Paraphrasing this great man somewhat, but, “Living up to the opportunity of life, what the world is offering us, and the role we can play in it is sometimes ‘scary’, but is our responsibility; and compromising to ensure safety, such that our lives will succeed in following a conventional path, is a missed opportunity.” . Thank you for this Beautiful and inspiring discussion, Professor Turok. ❤
Why'd you retire? I'm guessing it's because you follow his inane brand of fluff and it didn't get you anywhere. I'm struggling to see if he really explains anything instead of repeatedly claiming the universe is simple.
Retired. Why would you do such a terrible thing? I am 82 years young and know that I would very fast disintegrate into nothing if I did not learn something new all the time.
@@hartejdhiman4438 “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.” --- Albert Einstein (1936)
Two people communicating is a dual process! The master (teacher) is dual to the apprentice (pupil) -- the rule of two, Darth Bane, Sith lord. Communication:- Sender is dual to receiver -- messages. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases. Riemann geometry is dual and therefore curvature or gravitation is dual. Positive curvature (convergence, syntropy) is dual to negative curvature (divergence, entropy) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry. Syntax (categories, form) is dual to semantics (sets or objects, substance) -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. All numbers fall within the complex plane, real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers are dual. Numbers connect the classical world with the quantum world -- quantum gravity. Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Interviews are inherently dual as they require two observers.
Thank you both for sharing your time and work Neil, Lauren, and the Perimeter Institute, always proud that we have this institution in Ontario, and that it is supported by our provincial and federal government's, science has a way of clearing the fog and finding answers to some very important questions, peace
@@karagi101 IDK about that.., but I think he should be more clear about his ideas(think it’s not about the difficulty to express his ideas verbally in general, but rather trying to sound as a genius). Weinstein is not easily “debunked” though by his colleagues, so that indicates substance. Not sure, if he believes everything he’s saying, but would be interesting to see him explain his ideas to Edward Witten for ex..
I like Neil. When he talks about simplicity of nature vs complexity of the ‘middle’ stuff(life) it really seems to ring true. He always brings up the importance of observation in actually confirming theories, which seems so necessary.
Einstein, only was taken seriously, with the "observation"of the apparent bending of light on the eclipse of the sun: 1919. This was an expensive an long pre-planned experiment.
I thought this was excellent. Not only was Neil fabulous in his responses and discussion, but I feel strongly that Lauren Hayward did an outstanding job as host. She guided the discussion along broad lines - I really appreciate that. This was about physics, but also about organizations, cultural influences on groups, etc. Bravo Zulu y'all!
@@c7hu1hu It's the verbose* representation of "BZ", which is the final entry in a table of (non-secret) codes, with the meaning "well done", as David said. ______ * Like: "Alpha Bravo Charlie" ... "ABC", etc.
Oh hey thanks both you guys. It seems id turned off yt notifications by accident. I see. It actually sounds interesting to "talk", ill be looking this up further. Be blessed!
Niel Turok is a great inspiration to anyone who wants to enter the world of science and not just theoretical physics. The insights and ideas he shares are very universal to science itself as he says in the video and I paraphrase "we in the theoretical physics are very cheap. We can reorganize the structure of how science is done in theoretical physics more easily than in any other field" This is not his exact words but that what I understood. I encourage anyone wanting to enter the world of research and science to listen to this interview and pay attention to what we can learn from 1. The process of doing science 2. The motivations of a person doing science and 3. How to be driven by ones own desires and questions and still contribute and be "useful" to those who employ, recruit or admit us to the institutions that are publicly or privately funded. In other words how can one be a responsible member of society without giving up any of our true innate passions. I am sure you will pickup a few tips at least from Neil Turok in this video interview.
He and Penrose amaze me in their ability to explain to lay people the short comings of modern physics, the problems with current theories and some of the new solutions and where they came from. So many of the lectures you hear talk about the current theories and how they work so well, but very few are willing to talk about where the current theories are breaking down, the contrarian views and how they are revolutionizing modern physics. This is an amazing video, on par with several of the talks with Penrose that were posted in the last several years.
What a wonderrful guy. I got goose bumps listening to him talking about the "scary world" we live in and how to deal with the resulting "fear" in a responsible way.
Here, a living legend beacons in, not only the vicinity of particle physics , but science as a whole. Very good interviews. Thanks for the efforts and keep up the good work.
I was already a fan of Neil Turok after watching 'The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything'. But here I also met a very wise, cultured and lively person, with a great feeling for the mystery of theoretical physics. Enjoyed it a lot!
@@koenraad4618 Maybe in your mind. You do realize that if we hadn't had theoretical phsyics to bring us quantum mechanics, the computer chip would have never been invented? If fact CRT screens, you know old television screens, utterly relied on it also. Now if you want to make a true statement, say that the real world is going morally and financially bankrupt because of some backward thinking religious goombahs. That would be a true statement.
As an old guy with & education failure..I began hearing things about quantum theory & thought..they must be deranged ...but I just had to find out what the hell they were on about. ..this chat just so excits me...matter doesn't understand size...wow. ..thanx for expanding my micro brain..
Great talk as always by Neil Turok. He is one of few active theoretical cosmologists who I enjoy when he speaks to a lay audience. His sparing and economical approach comes from deep experience and hindsight. Kudos, Sir!
Neil Turok is very good at explaining complocated stuff while trying to keep it as simple as he can - geeat communicator. A well conducted interview. In addition to the guest, kudos to the interviewer as well.
I absolutely love what he shared at the end. All of us asking the same questions, looking to the stars. Learning about the Universe brings me back to Earth so to speak, back to reality. It makes me and I'm sure all of us feel like we are all connected here, so small, in our now, a tiny blip of a vast Eternity. For me a vast Spiritual Universe created perfectly, not by chance at all.
He comes across as being very humble but there is a wonderful wit to what he says. "I was very fortunate to work on theories which could be proven wrong". Hear than Michio?
Neil is as down to earth as we can possibly hope to find in the rank of greatest theoretical physicists in whom we mere mortals anxiously watch and wait for the next & last (?) of puzzle to be found for cosmology. We are all curious and it’s very reassuring to hear him making this simple comment “Realty is scary… !” That’s so insightful and inspiring.
Wonderful lecture. More people should listen and learn from this individual's approach to difficult problems. I was really taken with the idea of a Plan B. This applies everywhere, not just in Physics. It is a very old idea, that one should develop a primary skill set and make it your life's work. But at the same time develop a secondary skill set as your Plan B. If something happens to the marketplace of ideas or things of your primary, one can then fall back on their secondary. All plans great and small should have a backup plan.
Never fall in love with the plan is a skydiving axiom. I knew a guy that spent the end of his life fiddling with his risers when the time had come to hit the brakes. The brakes were in his hand the whole time but he never used them.
