning of time could very well be images from the Antiuniverse. Dr Turok your theory is proved. There is no need to wait years for RH neutrino results. I saw an Arwin Ash presentation on Entropy where he mentioned at the heat death of the Universe there will still exist random quantum fluctuations with particles popping into and out of existence. Arwin even gave a probability estimate of an entire Universe/Antiuniverse popping into existence after the heat death of our universe. A BIG BANG. I also imagine that when the Universe/Antiuniverse finally collide that could also result in a Big Bang.
My idea so I get to name it! What I mean is, no one has claimed it so I'm officially calling, "dibs." Voyager 1 is now in Milky Way's interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." "V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or, "Terran Time." It will be faster still when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble. So on and so on until we get outside any influence and into the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Or, "T.I..." ;-P Now that "V-ger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time." •Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured. •Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud .00007-.0007% faster, maybe. Just for reference. •Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference. •Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." (or T.I...) ;-P This name is NOT up for grabs. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to use a motor boat and hold tight. Always applies when you're in T.I....) ;-P A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about. Heck, rivers of time flowing differently might explain dark energy and dark matter. The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time." Pass it on, please and thank you.
Few problems. You consider cpt symmetry as fundamental, and mirror universe with backwards time. No any indication, nor I think it's provable. It's rather sound like a side effect of you apply wick rotation, in which case btw you annihilate and the universe would not exist. The only way to go around this, if you consider a deformation of the original system, and admit that there is no global symmetries only emergent symmetry. In this case you can get symmetry breaking of this emergent symmetry and leave the original state alone. The same issue comes again when you speak about partition function for gravity, the same wick rotation and imaginary time. Finally you saying right hand neutrinos are perfect candidates for dark matter, so you suggesting the magnitude of amount of right handed neutrinos are 6-7 x factor of all visible matter in the universe. None of these sit right to be honest.
Neil Turok, Great summary, but it needs to be a model that people can work with, not just look at. Looking at your summary at 17:00 makes me wonder if we could just move "gravity" onto a collective effect of forces and right handed neutrino. It can be stable. And where it is not, that can account for other things. I really think you are not far wrong that neutrinos are part of dark matter, except you are too reliant on high energy physics experiments and not looking enough at low energy large scale processes in the real world. The first direct measurement of the gravitational potential was Mossbauer and it linked high energy physics to gravitational effects. All accelerators can be used as gravitational detectors, and if they are not, then they are excluding gravitational effects by design and methods. Throwing out gravity as "those low energy things that are not important". The distribution and gradients of permanent particles is OK, but most of your "gaussian" is from the assumptions in the detector designs, where they strip out all the low energy data and everything "not Gaussian". That is where gravity goes. The gradient of a scalar field can be a force, but it depends on the velocity of the particles and the path properties in real measurement. No Reynolds, no coupling. You are right about hydrodynamics. You might want to look at that paper by Prigogine and Kondepudi about gravity. Dilip insists that chirality is one of the most important aspects of reality. But you can ask him. Look closely at your diagram and see what would happen if you put gravity over the Higgs, let it be an emergent collective phenomena, not yet another particle. Then everyone should be working with the gravitational potential, and fund more people doing desktop and nano detectors in large N arrays. The "radio" astronomers need to get down to nanoHertz, get solar system scale arrays, make combined electromagnetic and gravitational correlators, and put 100 times more effort into sharing and collaboration globally. This business of "standard model" has many aspects of "cover our ass" and "it has to be right so we can keep doing what we have been doing" and "if they really knew what we were doing, we would all be out of a job". Any accelerator can be used as a gravitational detector, except the hubris pushes to energies where any small effects are swamped by a few people wanting "big only". Many millions of sensitive desktop detectors working in global collaboration on many small things, is better than one LHC hogging all the meat and killing the young. Blowing bubbles in the physical vacuum was fun, but there are lots of real problems that are being ignored. A lot more effort should be put into global open collaborative worksites where all the stellar, galaxy, planet, and lightning models are shared completely, the data and tools and visualizations - in forms that 8 billion humans can use, not just a few ten thousand insiders in self-fulfilling groups. I had to take a few liberties in writing this. Grand unification is NOT owned by LHC. It is global collaboration that matters. Science Technology Engineering Mathematics Computing Finance Governance Other (STEMCFGO) serving the human species, not them getting bigger and more controlled by a few. If people would actually look at what they put on the Internet, they would see there a lot more going on than a few millions writing on paper (paprus technology). It takes decades to do things because most of STEMC is still paper and human memory, rather than global open to all in immediately usable form. My favorite is "When they make the standard models open, LHC will become a museum to how not to serve the needs of the human species". At 22:20 you are wrong. dominated by radiation only means the stress tensor has a small trace, not zero. It takes sensitive measurements of neutrinos and broadband gravitational and electromagnetic effects over many years with time of flight correlation imaging to separate "gravitational" from "electromagnetic" and "neutrino". ALL the "radio" arrays need to get down to nanoHertz. All the accelerators as detectors need to get down to nanoElectronVolts. Your standard model is too heavily relying on big bang, big LHC and big LIGO. It ignores gravity, which is small and everywhere and more sensitive than bang bang. Don't say "space time" say "gravitational potential" and "physical vacuum" or "neutrino concentration" or "neutrino energy density". The Internet is filled with fads and shallow science much because old schools are not paying attention to what is happening with 8 billion humans moving into heliospheric exploration and colonization. Singularities with real measurements are never mathematical singularities, just small or high gradients. Pay a lot more attention to magnetic gradients and energy density gradients. The mass of a particle diffusing at the speed of light, in equilibrium with the radiation field at the surface of the earth is about 0.025 electron volts, or roughly (1/7Million)th the mass of the electron. It makes a nice fine grained picture "smaller than electrons" and fits neatly with models of electric and magnetic fields at below electron scale. Some (all?) of the neutrino detectors should also be able to track the gravitational potential and its gradients. Don't say "waves and particles" say "fluctuations and permanent features". Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. So,no.