Adding extra particles is reminiscent of the attempt using cycles and epicycles to describe the motions of the planets. When simple circular motion was not quite right, epicycles were added in an attemp to get a better fit. Eventually the dogma of circular motion was abandoned in favour of elliptical orbits.
@@Norman-z3s It wasn't so much earth-centrism it was a dogmatic idea that the orbits muct be perfect circles. With circular orbits the observations didn't match predictions. Epicycles were also circular and thus in accord with the dogma but they didn't work either. Elliptical orbits were much better although it wasn't until Einstein accounted for the precession of the orbit of mercury that it worked really well.
Nice to see Prof. Turok not only has a sense of the overall status and dynamics of physics but also of a person's place and responsibilities in life. Hear! Hear his call for diversity to foster innovation and to facilitate people that may not fit the standard template of an allround scholar.
From a very young age, I was determined to find out how this giant universe came to be - with little me in it. I had recurring nightmares of being squashed in a corner by the weight of the world. After causing a small explosion in Chemistry, I was kicked out at 15 by an itinerant young teacher who btw would answer any questions outside the text with "I don't know" (our migrant school couldn't find permanent science staff). After 60 years of wandering under the stars, I finally got a job in cancer research which I love. A series of lectures by Leonard Susskind took me into rabbit holes of supersymmetry and possible universes which challenged my grip on reality. You make perfect sense: Physics is applying Logic to Nature and should reflect reality and that three generations of 16 particles is most likely the finite number. Thank you kindly, Prof Neil Turoc.
That was amazing on so many levels: Occam's Razor to theoretical models, the upside down pyramid to support and nurture innovative ideas in education, the cross-cultural fundamental questions... One cannot help but respect.
I have not heard about Neil Turok until I watched this video. The video provides a comprehensive and eye-opening summary of the current state of theoretical physics. The conversation is very interesting, both scientifically and philosophically. It is clear that Prof. Turok is a genius. He is also an extraordinary human being, and an extraordinary member of society. It is fascinating to learn about the collaboration between Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking.
Best PI interview/discussion so far. The question I would have asked: There are lots of arrogant people in physics. How much of a problem are they to advancing the science?
They are stopping the answer to the all problems they has created. There is available book with title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" which "They" pretending that do not exist.
I'd say too much of a problem. From my own experience it is truly hard to do decent research without some self-confidence. Some can do good things without any self-assurance, but not many. It's the funding agencies that are the problem, since they are not effectively able to tell the difference between a good research proposal and a grifty one, or a bandwagon one driven by those big egos.
Turok is spot on... if I've noticed anything over the years, it's that the vast majority of people will overcomplicate rather than simplify obstacles. This is especially true of bright people; they're so good at computation that they tend to magnify it rather than reduce it. My intuition is that math and physics are at some sort of computational boundary, and whatever the next step will be, it will have a noncomputational aspect to it.
When I studied physics in the early1970s (I later switched to computer science), as an undergraduate student, I worked (paid position, where I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics) in the High Energy Physics (HEP) department, an experimental group. This was at a large state university in the US. We had most of the top floor of the rather large physics building, but there was one, smaller, wing of that floor with theoretical physicists' offices. In fact, Misner's office was there. Although we were all interested in General Relativity and got the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, I don't recall ever going down to their offices to talk, or even say hello. We had weekly departmental seminars, which covered both theoretical and experimental topics. So, there was some interchange there. We would even go to the Cosmos Club for seminars when one of our professors was speaking. When there was a big topic there would be all department meetings. Two I remember. One was when it was thought a magnetic monopole had been detected. The other was when GPS turned on and the use of Einstein's theory on that was discussed.
Seems I've come late to the party, but hey, what an insightful view eloquently expressed on the recent past and the future hopes of people like me who really expected more from our scientists over the last 45 years since I graduated. I've spent my worthwhile career in clinical science in Edinburgh, but always kept one eye on the stars, and cosmology. This is the first view I've heard the questioning of ideas such as inflation, and it is so refreshing. I really hope to learn more of how this wonderful world actually hangs together. Seems we're close to learning that, and maybe to discovering how to keep it safe for future generations.
I was so happy to hear that he’s listening to the only actual source of useful information, knowledge and intelligence, the nature, and is even looking for simplicity. My kind of thinking. It tells us that we have to focus more on what we are already focusing on for 50+ years, the (machine) computation and try to find the next big thing through that. Forgetting about the scaffoldings we constructed around it, we could finally rely on our trusty intelligence and the nature. At some point, they will be able to reproduce and even possibly enhance themselves in the form of some kind of artificially created computational structure that follows the logic of the nature (hint: mimicking the barely understood neural networks of our brains to achieve intelligence is a weak conception). By creating and applying a (somewhat) strong intelligence, AND pretty much disregarding the crippling network of our always just partially applicable assumptions and the icing of math completely, we could make the next big step outwards after all these flat decades of my lifetime.
Neil is a good listen, I do enjoy how he never gives up. It's important, I think, to have this tenacity toward whatever one has decided to invest ones time. Even if in the end it doesn't turn out to bear fruit atleast the entire basket, there's always something positive that shines through. Gravity has weighed physics down for 100 or so years and has kept us grounded in more ways than one. It's time so to speak to move forward and outward away from the atmosphere environment. No holes, just boundaries and spheres. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Dr. Turok's words on the importance of the scientific community supporting diversity - especially people who might not appear to fit our social comfort zones - are profoundly important and wonderful to hear. Sentiments such as this would be well applied in all areas of human society. Thank you so much for this wonderful interview.
I just whonna say as a iayman who loves cosmology and fiziks in general NEIL TUROK and i also listened to his 2023 lecture about his Cosmology theory wich explains dark matter as right hand neitrinos with large mase he to me is the man who has the most real down to earth and most importantly very well proven hipotesys abouth the world that I ever heard
Really fantastic interview and insights. - perhaps one small step forward in this whole physical debacle will be to treat the word “believe” as a non-word.
Great conversations. Thank you. As the Director pointed out, the younger generation seems to have more insecurity when it comes to choosing problems to work on and all that. The physics community is a bit overcrowded, and so it is harder to devote to unusual problems.
Great talk. Somehow I never connected Neil Turok with Ben Turok, his father. To call Ben Turok a controversial figure in the Apartheid era South African Jewish community is an understatement. The young 'uns, as I was at the time, mostly thought he was right. The oldies were nervous about a guy with an obviously Jewish name being associated with a Black liberation movement.
Concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks: 1) Calculus Foundations: Contradictory: Newtonian Fluxional Calculus dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0 This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal dx/dt = ɛ/dt Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities. 2) Continuum Hypothesis: Contradictory: Classic Set Theory Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals)) The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski. Non-Contradictory: Non-standard Analysis Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1 *R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements. 3) Quantum Measurement: Contradictory: Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate |Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app -> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution. Non-Contradictory: Relational/Monadic QM |Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required. 4) Gravitation: Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down. Non-Contradictory: Monadological Quantum Gravity Γab = monic gravitational charge relations ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities. In each case, the non-contradictory formulation avoids paradoxes by: 1) Replacing limits with infinitesimals/monics 2) Treating the continuum as derived from discrete elements 3) Grounding physical phenomena in pluralistic relational perspectives 4) Eliminating singularities from over-idealized geometric approximations By restructuring equations to reflect quantized, pluralistic, relational ontologies rather than unrealistic continuity idealizations, the non-contradictory frameworks transcend the self-undermining paradoxes plaguing classical theories. At every layer, from the arithmetic of infinites to continuum modeling to quantum dynamics and gravitation, realigning descriptive mathematics with metaphysical non-contradiction principles drawn from monadic perspectivalism points a way forward towards paradox-free model-building across physics and mathematics. The classical formulations were invaluable stepping stones. But now we can strike out along coherent new frameworks faithful to the logically-primordial mulitiplicites and relational pluralisms undergirding Reality's true trans-geometric structure and dynamics.
I love the analogy of young people being the flowers on the tree. "A reverse pyramid". Neil knows just what's up. I never liked inflation. Einstein did his best work when he was young. Great conversation.😃
great conversation... so in one sense we can say that the new ideas like string theories have been more or less guesses but we are where we are and that multiverses and such are not existing and the big bang was just a bang and then it started
I agree with Neil about how to manage research, about how to select and manage the human resources in a research organization. I also agree with Neil about the idea of not to "disconnect" so much from the experimental testings (except if you are a pure mathematician). I do not think that much advance will be achieved in unifying gravity with QM if it is not first understood something much more basic: how the classical framework and the quantum framework coexist. That is, the Quantum framework (unitary evolution) and the classical framework approximate 2 different "realms" of reality. Both realms are part of the same reality, but we do not have a satisfactory "model" saying exactly how or when the QM phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the QM framework) become and cause classical phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the classical framework). It is obvious that there exist a "realm" of the reality that is not well approximated by any of the 2 frameworks. Ideally we should try to find a model (predictive theory) for this more deeper realm of reality that should have QM and Classical frameworks as "limit" cases. We have a set of coarse rules that link both frameworks (needed for QM because our perceptual and conceptual background is classical), and that "link" suggests that causality for the new deeper model should not be space-time bound (non locality), more, space-time should not be fundamental, but just emergent from causality. We should investigate this interface between the quantum "world" and classical "world" with a much more open mind and thru experiments. Instead of investing so much in "discovering" new particles or ordering the particle "zoo", invest in solving more basic problems (analogy: investing in finding new animals/plants species vs. investing in understanding how life works.).
great to get an update on dark matter from a leading participant, will have to watch this a few times! Physics has been wandering in the wilderness of too many theories for way too long. I remember reading Gamow's 'Thirty Years that Shook Physics' in high school, and it is high time for another such shakeout.
Nice talk. Thank you for sharing. Look into cosmic neutrino background/CNB. The antimatter island of stability and the imbalance. Constraints on quantum foam in given energy density regimes. Lumpiness/smoothness of space. Plank and quantum boundaries for black holes and islands of types. Using the universe as a natural cutoff regime or limit. Keep up the good work.
I worked at the remote imaging department of national geographic for 18 years and for some of that time the organizational structure was pretty flat. At that time we were able to do a huge amount of interesting projects. we built wild experimental research equipment. Unfortunately a flat organizational structure is not common in large organizations and it is difficult to keep it that way.
I hadn't heard of Dr Turok although I had a short theoretical physics career in GR. It was fun to experience the era of black holes and general relativity. Now I am retired and am holding a library of abut 200 books on general relativity, quantum mechanics and mathematics. No one seems to want paper books anymore. I'm not sure to do with this library. Any suggestions?
Fascinating interview. I wonder what his take would be on the work of Nima Arkani-Hamed (among others) who suggest that the apprent simplicity of the laws of the universe mask a deeper and richer underlying reality, and that ours is just a highly compressed projection of structures outside of space-time.
This is what I wrote. The other was a co=pilot rewrite. There are so many things in cosmological physics to think about. Now spacetime is at the forefront of physics, I think. Space is as we see it the container of all the mass/matter/energy within it. Our observations are based on the movements, motions, and spins of the boundary detections from small to large of those mass/matter/energy distributions. Einstein has shown from relativity, both general and specific, that space(time) warps, twists, distorts et.al. in conjunction with proximity of large masses, thereby creating the warped space for matter to combine in a "gravity well" as it aggregates, leading to star, planet, solar and galaxy systems formations. As well as "blackholes'. It is mass/matter/energy and its motions that we measure. All physics breaks down as to a picture of what was before the theory of the "big bang", while also breaking down what is beyond the boundary of the blackhole itself. The real data that metrics of space(time) has the property of quantum fluctuation where particle pairs are both being created and destroyed, and in some cases creating new real particles that stay in the universe at a rate. "The Hawking Radiation" from blackholes. That the before and after, while the before was all mass/matter/energy that we theorize was injected into a something that became the container that is space(time). While the second, and a subset, was the capture within these warped space(time) wells, enough mass/matter/energy that it closed the warp of space(time) into a spherical boundary condition. Where it would consume at a rate the mass/matter/energy that passed that boundary, we note a "volume change" as the blackhole aggregates more mass/matter/energy within the boundary limits. We note "spin" or non-spin of blackholes. Now think outside the box. There are infinitely many possible wavelengths, practical considerations and measurement precision play a role in determining what we can observe and distinguish. In my thinking, I want to know what was the "space" like before such injection of the "big bang". One has to start "imagining" basing those imaginations on the physics we know. How was the "wall" breached? We talk about the big bang as barely a pinhole, maybe smaller than a Planck Length. Injection, expansion, inflation. Into what? It could be small; it could be large. Did the injection actually create the space it injected into? Was there an energy (back to quantum fluctuations) in the injection space? Is there a quantum anode like and a quantum cathode like to the "spaces"? The bang had to have a source before injection. We could deduce the total energy from the big bang that was injected. It is just we get "dark energy and dark matter" into that equation. We can see what we call a gravity effect from an undetectable source. We see mass/matter/energy expansion where clusters are moving away into expanded space. Our measurements have reached differing rates. We are kind of handcuffed by mass/matter/energy as the tool we use to understand this space we live in. With imagination, with education, a consensus could be formed for this pursui
Further to my previous comment, The cornerstone of my hypothesis, is that there are just two incredibly small particles that everything that exists in the universe, is composed of. All of the so-called particles that make up the standard model table of particles, are composites of these to particles. I honestly believe that it would be well worth your time, to just consider what I propose. Although it is available in a book, I am more than happy to send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
Brilliant answer to the first student’s question about her interest in working on quantum gravity. Just keep working on the nuts and bolts of doing science and at some point a key insight or breakthrough will happen.