A Theoretical Physics assembly of established empirical law, for which the Professor is appropriately qualified. The only legitimate quality I can bring to an Amateur judgement is that that we are all Observers, and sense-in-common cause-effect participants, in sense-in-common Principle. From which POV, we are all together at the Centre of Time, as indicated by Euler's Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing and observed in Professor Susskind's Singularity positioning integration Apature, of entangled point-line-circle conic-cyclonic, prime-cofactor frequency superposition, of pure-math resonance holography. In Principle, Actuality is probabilistic pure-math substantiation, so although all Bose-Einsteinian log-antilog materialism is Mathemagical Methodology and Musical Measurement Problem interpretation, the only legitimate expression of phase-locked e-Pi-i coherence-cohesion sync-duration resonance quantization cause-effect acceptable in authentication, is Theoretical Physics. It may have negative connotations to declare materialism to be "superstition", ..correct in principle, but precisely wrong in approach to communicating Mathemagical Thought Experimentalist's, sense-in-common practical Intuition. Ie allow for the Uncertainty Principle.
The search for intelligible life in the universe has obviously hit a glitch in the Great White North. There is such thing as editing out clumsy intros.
AGE OF THE UNIVERSE: SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE: (copy and paste from my files): ('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy, 'SpaceTime' being energy and it's flow): Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason: a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself. c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed. * Some people for some reason (social conditioning/brainwashing/wishful thinking) believe in future eternity without end but do not accept eternity past with no beginning. d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. 'Space' is most probably gravitational energy fields, electrical energy fields and magnetic energy fields, varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. 'Time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end. e. Note also: The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons as well as the CMBR from the supposed 'big bang' should be long gone by now and the 'red shift' observations have more 'normal' already known physic explanations. No dark energy or dark matter needed. * There is really only 1 single truly eternal day that had no beginning and will never ever end. The 'day' of truly eternally existent ever flowing energy.
I've come to the same conclusion. As I see it seems to be the only possible conclusion, acausal and infinite. The big bang theory needs subsequent theories to plug the holes in that theory which then creates a new industry. Of course the mathematics and physics "jobs" will dwindle if this theory is given some crediance by the "industry".
@@gregorybaillie2093 Consider also the following posts to you after this post: 1. Concerning the big bang theory. 2. Possibly the 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe and how it could be eternally existent. (No Creator needed, and hence also why some I believe cling to the singular big bang theory, so as to be able to justify God's existence, of which then of course, they claim that they and they alone speak for God. A thing is though is that God does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. Loss of many religious jobs as well.)
@@gregorybaillie2093 BIG BANG THEORY: (copy and paste from my files): Okay, for those who believe that the singular big bang theory is really true and that all the energy and matter in this universe came from a very dense singularity: Please also honestly and accurately answer: 1. Where did the singularity come from or did it eternally exist throughout all of eternity past? 2. Where did the 1 iota of energy come from to trigger the singularity to 'bang' one day in eternity? 3. What forces of nature existed to allow the singularity to exist and to 'bang'? 4. What forces of nature allowed our current forces of nature to come into existence? 5. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand? 6. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary? 7. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does in this universe? 8. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist in the universe for math to do what math does in this universe? 9. RED SHIFT: Consider the following: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. 'IF' a photon red shifts, where does the energy from the red shifted photon go? And what makes that energy leave the photon? 10. CMBR from a singular big bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. 11. There are other more 'normal' physical explanations for the 'red shift' observations.
@@gregorybaillie2093 'GEM' PHOTON ETERNALLY EXISTENT: (copy and paste from my files): From a YT conversation I had, this is my part in part (concerning 'cause and effect'): I can clearly see what you are saying about the effect of a cause in itself may be a cause for a later effect. And in that regard, yes it could be seen as being the same. But a 'cause' usually comes before an 'effect'. And in that context, if something never ever changes, the cause brings about an effect (no change) which in itself is a cause (no change) which then brings about an effect (no change),......., and both the cause and effect are identical and no change occurs. But now, if some state of existence changes somewhere in the process, either via a cause that is not identical to the effect or an effect that is not identical to a cause, then change occurs. But for a change to occur that causes some later effect still puts a cause before an effect. One total state of existence changing to bring about another total but different state of existence. Logically speaking, I can't see how one could have a different state of existence (effect) from a previous state of existence that was not identical (cause) to bring about the later different state of existence. And sure, that later effect might possibly be the cause to future effects and so on and so forth and possibly life happens and evolves in a cause/effect/cause/effect.... kind of way. And in essence, 'if' for example my latest theory of everything is really true, that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the basic energy unit of this universe that brings about everything in this universe, including even numbers themselves for math to do what math does, a singular energy unit with 3 different modalities, each modality acting 90 degrees from the other two, while the basic structure of the 'gem' photon itself never changes, it's the interaction with other 'gem' photons in existence whereby other future effects occur in a cause and effect kind of way. And sure, later effects become the cause of later effects and so on and so forth. But the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photons themselves would eternally exist as they themselves make up space and time itself. Eternally the same, but yet interactions with other like 'gem' photons brings about change. (But I fully acknowledge that this TOE idea is dependent upon the results of my gravity test.) But in the context of this discussion, it is a possibility at this time of how reality truly is. In essence, the basic pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon would be both the 'cause' and the 'effect' all contained within itself and in that context, both the 'cause' and 'effect' would be identical. * Added note: The universe ALWAYS existed in some form and did not have a beginning, nor might it ever end. The creation accounts in the Bible and other religion's belief systems, as well as the singular 'big bang' theory, are all just fairy tales. The 'gem' photon would be it's own self causal effect, and hence, eternally existent.
No "thing" lasts forever. Except maybe energy and space which forever gives rise to "things" that do have a beginning and an end while "ultimate cause'' remains constant and acausal, and no I don't mean a Judeao Christian Islamic diety. And are humans even equipped to understand or find out ?
BIG BANG THEORY: (copy and paste from my files): Okay, for those who believe that the singular big bang theory is really true and that all the energy and matter in this universe came from a very dense singularity: Please also honestly and accurately answer: 1. Where did the singularity come from or did it eternally exist throughout all of eternity past? 2. Where did the 1 iota of energy come from to trigger the singularity to 'bang' one day in eternity? 3. What forces of nature existed to allow the singularity to exist and to 'bang'? 4. What forces of nature allowed our current forces of nature to come into existence? 5. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand? 6. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary? 7. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does in this universe? 8. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist in the universe for math to do what math does in this universe? 9. RED SHIFT: Consider the following: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. 'IF' a photon red shifts, where does the energy from the red shifted photon go? And what makes that energy leave the photon? 10. CMBR from a singular big bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. 11. There are other more 'normal' physical explanations for the 'red shift' observations.
CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. BB -> Matter and 'em' are created -> 'em' moves at the speed of light, matter moves more slowly -> (Billions of years go by) -> matter (and us) here ..........................................'em' long gone. (And there is no matter 'out here' yet for any 'em' to come back to us via QED or QCD).
RED SHIFT: (copy and paste from my files): WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS): Red Shift: Consider the following: a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand). b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies. And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy. c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics? * Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also: d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief. g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself. Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions. h. QUESTION: Do basically all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves? (Which would add to the perceived red shift between galaxies as they all basically shrink in size). Modern science currently states that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of spacetime. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy and hence would make a huge dent in spacetime. How could galaxies not collapse in upon themselves if space and time were bent to make it so? Of which also, the progression of galaxies?: 1. How exactly do galaxies form? (The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.) 2. How exactly do galaxies flatten out if gravity is acting on the whole galaxy? (Other forces must also be at work besides gravity for a galaxy to flatten out? Electrical and/or magnetic forces?) 3. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? (At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. Additionally, with the conservation of energy, as energy moves into the vertical plane from the center of the horizontal plane, energy from the horisontal plane moves to the center of the horizontal plane to replace the energy that moved into the vertical plane. There is also the conservation of angular momentum. As more matter moves towards the center of the galaxy, that portion of the galaxy would speed up relative to the matter towards the outer portions of the galaxy.) Additionally: GALAXY SPIN: (Inner and Outer areas spinning at the same speed): The inner and outer areas of the galaxy are connected via gravitational, electrical, and magnetic energy fields. While moving at the same speed, the inner area has less space to travel whereas the outer area has more space to travel. Hence a spiral shape forms. 4. The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller. 5. Of which, does all life throughout the entire universe (if other life even exists in the universe besides what is on this Earth, which is most probably true) eventually die and go extinct and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately just a waste of spacetime in existence? And even 'if' the current narrative of space itself is expanding, and the entire universe would eventually end in a 'big freeze', wouldn't the end of life itself in this entire universe still occur?
Gravity is virtual particles recombining. But instead of meeting it's sister, it recombine with one next to it. Take a team of an infimit number of players of basketball. They all want to sit to rest. And luck has it we got a row of infinite chair. All are seated. Now a new player pops in. Is there room for him? Yes, everyone skoot over. That process of getting up and moving to the next seat is a quantum wave, wich is the bending of space time. So there i answered a few question all in one. But if you are upset you probably won't understand. That wave in highter dimension is a sphere and a tunnel. In the tunnel a new univers. From that univers, the gravity of tge first univers looks like dark energy. Take a stocking, pinch and pull. The pulling is to ilustate gravity. But is you take where you pull as the new frame of reference, then a misteriou dark energy force is pushing the fabric away from you.😅 Yeah. That is just the mass of the parent universe. Easy simple and clean. A singularity is dimension Zero. You can say it exist or not. That is the whole point. That is how you move from dimension or not. Buy saying it exist or not. A point is timeless , it is not an object. You are looking from that point.😅
@@aurelienyonrac a. "Gravity is virtual particles recombining." Virtual particles (that do not actually exist) recombine? And if they do exist, what causes them to recombine? b. "...a quantum wave, wich is the bending of space time." Okay: 1. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space bend? 2. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time bend? c. "But if you are upset you probably won't understand." I am not upset, just discerning more of your apparent ignorance. d. "That wave in highter dimension is a sphere and a tunnel. In the tunnel a new univers." You have actual evidence that a higher dimension actually exists and is a sphere and a tunnel and there is a new universe? e. "From that univers, the gravity of tge first univers looks like dark energy." 1. Energy cannot supposedly be created nor destroyed. What makes energy 'dark' from other energy? f. "A singularity is dimension Zero. You can say it exist or not. That is the whole point." It either actually exists in some form, OR it doesn't. Just saying things exist does not make them actually exist, except for just as a concept is all. I can say 'you' do not actually exist, does that make it really true? g. "Buy saying it exist or not." Okay, 'you' do not exist, therefore I can ignore you. h. "A point is timeless , it is not an object. You are looking from that point." What exactly is 'time' that something can be 'timeless'?
9. Red shift: You are incorrect about conservation of energy. The conditions of Noether’s theorem must apply. An expanding universe violates the assumptions of the theorem so the energy is indeed not conserved. (If dark energy exists, it is also being created as space expands.)
Can you send me your mail id i have also developed a theory which resembles with your theory but explains things much better i can share it with you i you wish
I am very excited by Neil's new approach to solving so many nagging issues. We need more scientists like him.
For Those About Turok 🤘
Wow This is the news I have been waiting for for 3 years now ! I did watch Dr Neil Turok lecture "the simplicity of the universe" (or something like that ). This talk is on similar lines in that it shows how simple universe is. In this talk Dr Neil Turok unravels one of the the biggest puzzles in cosmology. A lot to unpack will look for the paper itself now.
talk starts here 6:00
Thank you my man
Thank you
Very impressive, ground-breaking work, Dr. Turok. Kudos to you and your team!
Thank you for sharing this event, and giving Neil a place to speak about his assessment of our current mathematics. Peace
Love Professor Turok. Thank you.