Might be a good idea to look at MR Keshe way of explanaing our universes... etc etc down to the what he calls the Initial Fundamental particles... His books 1, 2 and 3 are invaluable...
I agree with Prf Turok’s attitude to clever mathematical theories that require unknown fields etc. Essentially I believe we already have the physics we need. All that is missing from the standard model is the inclusion of the implications of an inverse mathematical proportionality between time and gravity. The greater the gravity the slower time moves so; a view of a cluster of black holes at say ten trillion AU would take longer to reach us than a solitary star at the same distance. As gravity travels at the same speed of light it too would be affected by the slower passage of time. It is these localised time differentials that interact with the universe in a maelstrom of flows from the big bang (The 73% energy) and vortexes in time and gravity that form galaxies, matter over density's etc. This is not semantics. I am saying we are not orbiting a supermassive black hole, I am saying that we and it are the result of external flows from these intergalactic energy/mass/time patterns. M=E/C2 means a lot of energy has a little mass (Thus the dark mass) Further consider the slowing of time in a black hole as time stops everything stops ,entropy, movement ,vibration so by physics you achieve absolute zero. I see the singularity not as a point but as a zone that can grow with the mass of the black hole. This characteristic also explains their ability to continue absorbing. Anything that enters takes an infinitely long time to slow to a stop. Though from outside the Black Hole I suspect that how quickly that happens depends on the mass. Leaving aside what I take to be easily understood: that in the even more turbulent early universe the “Impossibly “ massive early black holes were force fed mass by these dark mass torrents not by their inherent gravitational pull or any change in the given age of the universe. I want to comment on Prof Turok’s comment starting at 16-26 of the video. He is I assume making a reference to “Cosmic Voids” with all due respect the point cosmologists have not taken into account is that as these voids empty their time is flowing faster and faster relative to their dense galaxy shells so it is not an unknown energy we see it is a time curve. The matter further out moves slower so the faster (Time)matter has caught up with it. I have always been inquisitive about cosmology but I have now firmly nailed my colours to the mast. I recommend a topographic time/mass map of the universe ,if we could quantify how quickly time was flowing at the various things we see it could amongst other things explain that the crises in cosmology: The age of the universe. It is simply that there is no one age it depends on what gravitational /time zone you are in and the gravitational past of what you are observing. It would I think show that cosmic strings can be described as visible evidence of venturian patterns in these Energy/Mass/Time flows. I have explained my full theory before so I will not repeat it here but I can copy /paste if requested. Especially cavitation that is central to my understanding.
@26:48 I do know exactly what the entropy of a black hole is. Everything that falls in is turned into a quantum string/particle (depending on BH mass) that is in a perpetual orbit around the descending funnel. That "collection " of fundamental particles, electrons, with quantum entangled information describing the infall with time resolution IS the entropy, BHs are almost nothing but entropy.
We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, based on Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states: "Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical light wave." Each point on the curvature of the wave front can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons. This can be based on E=MC² with the squaring of the speed of light representing a geometrical process forming a square of probability Ψ² We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future 'time' with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
32:19 Both this question and the one that was about the relationship between theor. and exper. phycisists is psychological in nature. Some researchers are scared because it would hurt their ego because a theory they followed is disproven.
Paraphrasing this great man somewhat, but, “Living up to the opportunity of life, what the world is offering us, and the role we can play in it is sometimes ‘scary’, but is our responsibility; and compromising to ensure safety, such that our lives will succeed in following a conventional path, is a missed opportunity.” . Thank you for this
Beautiful and inspiring discussion, Professor Turok. ❤
Right
As a retired physicist, I look up to Prof. Turok and his wonderful attitude to science in general. All should take inspiration from his attitude.
Why'd you retire? I'm guessing it's because you follow his inane brand of fluff and it didn't get you anywhere. I'm struggling to see if he really explains anything instead of repeatedly claiming the universe is simple.
Retired. Why would you do such a terrible thing? I am 82 years young and know that I would very fast disintegrate into nothing if I did not learn something new all the time.
@@hartejdhiman4438 “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.” --- Albert Einstein (1936)
on the contrary
@@hartejdhiman4438
I'm struggling to find any sentence, clause, or phrase in that response that isn't steeped in irony.
Something really refreshing about this interview, honesty, and clarity
Two people communicating is a dual process!
The master (teacher) is dual to the apprentice (pupil) -- the rule of two, Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Communication:- Sender is dual to receiver -- messages.
Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases.
Riemann geometry is dual and therefore curvature or gravitation is dual.
Positive curvature (convergence, syntropy) is dual to negative curvature (divergence, entropy) -- Gauss or Riemann geometry.
Syntax (categories, form) is dual to semantics (sets or objects, substance) -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
All numbers fall within the complex plane, real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers are dual.
Numbers connect the classical world with the quantum world -- quantum gravity.
Classical reality is dual to quantum reality synthesizes true reality -- Roger Penrose using the Hegelian dialectic.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Interviews are inherently dual as they require two observers.
Thank you both for sharing your time and work Neil, Lauren, and the Perimeter Institute, always proud that we have this institution in Ontario, and that it is supported by our provincial and federal government's, science has a way of clearing the fog and finding answers to some very important questions, peace
The quality of the interviewer questions amazes me. Good work. And hats of to Turok, precise and concise.
She is a very low quality interviewer. Bobble heads while Neil is talking and then follows up on nothing as if she was not even listening.
31:57 she finally follows up on something and its the dumbest question you could imagine. Jesus. SMH
Neil is a great communicator with an ability to impart complicated ideas in laymans terms.
Would be nice to see Edward Witten, Neil Turok, Erick Weinstein, Lee Smolin discussing new ideas.
Actually, he explains it to physics PhD's pretty well, too.
To me, it seems he has a very honest, yet kind, way of saying “yes, this works” or “no, this is crap”.
@@robertm3561Skip Eric Weinstein. His crackpot ideas have zero traction in the physics world and beyond it.
@@karagi101 IDK about that.., but I think he should be more clear about his ideas(think it’s not about the difficulty to express his ideas verbally in general, but rather trying to sound as a genius). Weinstein is not easily “debunked” though by his colleagues, so that indicates substance. Not sure, if he believes everything he’s saying, but would be interesting to see him explain his ideas to Edward Witten for ex..