At 50:00 I am really happy to be reminded about Bryce and Madame Dewitt. In 1972-75 I was stuck by their work. I had forgotten it was about vacuum and gravitational energy density. Prigogine and UT Austin fusion. When I got to UMD College Park, it was Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Joe Weber and Robert Forward. I was too young to know how they all knew each other, I read everything that everyone wrote. When you are doing things, it is not always clear where all the pieces come from. You just have a good feeling when you work on certain things. You really did throw in everything and the kitchen sink. But words on paper are not usable models. Words have to be filtered through human brains and memories and hands. But real models stand independent and testable, just as reality and measurements. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I'd advise getting a sound engineer before solving the questions of the Yooniverse.
Thanks ,,,,great presentation of quickly changing aspect of our future science. Well done & consise 🌌.
That start is not the best way to instill confidence…jeez 😮
I was beginning to think silence was the new theory. Which is probably not a bad idea.
What the chicken clucken butt chunken drunk trucken hell was that all about
And why did no one bother to cut out all the crap at the beginning? How hard could that be?
A view minutes of inconvenience. The end of your universe? 😂
Very interesting talk. Thanks to Mr. Turok and to Canadian Quantum Research Center. Bravo.
But if neutrino is dark matter, how do we explain the DM distributions they come with either in lensing or in the bullet cluster for example?
Many thanks!
The response to your question will be interesting .
Can't get enough Neil Turok.. thank you!
neil turok my man in science and more
Where is the simple version? Please...
This is fascinating, way over the top of my head. I'm curious though, because astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa has recently claimed that, quote "the existence of dark matter, cold dark matter, has been falsified with more than 5 Sigma confidence". Later in the video Pavel then says, quote "... one particular very nice test which falsifies the dark matter, existence of cold dark matter, or warm dark matter, with more than 10 Sigma confidence..."
Pavel is pursuing a version of MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics). He points out that galaxies have bars which rotate around as the galaxies rotate. He then uses the analogy: The bar contains a lot of mass, and so it's like a spoon stirring in a cup of coffee, and that the bar slows and becomes smaller. Quote "This effect is absolutely not in the data".
So I'm really confused now.
Here's the video title "The dark matter myth | Pavel Kroupa full interview".
OK, I've found an article: "Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists - Physics World"
Quote "But problems aside, Turok says that the new model provides a natural candidate for dark matter. This candidate is an ultra-elusive, very massive particle called a “sterile” neutrino hypothesized to account...".
Therefore, if sterile neutrinos get around Pavel's spoon stirring in a coffee cup analogy, then it would most certainly be helpful for the spoon-coffee analogy and sterile neutrinos to be directly contrasted against each other...
Wouldn't it be good for Neil and Pavel to be interviewed together debating about that? What a great video that would make!
Dr Turok- without inflation - how about the problems that inflation solved- horizon, flatness, and magnetic monopole as well as other not so clear?
Inflation didn't solve anything. It was suggested by Slipher as an explanation for cosmological redshift, and then used by the priest Lemaître to inject his religious nonsense into physics. It was never a functional model and has been contradicted at every turn for the entire century of its existence.
An actual bang at a particular location, at a particular time, in an existing large universe. The tilt, the expansion, the turbulence, the echoes and resonances. The many swirls and rotations. Gravity is almost perfectly Newtonian in many cases.Certainly for earth and the solar system gravitational imaging arrays to look inside the sun, moon and earth. And to map inside central regions. And, just after and before the bang. Quark gluon condensation, not only CPT. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Neil tried to teach me String theory in the 90´s at Imperial..poor man! But great work!
Love the video prof, Peace ✌️. Gravity has got to go I'm afraid.
Excellent. How cool!
That sounds a lot like the Janus model of Jean-Pierre Petit. You wouldn't have to give some acknowledgment by any chance?
The quantum phase change that causes inflation at the "start of the Universe" could indicate a speed of light / time "speed" change. In a black hole time goes as slow as it can, to get any slower it must jumps down to a slower quantum state, possible millions of times slower. The residual matter of the primeval "Universe blackhole" will be caused to split up because the stable particles in the new Universe are much smaller.
Quantum does not Create Space . The amount of space or room , prefer room . Has always existed .
Inflation does not actually expand space its self .
Time in and of itself is not a real dimension . If time was a true dimension , seperate from light , independent from light , it would cause physical changes to things regardless of light . Time doesn't in and of its self does not change anything's movements . Changing time does not change the movements of physical things directly . This is an important statement to understand . Questions to me are welcome .
Imagining a Right-handed neutrino - based engine for space travel 🤔
12:58 into the video . Where do measurements come from ? The outside or the inside of the photo ?
Sound is absolutely terrible but still interesting.
Very eager to learn more about where time asymmetry fits in, or about how the universe fits into time asymmetry. How do we know time is a dimension? Because we can measure it. But increasing entropy thanks to Boltzmann is only very likely to increase, not absolutely. No other dimension can make that statement. So, does your work imply an absolute asymmetry? Would that have anything to do with gravitational entropy? Would that make entropy a field of particles?
time is movement of the wave function; the asymmetrical aspect of time only comes with a Higgs mechanism. otherwise, it would be indiscernible from a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe on all scales, including time parity. if what prof doc Turok is saying is indeed correct, the higgs is not fundamental nessecarily, and so it would take a combination of fundamental "energies" to create the Higgs mechanism, this means the universe is even potentially rarer due to; if this is fundamental.
Anyway,
the mutliverse part and inflation field part i dissagree with due to, inflation could happen in our model without a field, it would just be the sudden release of energy...
time....
anyway time is better thought of as movement of the wave function rather than Boltzmann's interpretation of Emmy noethers take on "time", that is due to ruclips.net/video/mavmdUOEvug/видео.htmlsi=gKizNI5-vz9xnX7D
in which, we actually recognize that low entropy past is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theorem, not even a theory, here: ruclips.net/video/89Mq6gmPo0s/видео.htmlsi=U0V-O4JxWb3o5Pjo at 7:58 in the video.
so "time" to catch up!
Time has no cause , effect nor affect upon anything physical nor space . Time is not a real dimension .
you can measure time as an extent or length. Therefore time is a dimension, I think.@@philharmer198
@@philharmer198 it does infact. what do you use to support your outlandish claim?
@@helicalactual that time in and of its self moves anything is wrong , time does not actually move any physical thing . time moves no thing . Time is not a motive force . Hence the existences of engines and motors . And foot power .
Why has no one thought that initially inflation came about because matter in the form of neutrons and protons was forming as the temperature cooled. Matter is not very compressible so they took up more and more space in those Planck moments. Then expansion continued because of momentum. I hope someone puts me right.
Inflation of space never happened , never could , never will , for infinity . Space always is . Space can never not exist . Room for things to exist always is . Space never contracts nor expands . Ever . Room never contracts nor expands .
I wonder if Dr.Turok have thought of Bose-Einstein Condensate as a possible origin of Dark matter.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
(Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the
How do Curve Space in the first place ? Up close this twist is physical . Fine . But that does not mean nor should imply that space therefore can be actually contorted or twisted . You have to prove physically , that space can actually be twisted .
@@philharmer198 Thank you for the kind response. They are very rare these days.
If you put Iron fillings in a jar and pump the air out of the jar, those tiny pieces of Iron will still line up with a powerful magnetic field outside the jar. That field can be curved. Can that magnetic field represent a curvature of the space around those Iron fillings inside that empty jar? Is the Earth's magnetic field going through you now, even though it may be much weaker? Are millions of neutrinos passing through your body every second and most of them hit nothing inside your body? If an electromagnetic wave, like light, travels from the sun to the earth, what is waving in outer space as this wave travels?
@@SpotterVideo Thanks for your response to me , in a good way .
Thanks and always .
@@SpotterVideo Plasma Energy . Is the essence of the wave , along with rotation and vibration and space .
@@philharmer198 Hot electrically exited gases, like a spark made up of electrons moving through the air, is definitely a plasma. However, a plasma is normally made up of hot gases.
There is now some evidence for long wavelength gravitational waves based on pulsar timing and I think that's at the 5 sigma level.
Finally the holographic information theory has some prevalence again and is no longer fringe
One day they will also find/realise that things are even more simpler at the small scale than what we presently have described.
Not really . Complexity and Simplicity exist together . The simplist thing I know is Hydrogen Atom . The complexity is the Understanding of this Atom .
Didn't mention if these t+/t- universes are part of a repeating cycle?
By definition, a dimension has spatial existence. But if time is indeed yet simply another dimension, what then position in space does time have ? Wouldn't I be able to comprehend the universe if I could see time in the same way that I see the other three dimensions ? Something without any beginning, or something without any ending ? It's my concept of time that seems to screw this up. I am not able to conceive of an existence without the fourth dimension. Why not ? Time seems to be alike gravity or consciousness, maybe concept or percept just won't ever make it. If this is true, then where do I go then ?
Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city, with no interaction with each other until they used the subway, complain about the same time paradox unless it was effected by it? Maybe a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. Maybe random waves of time distortion hitting the earth? Maybe they're given off by the sun. Maybe they're from outside our Terran system and reach us in intervals. ???? Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!
Maybe it just perception . Your busy .
@@philharmer198 If you can think of a better way to do a blind survey - of an entire city - in that small window of opportunity, well then, I'm all in. Until then, I invite you to spend a couple years in the subways. Between 2pm -10pm and you'll see for yourself. Just listen as an entire city gets off of work and gets out of school. You'll see it's more than a, "coincidence of circumstances."
@@michaelccopelandsr7120 indeed . Life has its connections . We chose .
Perception of the passage of time changes with age and with processing level (i.e. being busy)
The brain perceives time based on 'new and unique' stimuli. When you're busy, you don't notice new stimuli. As you age, new stimuli comes in less frequently. The lack of new information as we age makes days appear to fly by. The intense processing while focussed has a similar effect.
I don't think these people are actually doing any scientific measurements of the passage of time around them.
Occam's razor.
The assumptions you posited re time changing speed randomly are too numerous and highly illogical to be of any insight.
It's OK to say 'I don't know!" We don't need to make things up, nature is far too interesting for that.
Neil Turok did you find singularity free Einstein's charge free universe?
This can be accurately mapped onto a sphere
WOW WOW WOW WOW It occurs to me that this theory also explains the origin of MASS.
CPT symmetry is btoken in our universe but is conserved across both our Universe and the mirror Universe.
Mass is a consequence of a broken symmetry in our Universe and Matter results, in the mirror Universe the same broken symmetry results in Antimatter. However in total symmetry is conserved between our Universe and the Mirror Universe.
Matter/Mass exists as a necessary and very simple consequence , a side effect, of the Universe/Antiuniverse creation and the fact a broken symmetry in each universe results in a field that manifests as mass.
Presently the Universe/Antiuniverse are in the Time dimension moving away from each other. Should the dimension, I cannot imagine what the Universes are moving through, be spherical, then the Universes are simultaneously moving away and toward each other through the Time dimension and when they meet they will annihilate.
Also because Photons are their own antiparticle and photons travel only through space and have zero mass there is nothing stopping photons from travelling between the Universe/Antiuniverse. Consequently we should be able to see the Antiuniverse. The recent JWST so called anomalous findings of galaxies at the beginning of time could very well be images from the Antiuniverse. Dr Turok your theory is proved. There is no need to wait years for RH neutrino results.
I saw an Arwin Ash presentation on Entropy where he mentioned at the heat death of the Universe there will still exist random quantum fluctuations with particles popping into and out of existence. Arwin even gave a probability estimate of an entire Universe/Antiuniverse popping into existence after the heat death of our universe. A BIG BANG.
I also imagine that when the Universe/Antiuniverse finally collide that could also result in a Big Bang.
Mass always is . The Absolute Zero of the Universe is less obvious .
My idea so I get to name it! What I mean is, no one has claimed it so I'm officially calling, "dibs." Voyager 1 is now in Milky Way's interstellar time or "Mikey's Time."
"V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or, "Terran Time." It will be faster still when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble. So on and so on until we get outside any influence and into the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Or, "T.I..." ;-P
Now that "V-ger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time."
•Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured.
•Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud .00007-.0007% faster, maybe. Just for reference.
•Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference.
•Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." (or T.I...) ;-P This name is NOT up for grabs. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to use a motor boat and hold tight. Always applies when you're in T.I....) ;-P
A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about. Heck, rivers of time flowing differently might explain dark energy and dark matter.
The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time."
Pass it on, please and thank you.
OMG…re post without the nails on the chalkboard version
Such interesting theories. The cream of human thought... And such unprofessional / poor quality conference / sound :(
Much more talk than science in my opinion. Test it and get back too us. Until then you are all talk.
Few problems. You consider cpt symmetry as fundamental, and mirror universe with backwards time. No any indication, nor I think it's provable. It's rather sound like a side effect of you apply wick rotation, in which case btw you annihilate and the universe would not exist. The only way to go around this, if you consider a deformation of the original system, and admit that there is no global symmetries only emergent symmetry. In this case you can get symmetry breaking of this emergent symmetry and leave the original state alone.
The same issue comes again when you speak about partition function for gravity, the same wick rotation and imaginary time.
Finally you saying right hand neutrinos are perfect candidates for dark matter, so you suggesting the magnitude of amount of right handed neutrinos are 6-7 x factor of all visible matter in the universe. None of these sit right to be honest.
Neil Turok, Great summary, but it needs to be a model that people can work with, not just look at. Looking at your summary at 17:00 makes me wonder if we could just move "gravity" onto a collective effect of forces and right handed neutrino. It can be stable. And where it is not, that can account for other things. I really think you are not far wrong that neutrinos are part of dark matter, except you are too reliant on high energy physics experiments and not looking enough at low energy large scale processes in the real world.
The first direct measurement of the gravitational potential was Mossbauer and it linked high energy physics to gravitational effects. All accelerators can be used as gravitational detectors, and if they are not, then they are excluding gravitational effects by design and methods. Throwing out gravity as "those low energy things that are not important".
The distribution and gradients of permanent particles is OK, but most of your "gaussian" is from the assumptions in the detector designs, where they strip out all the low energy data and everything "not Gaussian". That is where gravity goes. The gradient of a scalar field can be a force, but it depends on the velocity of the particles and the path properties in real measurement. No Reynolds, no coupling. You are right about hydrodynamics. You might want to look at that paper by Prigogine and Kondepudi about gravity. Dilip insists that chirality is one of the most important aspects of reality. But you can ask him. Look closely at your diagram and see what would happen if you put gravity over the Higgs, let it be an emergent collective phenomena, not yet another particle. Then everyone should be working with the gravitational potential, and fund more people doing desktop and nano detectors in large N arrays. The "radio" astronomers need to get down to nanoHertz, get solar system scale arrays, make combined electromagnetic and gravitational correlators, and put 100 times more effort into sharing and collaboration globally. This business of "standard model" has many aspects of "cover our ass" and "it has to be right so we can keep doing what we have been doing" and "if they really knew what we were doing, we would all be out of a job".
Any accelerator can be used as a gravitational detector, except the hubris pushes to energies where any small effects are swamped by a few people wanting "big only". Many millions of sensitive desktop detectors working in global collaboration on many small things, is better than one LHC hogging all the meat and killing the young. Blowing bubbles in the physical vacuum was fun, but there are lots of real problems that are being ignored. A lot more effort should be put into global open collaborative worksites where all the stellar, galaxy, planet, and lightning models are shared completely, the data and tools and visualizations - in forms that 8 billion humans can use, not just a few ten thousand insiders in self-fulfilling groups.
I had to take a few liberties in writing this. Grand unification is NOT owned by LHC. It is global collaboration that matters. Science Technology Engineering Mathematics Computing Finance Governance Other (STEMCFGO) serving the human species, not them getting bigger and more controlled by a few. If people would actually look at what they put on the Internet, they would see there a lot more going on than a few millions writing on paper (paprus technology). It takes decades to do things because most of STEMC is still paper and human memory, rather than global open to all in immediately usable form. My favorite is "When they make the standard models open, LHC will become a museum to how not to serve the needs of the human species".
At 22:20 you are wrong. dominated by radiation only means the stress tensor has a small trace, not zero. It takes sensitive measurements of neutrinos and broadband gravitational and electromagnetic effects over many years with time of flight correlation imaging to separate "gravitational" from "electromagnetic" and "neutrino". ALL the "radio" arrays need to get down to nanoHertz. All the accelerators as detectors need to get down to nanoElectronVolts. Your standard model is too heavily relying on big bang, big LHC and big LIGO. It ignores gravity, which is small and everywhere and more sensitive than bang bang.
Don't say "space time" say "gravitational potential" and "physical vacuum" or "neutrino concentration" or "neutrino energy density". The Internet is filled with fads and shallow science much because old schools are not paying attention to what is happening with 8 billion humans moving into heliospheric exploration and colonization. Singularities with real measurements are never mathematical singularities, just small or high gradients. Pay a lot more attention to magnetic gradients and energy density gradients.
The mass of a particle diffusing at the speed of light, in equilibrium with the radiation field at the surface of the earth is about 0.025 electron volts, or roughly (1/7Million)th the mass of the electron. It makes a nice fine grained picture "smaller than electrons" and fits neatly with models of electric and magnetic fields at below electron scale. Some (all?) of the neutrino detectors should also be able to track the gravitational potential and its gradients.
Don't say "waves and particles" say "fluctuations and permanent features".
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
this model looks like the model urantibook presents
Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth is approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. So,no.
A Theoretical Physics assembly of established empirical law, for which the Professor is appropriately qualified.
The only legitimate quality I can bring to an Amateur judgement is that that we are all Observers, and sense-in-common cause-effect participants, in sense-in-common Principle.
From which POV, we are all together at the Centre of Time, as indicated by Euler's Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing and observed in Professor Susskind's Singularity positioning integration Apature, of entangled point-line-circle conic-cyclonic, prime-cofactor frequency superposition, of pure-math resonance holography.