I like Neil.
When he talks about simplicity of nature vs complexity of the ‘middle’ stuff(life) it really seems to ring true.
He always brings up the importance of observation in actually confirming theories, which seems so necessary.
Einstein, only was taken seriously, with the "observation"of the apparent bending of light on the eclipse of the sun: 1919. This was an expensive an long pre-planned experiment.
Exactly.
I like knowing that I’m more complex than an awesome Neutron Star!
I thought this was excellent. Not only was Neil fabulous in his responses and discussion, but I feel strongly that Lauren Hayward did an outstanding job as host. She guided the discussion along broad lines - I really appreciate that. This was about physics, but also about organizations, cultural influences on groups, etc. Bravo Zulu y'all!
Hey whats "Bravo Zulu" mean?
@@c7hu1hu Hi! It's a phrase we use in the Navy - it means "Well Done" but is expressed using semaphore flags and/or light signals.
@@c7hu1hu
It's the verbose* representation of "BZ", which is the final entry in a table of (non-secret) codes, with the meaning "well done", as David said.
______
* Like: "Alpha Bravo Charlie" ... "ABC", etc.
Oh hey thanks both you guys. It seems id turned off yt notifications by accident. I see. It actually sounds interesting to "talk", ill be looking this up further. Be blessed!
True, she asked the right questions.
All Neil's comments so well stated and the host was equally as perfect.
Niel Turok is a great inspiration to anyone who wants to enter the world of science and not just theoretical physics. The insights and ideas he shares are very universal to science itself as he says in the video and I paraphrase "we in the theoretical physics are very cheap. We can reorganize the structure of how science is done in theoretical physics more easily than in any other field" This is not his exact words but that what I understood. I encourage anyone wanting to enter the world of research and science to listen to this interview and pay attention to what we can learn from 1. The process of doing science 2. The motivations of a person doing science and 3. How to be driven by ones own desires and questions and still contribute and be "useful" to those who employ, recruit or admit us to the institutions that are publicly or privately funded. In other words how can one be a responsible member of society without giving up any of our true innate passions. I am sure you will pickup a few tips at least from Neil Turok in this video interview.
He and Penrose amaze me in their ability to explain to lay people the short comings of modern physics, the problems with current theories and some of the new solutions and where they came from. So many of the lectures you hear talk about the current theories and how they work so well, but very few are willing to talk about where the current theories are breaking down, the contrarian views and how they are revolutionizing modern physics. This is an amazing video, on par with several of the talks with Penrose that were posted in the last several years.
❤
His ASMR is a strong force that binds the universe together.
Lol...Flattery is the strong force!
What a wonderrful guy. I got goose bumps listening to him talking about the "scary world" we live in and how to deal with the resulting "fear" in a responsible way.
Here, a living legend beacons in, not only the vicinity of particle physics , but science as a whole. Very good interviews.
Thanks for the efforts and keep up the good work.
This man brings me peace for some reason lol
I was already a fan of Neil Turok after watching 'The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything'. But here I also met a very wise, cultured and lively person, with a great feeling for the mystery of theoretical physics. Enjoyed it a lot!
A rare example of a theoretical physicist who is grounded in the real world.
a real world that is going bankrupt because of the sad state theoretical physics is in
I suspect it is a pose.
@@koenraad4618 no, its not going bankrupt, you are writing the comment on a product of physics.
@@koenraad4618 Maybe in your mind. You do realize that if we hadn't had theoretical phsyics to bring us quantum mechanics, the computer chip would have never been invented? If fact CRT screens, you know old television screens, utterly relied on it also. Now if you want to make a true statement, say that the real world is going morally and financially bankrupt because of some backward thinking religious goombahs. That would be a true statement.
No explorer ever has been GROUNDED
RIP Peter Higgs. Neil Turok is so privileged to be a professor at the University of Edinburgh where he holds the Higgs Chair of Theoretical Physics.
There is definitely a Higgs chair, but not a Higgs particle.
@@koenraad4618
> 5-sigma confidence.
Perhaps you'd prefer to call it the "Englert particle". Weird flex, but OK.
Higgs is lucky Turok bothered occupying his chair.
The ads were jarring in contrast. Neil's voice is so smooth, it makes Brian Cox sound like Fran Drescher.
😂😂😂
Kinda true but you have to admire Brians enthusiasm.
As an old guy with & education failure..I began hearing things about quantum theory & thought..they must be deranged ...but I just had to find out what the hell they were on about. ..this chat just so excits me...matter doesn't understand size...wow. ..thanx for expanding my micro brain..
Education failure? How far did you get?
Great talk as always by Neil Turok. He is one of few active theoretical cosmologists who I enjoy when he speaks to a lay audience. His sparing and economical approach comes from deep experience and hindsight. Kudos, Sir!
Neil Turok is very good at explaining complocated stuff while trying to keep it as simple as he can - geeat communicator. A well conducted interview. In addition to the guest, kudos to the interviewer as well.
Vynikající rozhovor. Pan profesor Neil Turok je moudrý člověk.
I absolutely love what he shared at the end. All of us asking the same questions, looking to the stars. Learning about the Universe brings me back to Earth so to speak, back to reality. It makes me and I'm sure all of us feel like we are all connected here, so small, in our now, a tiny blip of a vast Eternity. For me a vast Spiritual Universe created perfectly, not by chance at all.
He comes across as being very humble but there is a wonderful wit to what he says. "I was very fortunate to work on theories which could be proven wrong". Hear than Michio?
Neil is as down to earth as we can possibly hope to find in the rank of greatest theoretical physicists in whom we mere mortals anxiously watch and wait for the next & last (?) of puzzle to be found for cosmology. We are all curious and it’s very reassuring to hear him making this simple comment “Realty is scary… !” That’s so insightful and inspiring.
Neil Turok is a real gentleman and a great communicator. If there were a Nobel Prize for Science Communicator he'd get my vote.
Wonderful lecture. More people should listen and learn from this individual's approach to difficult problems. I was really taken with the idea of a Plan B. This applies everywhere, not just in Physics. It is a very old idea, that one should develop a primary skill set and make it your life's work. But at the same time develop a secondary skill set as your Plan B. If something happens to the marketplace of ideas or things of your primary, one can then fall back on their secondary. All plans great and small should have a backup plan.
Never fall in love with the plan is a skydiving axiom.
I knew a guy that spent the end of his life fiddling with his risers when the time had come to hit the brakes. The brakes were in his hand the whole time but he never used them.
I love his notion of simplicity. This is why I have always been skeptical of string theory etc.
Adding extra particles is reminiscent of the attempt using cycles and epicycles to describe the motions of the planets. When simple circular motion was not quite right, epicycles were added in an attemp to get a better fit. Eventually the dogma of circular motion was abandoned in favour of elliptical orbits.
I believe epicycles were needed in an earth centric universe. Elliptical orbits worked once that notion was abandoned.
@@Norman-z3s It wasn't so much earth-centrism it was a dogmatic idea that the orbits muct be perfect circles. With circular orbits the observations didn't match predictions. Epicycles were also circular and thus in accord with the dogma but they didn't work either. Elliptical orbits were much better although it wasn't until Einstein accounted for the precession of the orbit of mercury that it worked really well.
Neil seems like a honest and beautiful person first and foremost, and a brilliant communicator with a contagious passion for true physics!
Outstanding ! Excellent interviewer and questions and clear air for the very impressive answers !
Nice to see Prof. Turok not only has a sense of the overall status and dynamics of physics but also of a person's place and responsibilities in life. Hear! Hear his call for diversity to foster innovation and to facilitate people that may not fit the standard template of an allround scholar.
From a very young age, I was determined to find out how this giant universe came to be - with little me in it. I had recurring nightmares of being squashed in a corner by the weight of the world. After causing a small explosion in Chemistry, I was kicked out at 15 by an itinerant young teacher who btw would answer any questions outside the text with "I don't know" (our migrant school couldn't find permanent science staff). After 60 years of wandering under the stars, I finally got a job in cancer research which I love. A series of lectures by Leonard Susskind took me into rabbit holes of supersymmetry and possible universes which challenged my grip on reality. You make perfect sense: Physics is applying Logic to Nature and should reflect reality and that three generations of 16 particles is most likely the finite number. Thank you kindly, Prof Neil Turoc.
*final
Finite means countable and is the opposite of infinite. 4 would also be finite.
I've always loved his humility, and patience :).
That was amazing on so many levels: Occam's Razor to theoretical models, the upside down pyramid to support and nurture innovative ideas in education, the cross-cultural fundamental questions... One cannot help but respect.
I have not heard about Neil Turok until I watched this video. The video provides a comprehensive and eye-opening summary of the current state of theoretical physics. The conversation is very interesting, both scientifically and philosophically. It is clear that Prof. Turok is a genius. He is also an extraordinary human being, and an extraordinary member of society. It is fascinating to learn about the collaboration between Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking.
It was a pleasure as a lad to listen to your experiences and insights and still a pleasure to hear more via TH-cam - dan
Kudos, To me, this video should win the prize for the best physics video of the quarter.
Thank you for the podcast.
Quite insightful and enjoyable
conversation with Neil.
Ich bin hin und weg. Tiefe tiefe Fragen und Antworten. Ein Kleinod von Interview. Vielen, vielen Dank.
Dankeschön! 🎉
Best PI interview/discussion so far. The question I would have asked: There are lots of arrogant people in physics. How much of a problem are they to advancing the science?
They are stopping the answer to the all problems they has created. There is available book with title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" which "They" pretending that do not exist.
I'd say too much of a problem. From my own experience it is truly hard to do decent research without some self-confidence. Some can do good things without any self-assurance, but not many. It's the funding agencies that are the problem, since they are not effectively able to tell the difference between a good research proposal and a grifty one, or a bandwagon one driven by those big egos.
Good evening PI and Neil
Super sensemaking stuff.
Truly grateful.
💜
Turok is spot on... if I've noticed anything over the years, it's that the vast majority of people will overcomplicate rather than simplify obstacles. This is especially true of bright people; they're so good at computation that they tend to magnify it rather than reduce it. My intuition is that math and physics are at some sort of computational boundary, and whatever the next step will be, it will have a noncomputational aspect to it.
A wonderful interview and an exceptional man, thank you.
I like that this guy blows neither smoke nor sunshine. He tells it like it is.
When I studied physics in the early1970s (I later switched to computer science), as an undergraduate student, I worked (paid position, where I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics) in the High Energy Physics (HEP) department, an experimental group. This was at a large state university in the US. We had most of the top floor of the rather large physics building, but there was one, smaller, wing of that floor with theoretical physicists' offices. In fact, Misner's office was there. Although we were all interested in General Relativity and got the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, I don't recall ever going down to their offices to talk, or even say hello.
We had weekly departmental seminars, which covered both theoretical and experimental topics. So, there was some interchange there. We would even go to the Cosmos Club for seminars when one of our professors was speaking. When there was a big topic there would be all department meetings. Two I remember. One was when it was thought a magnetic monopole had been detected. The other was when GPS turned on and the use of Einstein's theory on that was discussed.
Good questions, good answers, good interview.
Love to hear him communicate science.
Seems I've come late to the party, but hey, what an insightful view eloquently expressed on the recent past and the future hopes of people like me who really expected more from our scientists over the last 45 years since I graduated.
I've spent my worthwhile career in clinical science in Edinburgh, but always kept one eye on the stars, and cosmology.
This is the first view I've heard the questioning of ideas such as inflation, and it is so refreshing. I really hope to learn more of how this wonderful world actually hangs together. Seems we're close to learning that, and maybe to discovering how to keep it safe for future generations.
He has a commanding grasp of his field -- not only the academic side but the full scope of its dynamics
I was so happy to hear that he’s listening to the only actual source of useful information, knowledge and intelligence, the nature, and is even looking for simplicity. My kind of thinking. It tells us that we have to focus more on what we are already focusing on for 50+ years, the (machine) computation and try to find the next big thing through that. Forgetting about the scaffoldings we constructed around it, we could finally rely on our trusty intelligence and the nature. At some point, they will be able to reproduce and even possibly enhance themselves in the form of some kind of artificially created computational structure that follows the logic of the nature (hint: mimicking the barely understood neural networks of our brains to achieve intelligence is a weak conception). By creating and applying a (somewhat) strong intelligence, AND pretty much disregarding the crippling network of our always just partially applicable assumptions and the icing of math completely, we could make the next big step outwards after all these flat decades of my lifetime.
Lovely. Thoroughly enjoyed this exchange. Great interview!
Neil is a good listen, I do enjoy how he never gives up. It's important, I think, to have this tenacity toward whatever one has decided to invest ones time. Even if in the end it doesn't turn out to bear fruit atleast the entire basket, there's always something positive that shines through. Gravity has weighed physics down for 100 or so years and has kept us grounded in more ways than one. It's time so to speak to move forward and outward away from the atmosphere environment. No holes, just boundaries and spheres. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Very enjoyable interview. Thank you both!
Agree, very good communicator. And great shirt :)
See my comment 3 days after yours.
Oh my GOD. 4:00 range is just testifying to my greatest hope for reality.
Always look forward to any communications from perimeter.
Dr. Turok's words on the importance of the scientific community supporting diversity - especially people who might not appear to fit our social comfort zones - are profoundly important and wonderful to hear. Sentiments such as this would be well applied in all areas of human society. Thank you so much for this wonderful interview.