In Principle, Actuality is probabilistic pure-math substantiation, so although all Bose-Einsteinian log-antilog materialism is Mathemagical Methodology and Musical Measurement Problem interpretation, the only legitimate expression of phase-locked e-Pi-i coherence-cohesion sync-duration resonance quantization cause-effect acceptable in authentication, is Theoretical Physics.
It may have negative connotations to declare materialism to be "superstition", ..correct in principle, but precisely wrong in approach to communicating Mathemagical Thought Experimentalist's, sense-in-common practical Intuition. Ie allow for the Uncertainty Principle.
The search for intelligible life in the universe has obviously hit a glitch in the Great White North. There is such thing as editing out clumsy intros.
AGE OF THE UNIVERSE: SPACE IS FINITE AND TIME IS INFINITE: (copy and paste from my files):
('Space' being energy itself, 'Time' being the flow of energy, 'SpaceTime' being energy and it's flow):
Consider the following, utilizing modern science and logic and reason:
a. Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong.
First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
b. An 'absolute somethingness' cannot come from 'absolute nothingness', 'absolute nothingness' just being a concept from a conscious entity in 'absolute somethingness'. Hence, an 'absolute somethingness' truly eternally existed throughout all of eternity past, exists today, and will most probably exist throughout all of future eternity. That eternally existent 'absolute somethingness' most probably being energy itself.
c. The universe ALWAYS existed in some form, NEVER had a beginning, will most probably ALWAYS exist in some form, and possibly NEVER have an end. Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, have been replaced by actual reality. No Creator needed.
* Some people for some reason (social conditioning/brainwashing/wishful thinking) believe in future eternity without end but do not accept eternity past with no beginning.
d. And for me, 'space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. 'Space' is most probably gravitational energy fields, electrical energy fields and magnetic energy fields, varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. 'Time' is the flow of energy. Hence 'spacetime' being 'energy and it's flow'. 'Spacetime' had no beginning and will possibly have no end.
e. Note also: The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons as well as the CMBR from the supposed 'big bang' should be long gone by now and the 'red shift' observations have more 'normal' already known physic explanations. No dark energy or dark matter needed.
* There is really only 1 single truly eternal day that had no beginning and will never ever end. The 'day' of truly eternally existent ever flowing energy.
I've come to the same conclusion. As I see it seems to be the only possible conclusion, acausal and infinite. The big bang theory needs subsequent theories to plug the holes in that theory which then creates a new industry. Of course the mathematics and physics "jobs" will dwindle if this theory is given some crediance by the "industry".
@@gregorybaillie2093 Consider also the following posts to you after this post:
1. Concerning the big bang theory.
2. Possibly the 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe and how it could be eternally existent.
(No Creator needed, and hence also why some I believe cling to the singular big bang theory, so as to be able to justify God's existence, of which then of course, they claim that they and they alone speak for God. A thing is though is that God does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. Loss of many religious jobs as well.)
@@gregorybaillie2093 BIG BANG THEORY: (copy and paste from my files):
Okay, for those who believe that the singular big bang theory is really true and that all the energy and matter in this universe came from a very dense singularity: Please also honestly and accurately answer:
1. Where did the singularity come from or did it eternally exist throughout all of eternity past?
2. Where did the 1 iota of energy come from to trigger the singularity to 'bang' one day in eternity?
3. What forces of nature existed to allow the singularity to exist and to 'bang'?
4. What forces of nature allowed our current forces of nature to come into existence?
5. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand?
6. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary?
7. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does in this universe?
8. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist in the universe for math to do what math does in this universe?
9. RED SHIFT: Consider the following: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. 'IF' a photon red shifts, where does the energy from the red shifted photon go? And what makes that energy leave the photon?
10. CMBR from a singular big bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us.
11. There are other more 'normal' physical explanations for the 'red shift' observations.
@@gregorybaillie2093 'GEM' PHOTON ETERNALLY EXISTENT: (copy and paste from my files):
From a YT conversation I had, this is my part in part (concerning 'cause and effect'):
I can clearly see what you are saying about the effect of a cause in itself may be a cause for a later effect. And in that regard, yes it could be seen as being the same. But a 'cause' usually comes before an 'effect'. And in that context, if something never ever changes, the cause brings about an effect (no change) which in itself is a cause (no change) which then brings about an effect (no change),......., and both the cause and effect are identical and no change occurs.
But now, if some state of existence changes somewhere in the process, either via a cause that is not identical to the effect or an effect that is not identical to a cause, then change occurs. But for a change to occur that causes some later effect still puts a cause before an effect. One total state of existence changing to bring about another total but different state of existence.
Logically speaking, I can't see how one could have a different state of existence (effect) from a previous state of existence that was not identical (cause) to bring about the later different state of existence. And sure, that later effect might possibly be the cause to future effects and so on and so forth and possibly life happens and evolves in a cause/effect/cause/effect.... kind of way.
And in essence, 'if' for example my latest theory of everything is really true, that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the basic energy unit of this universe that brings about everything in this universe, including even numbers themselves for math to do what math does, a singular energy unit with 3 different modalities, each modality acting 90 degrees from the other two, while the basic structure of the 'gem' photon itself never changes, it's the interaction with other 'gem' photons in existence whereby other future effects occur in a cause and effect kind of way. And sure, later effects become the cause of later effects and so on and so forth. But the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photons themselves would eternally exist as they themselves make up space and time itself. Eternally the same, but yet interactions with other like 'gem' photons brings about change. (But I fully acknowledge that this TOE idea is dependent upon the results of my gravity test.) But in the context of this discussion, it is a possibility at this time of how reality truly is.
In essence, the basic pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon would be both the 'cause' and the 'effect' all contained within itself and in that context, both the 'cause' and 'effect' would be identical.
* Added note: The universe ALWAYS existed in some form and did not have a beginning, nor might it ever end. The creation accounts in the Bible and other religion's belief systems, as well as the singular 'big bang' theory, are all just fairy tales. The 'gem' photon would be it's own self causal effect, and hence, eternally existent.