More strength to Prof Neil.. 🇿🇦
Awesome Interview, really nice dude
Always inspired listening to him and how he sees the world.
Great and insightful conversation.
I just whonna say as a iayman who loves cosmology and fiziks in general NEIL TUROK and i also listened to his 2023 lecture about his Cosmology theory wich explains dark matter as right hand neitrinos with large mase he to me is the man who has the most real down to earth and most importantly very well proven hipotesys abouth the world that I ever heard
Really fantastic interview and insights. - perhaps one small step forward in this whole physical debacle will be to treat the word “believe” as a non-word.
Great conversations. Thank you. As the Director pointed out, the younger generation seems to have more insecurity when it comes to choosing problems to work on and all that. The physics community is a bit overcrowded, and so it is harder to devote to unusual problems.
Excellent interview.
Great talk. Somehow I never connected Neil Turok with Ben Turok, his father. To call Ben Turok a controversial figure in the Apartheid era South African Jewish community is an understatement. The young 'uns, as I was at the time, mostly thought he was right. The oldies were nervous about a guy with an obviously Jewish name being associated with a Black liberation movement.
Concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks:
1) Calculus Foundations:
Contradictory:
Newtonian Fluxional Calculus
dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0
This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale.
Non-Contradictory:
Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus
dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal
dx/dt = ɛ/dt
Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities.
2) Continuum Hypothesis:
Contradictory:
Classic Set Theory
Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals))
The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski.
Non-Contradictory:
Non-standard Analysis
Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1
*R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements
The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements.
3) Quantum Measurement:
Contradictory:
Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate
|Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app
-> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app
The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution.
Non-Contradictory:
Relational/Monadic QM
|Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective
The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required.
4) Gravitation:
Contradictory:
General Relativity
Gμν = 8πTμν
Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν
Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down.
Non-Contradictory:
Monadological Quantum Gravity
Γab = monic gravitational charge relations
ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx
Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities.
In each case, the non-contradictory formulation avoids paradoxes by:
1) Replacing limits with infinitesimals/monics
2) Treating the continuum as derived from discrete elements
3) Grounding physical phenomena in pluralistic relational perspectives
4) Eliminating singularities from over-idealized geometric approximations
By restructuring equations to reflect quantized, pluralistic, relational ontologies rather than unrealistic continuity idealizations, the non-contradictory frameworks transcend the self-undermining paradoxes plaguing classical theories.
At every layer, from the arithmetic of infinites to continuum modeling to quantum dynamics and gravitation, realigning descriptive mathematics with metaphysical non-contradiction principles drawn from monadic perspectivalism points a way forward towards paradox-free model-building across physics and mathematics.
The classical formulations were invaluable stepping stones. But now we can strike out along coherent new frameworks faithful to the logically-primordial mulitiplicites and relational pluralisms undergirding Reality's true trans-geometric structure and dynamics.
I think intelligence is better shown, explaining very complex ideas, in ways more people can understand them.
I love the analogy of young people being the flowers on the tree. "A reverse pyramid". Neil knows just what's up. I never liked inflation. Einstein did his best work when he was young. Great conversation.😃
this is such an interesting collection of explanations.
great conversation... so in one sense we can say that the new ideas like string theories have been more or less guesses but we are where we are and that multiverses and such are not existing and the big bang was just a bang and then it started
I agree with Neil about how to manage research, about how to select and manage the
human resources in a research organization. I also agree with Neil about the idea of not
to "disconnect" so much from the experimental testings (except if you are a pure
mathematician).
I do not think that much advance will be achieved in unifying gravity with QM if it
is not first understood something much more basic: how the classical framework and the
quantum framework coexist. That is, the Quantum framework (unitary evolution) and
the classical framework approximate 2 different "realms" of reality. Both realms are
part of the same reality, but we do not have a satisfactory "model" saying exactly
how or when the QM phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the QM framework) become
and cause classical phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the classical
framework). It is obvious that there exist a "realm" of the reality that is not well
approximated by any of the 2 frameworks. Ideally we should try to find a model
(predictive theory) for this more deeper realm of reality that should have QM and
Classical frameworks as "limit" cases. We have a set of coarse rules that link both
frameworks (needed for QM because our perceptual and conceptual background is
classical), and that "link" suggests that causality for the new deeper model should
not be space-time bound (non locality), more, space-time should not be fundamental,
but just emergent from causality. We should investigate this interface between the
quantum "world" and classical "world" with a much more open mind and thru experiments.
Instead of investing so much in "discovering" new particles or ordering the particle
"zoo", invest in solving more basic problems (analogy: investing in finding new
animals/plants species vs. investing in understanding how life works.).
This is refreshing!
Thanks very nice and informative interview.
Neil is only man who is so good at explaining things that i would put him with Brian Green and go so far to say that to me he should do more of videos
He nailed the "follow the sheep" nature of scientific research in academia. Said sheep shall get grants and contribute overhead to the institution.
great to get an update on dark matter from a leading participant, will have to watch this a few times! Physics has been wandering in the wilderness of too many theories for way too long. I remember reading Gamow's 'Thirty Years that Shook Physics' in high school, and it is high time for another such shakeout.
So true, for any field of science!
Nice talk. Thank you for sharing. Look into cosmic neutrino background/CNB. The antimatter island of stability and the imbalance. Constraints on quantum foam in given energy density regimes. Lumpiness/smoothness of space. Plank and quantum boundaries for black holes and islands of types. Using the universe as a natural cutoff regime or limit. Keep up the good work.
I would love to see reality with his eyes, and brain.
I worked at the remote imaging department of national geographic for 18 years and for some of that time the organizational structure was pretty flat. At that time we were able to do a huge amount of interesting projects. we built wild experimental research equipment. Unfortunately a flat organizational structure is not common in large organizations and it is difficult to keep it that way.
I hadn't heard of Dr Turok although I had a short theoretical physics career in GR. It was fun to experience the era of black holes and general relativity. Now I am retired and am holding a library of abut 200 books on general relativity, quantum mechanics and mathematics. No one seems to want paper books anymore. I'm not sure to do with this library. Any suggestions?
Fascinating interview. I wonder what his take would be on the work of Nima Arkani-Hamed (among others) who suggest that the apprent simplicity of the laws of the universe mask a deeper and richer underlying reality, and that ours is just a highly compressed projection of structures outside of space-time.
thank you for the kind words
This is what I wrote. The other was a co=pilot rewrite.
There are so many things in cosmological physics to think about.
Now spacetime is at the forefront of physics, I think.
Space is as we see it the container of all the mass/matter/energy within it.