No "thing" lasts forever. Except maybe energy and space which forever gives rise to "things" that do have a beginning and an end while "ultimate cause'' remains constant and acausal, and no I don't mean a Judeao Christian Islamic diety. And are humans even equipped to understand or find out ?
This should be embarrassing . This start .
Not going to watch for one and half hours what can be said in maximum three sentences. So, no idea what he's on about.
It's all maple syrup and hockey pucks. Trust me on this.
BIG BANG THEORY: (copy and paste from my files):
Okay, for those who believe that the singular big bang theory is really true and that all the energy and matter in this universe came from a very dense singularity: Please also honestly and accurately answer:
1. Where did the singularity come from or did it eternally exist throughout all of eternity past?
2. Where did the 1 iota of energy come from to trigger the singularity to 'bang' one day in eternity?
3. What forces of nature existed to allow the singularity to exist and to 'bang'?
4. What forces of nature allowed our current forces of nature to come into existence?
5. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space expand?
6. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary?
7. What exactly is 'gravity' and how exactly does gravity do what gravity does in this universe?
8. How exactly do numbers and mathematical constants exist in the universe for math to do what math does in this universe?
9. RED SHIFT: Consider the following: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. 'IF' a photon red shifts, where does the energy from the red shifted photon go? And what makes that energy leave the photon?
10. CMBR from a singular big bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us.
11. There are other more 'normal' physical explanations for the 'red shift' observations.
CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us.
BB -> Matter and 'em' are created -> 'em' moves at the speed of light, matter moves more slowly -> (Billions of years go by) -> matter (and us) here ..........................................'em' long gone. (And there is no matter 'out here' yet for any 'em' to come back to us via QED or QCD).
RED SHIFT: (copy and paste from my files):
WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
* Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also:
d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief.
g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself.
Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions.
h. QUESTION: Do basically all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves?
(Which would add to the perceived red shift between galaxies as they all basically shrink in size).
Modern science currently states that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of spacetime. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy and hence would make a huge dent in spacetime. How could galaxies not collapse in upon themselves if space and time were bent to make it so?
Of which also, the progression of galaxies?:
1. How exactly do galaxies form? (The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.)
2. How exactly do galaxies flatten out if gravity is acting on the whole galaxy? (Other forces must also be at work besides gravity for a galaxy to flatten out? Electrical and/or magnetic forces?)
3. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? (At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. Additionally, with the conservation of energy, as energy moves into the vertical plane from the center of the horizontal plane, energy from the horisontal plane moves to the center of the horizontal plane to replace the energy that moved into the vertical plane. There is also the conservation of angular momentum. As more matter moves towards the center of the galaxy, that portion of the galaxy would speed up relative to the matter towards the outer portions of the galaxy.)
Additionally: GALAXY SPIN: (Inner and Outer areas spinning at the same speed):
The inner and outer areas of the galaxy are connected via gravitational, electrical, and magnetic energy fields. While moving at the same speed, the inner area has less space to travel whereas the outer area has more space to travel. Hence a spiral shape forms.
4. The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller.
5. Of which, does all life throughout the entire universe (if other life even exists in the universe besides what is on this Earth, which is most probably true) eventually die and go extinct and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately just a waste of spacetime in existence?
And even 'if' the current narrative of space itself is expanding, and the entire universe would eventually end in a 'big freeze', wouldn't the end of life itself in this entire universe still occur?
Gravity is virtual particles recombining. But instead of meeting it's sister, it recombine with one next to it.
Take a team of an infimit number of players of basketball. They all want to sit to rest. And luck has it we got a row of infinite chair. All are seated. Now a new player pops in. Is there room for him?
Yes, everyone skoot over.
That process of getting up and moving to the next seat is a quantum wave, wich is the bending of space time.
So there i answered a few question all in one.
But if you are upset you probably won't understand.
That wave in highter dimension is a sphere and a tunnel.
In the tunnel a new univers.
From that univers, the gravity of tge first univers looks like dark energy.
Take a stocking, pinch and pull.
The pulling is to ilustate gravity.
But is you take where you pull as the new frame of reference, then a misteriou dark energy force is pushing the fabric away from you.😅
Yeah. That is just the mass of the parent universe.
Easy simple and clean.
A singularity is dimension Zero. You can say it exist or not. That is the whole point.
That is how you move from dimension or not. Buy saying it exist or not.
A point is timeless , it is not an object. You are looking from that point.😅
@@aurelienyonrac a. "Gravity is virtual particles recombining." Virtual particles (that do not actually exist) recombine? And if they do exist, what causes them to recombine?
b. "...a quantum wave, wich is the bending of space time." Okay:
1. What exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space bend?
2. What exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time bend?
c. "But if you are upset you probably won't understand."
I am not upset, just discerning more of your apparent ignorance.
d. "That wave in highter dimension is a sphere and a tunnel.
In the tunnel a new univers."
You have actual evidence that a higher dimension actually exists and is a sphere and a tunnel and there is a new universe?
e. "From that univers, the gravity of tge first univers looks like dark energy."
1. Energy cannot supposedly be created nor destroyed. What makes energy 'dark' from other energy?
f. "A singularity is dimension Zero. You can say it exist or not. That is the whole point."
It either actually exists in some form, OR it doesn't. Just saying things exist does not make them actually exist, except for just as a concept is all. I can say 'you' do not actually exist, does that make it really true?
g. "Buy saying it exist or not."
Okay, 'you' do not exist, therefore I can ignore you.
h. "A point is timeless , it is not an object. You are looking from that point."
What exactly is 'time' that something can be 'timeless'?
9. Red shift: You are incorrect about conservation of energy. The conditions of Noether’s theorem must apply. An expanding universe violates the assumptions of the theorem so the energy is indeed not conserved. (If dark energy exists, it is also being created as space expands.)
Can you send me your mail id i have also developed a theory which resembles with your theory but explains things much better i can share it with you i you wish
Oh boy...
where do i mail the cash?
No you do not.