Our observations are based on the movements, motions, and spins of the boundary detections from small to large of those mass/matter/energy distributions.
Einstein has shown from relativity, both general and specific, that space(time) warps, twists, distorts et.al. in conjunction with proximity of large masses, thereby creating the warped space for matter to combine in a "gravity well" as it aggregates, leading to star, planet, solar and galaxy systems formations. As well as "blackholes'.
It is mass/matter/energy and its motions that we measure.
All physics breaks down as to a picture of what was before the theory of the "big bang", while also breaking down what is beyond the boundary of the blackhole itself.
The real data that metrics of space(time) has the property of quantum fluctuation where particle pairs are both being created and destroyed, and in some cases creating new real particles that stay in the universe at a rate. "The Hawking Radiation" from blackholes.
That the before and after, while the before was all mass/matter/energy that we theorize was injected into a something that became the container that is space(time).
While the second, and a subset, was the capture within these warped space(time) wells, enough mass/matter/energy that it closed the warp of space(time) into a spherical boundary condition.
Where it would consume at a rate the mass/matter/energy that passed that boundary, we note a "volume change" as the blackhole aggregates more mass/matter/energy within the boundary limits. We note "spin" or non-spin of blackholes.
Now think outside the box.
There are infinitely many possible wavelengths, practical considerations and measurement precision play a role in determining what we can observe and distinguish.
In my thinking, I want to know what was the "space" like before such injection of the "big bang".
One has to start "imagining" basing those imaginations on the physics we know.
How was the "wall" breached?
We talk about the big bang as barely a pinhole, maybe smaller than a Planck Length.
Injection, expansion, inflation.
Into what? It could be small; it could be large. Did the injection actually create the space it injected into?
Was there an energy (back to quantum fluctuations) in the injection space?
Is there a quantum anode like and a quantum cathode like to the "spaces"?
The bang had to have a source before injection.
We could deduce the total energy from the big bang that was injected. It is just we get "dark energy and dark matter" into that equation.
We can see what we call a gravity effect from an undetectable source.
We see mass/matter/energy expansion where clusters are moving away into expanded space.
Our measurements have reached differing rates.
We are kind of handcuffed by mass/matter/energy as the tool we use to understand this space we live in.
With imagination, with education, a consensus could be formed for this pursui
Further to my previous comment, The cornerstone of my hypothesis, is that there are just two incredibly small particles that everything that exists in the universe, is composed of. All of the so-called particles that make up the standard model table of particles, are composites of these to particles. I honestly believe that it would be well worth your time, to just consider what I propose.
Although it is available in a book, I am more than happy to send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
Brilliant answer to the first student’s question about her interest in working on quantum gravity. Just keep working on the nuts and bolts of doing science and at some point a key insight or breakthrough will happen.
Might be a good idea to look at MR Keshe way of explanaing our universes... etc etc down to the what he calls the Initial Fundamental particles... His books 1, 2 and 3 are invaluable...
excellent conversation
I agree with Prf Turok’s attitude to clever mathematical theories that require unknown fields etc. Essentially I believe we already have the physics we need.
All that is missing from the standard model is the inclusion of the implications of an inverse mathematical proportionality between time and gravity. The greater the gravity the slower time moves so; a view of a cluster of black holes at say ten trillion AU would take longer to reach us than a solitary star at the same distance. As gravity travels at the same speed of light it too would be affected by the slower passage of time. It is these localised time differentials that interact with the universe in a maelstrom of flows from the big bang (The 73% energy) and vortexes in time and gravity that form galaxies, matter over density's etc.
This is not semantics. I am saying we are not orbiting a supermassive black hole, I am saying that we and it are the result of external flows from these intergalactic energy/mass/time patterns.
M=E/C2 means a lot of energy has a little mass (Thus the dark mass)
Further consider the slowing of time in a black hole as time stops everything stops ,entropy, movement ,vibration so by physics you achieve absolute zero.
I see the singularity not as a point but as a zone that can grow with the mass of the black hole. This characteristic also explains their ability to continue absorbing. Anything that enters takes an infinitely long time to slow to a stop. Though from outside the Black Hole I suspect that how quickly that happens depends on the mass.
Leaving aside what I take to be easily understood: that in the even more turbulent early universe the “Impossibly “ massive early black holes were force fed mass by these dark mass torrents not by their inherent gravitational pull or any change in the given age of the universe.
I want to comment on Prof Turok’s comment starting at 16-26 of the video.
He is I assume making a reference to “Cosmic Voids” with all due respect the point cosmologists have not taken into account is that as these voids empty their time is flowing faster and faster relative to their dense galaxy shells so it is not an unknown energy we see it is a time curve. The matter further out moves slower so the faster (Time)matter has caught up with it.
I have always been inquisitive about cosmology but I have now firmly nailed my colours to the mast. I recommend a topographic time/mass map of the universe ,if we could quantify how quickly time was flowing at the various things we see it could amongst other things explain that the crises in cosmology: The age of the universe. It is simply that there is no one age it depends on what gravitational /time zone you are in and the gravitational past of what you are observing. It would I think show that cosmic strings can be described as visible evidence of venturian patterns in these Energy/Mass/Time flows.
I have explained my full theory before so I will not repeat it here but I can copy /paste if requested.
Especially cavitation that is central to my understanding.
Curious about the reebok hockey stick behind the gfx panel…
Perimeter is a Canadian institution. I also liked that the stick has Sid Crosby's name on it.
@26:48 I do know exactly what the entropy of a black hole is. Everything that falls in is turned into a quantum string/particle (depending on BH mass) that is in a perpetual orbit around the descending funnel. That "collection " of fundamental particles, electrons, with quantum entangled information describing the infall with time resolution IS the entropy, BHs are almost nothing but entropy.
awesome. Touching.
Super! thank you
We need to go back to r² and the three-dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. The spherical 4πr² geometry is key to this concept, based on Huygens' Principle from 1670, which states:
"Every point on a wave front of light has the potential to create a new spherical light wave."
Each point on the curvature of the wave front can be considered a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction exchanging potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter in the form of electrons.
This can be based on E=MC² with the squaring of the speed of light representing a geometrical process forming a square of probability Ψ²
We experienced this as a continuously emerging probabilistic future 'time' with the spherical 4πr² surface acting as a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆x∆pᵪ≥h/4π encountered in daily life.
32:19 Both this question and the one that was about the relationship between theor. and exper. phycisists is psychological in nature. Some researchers are scared because it would hurt their ego because a theory they followed is disproven.
Prof thanks alot for AIMS and NEI
If right handed/sterile neutrinos make up some high percentage of dark matter the mass must be pretty high.
The highest left handed neutrino is 2.3eV
It’s ok to be wrong because it helps us as a civilization to be right