Challenging Conventional Cosmology

[@Idonthaveahandleok]

Brian, please don't ever stop doing these. The one-on-one interviews by you are by far the best format, don't ever change please!

[@colinadevivero]

Greene and Turok chat effortlessly and we listen breathlessly. What a delight! Thank you ❤

[@jinstinky501]

Turok the dinosaur Hunter? Jk.

[@bgz42]

I feel honored that they allow us to listen in to their discussions, I'm a fan (been a fan for a while now).

[@arcradious2302]

Love that game​@@jinstinky501

[@ArmandoDavalos-ub6wn]

😅

[@rotatingmind]

Neil Turok is one of the bright minds of these days. Happy to see him on this channel.

[@pablokagioglu2546]

Thanks Brian. Fascinating and infinitely refreshing. Bring Neil back again.

[@dewiwood2106]

As a long time follower of theoretical physics I am positively thrilled to witness this conversation outlining the solid theories and proposals of Neil Turok. To be able to watch two of the best communicators in science discuss these topics is an absolute treat. Also, I must add, that to hear that Brian felt inspired in the end to follow up on several of the topics raised by Master Turok, leaves me feeling positive about how I have held both of these men in highest regards for years. It did not have to go that way .. the entire world can learn from everything about this. In the end, we're all in this together .. and we're all on the same team. Go Science!

[@soucianceeqdamrashti8175]

Finally a longer segment with someone who is not afraid of being humble and critical at the same time. Great interview and great counter talk to all the hyperbole from string theorists..

[@Lasselucidora]

Turok has been the most interesting scientist to listen to for a very long time.

[@NomenNescio99]

Brian Greene is always polite, cordial, reasonable and willing to have a discussion. It's very nice to see this kind of conversation.

[@SousDine]

That Brian Greene and Tracy Day started the WSF was a brilliant idea, and the series of interviews on a wide range of topics and at a level understandable (mostly!) by non-experts is marvellous. Long may they continue. As a retired CERN experimentalst I discovered that well-know theorists would come to CERN for a sabbatical, or perhaps over the summer, but would only find out later by reading articles in New Scientist. No doubt these people gave seminars to the Theory Department, but they almost never gave seminars at a level understandable by none experts. And after I started to discover the mess with the QM Measurement Problem (this was never mentioned during my degree course) I also discovered that every day on my way to coffee I passed within 50 metres of the office of John Bell. Thus, I once sent him a message to suggest he give a talk on the issue, but without success. Thus, maybe if someone from the CERN theory department reads this, they may consider whether it should expand its role outside the Theory Conference Room. In the mean time thanks goodness for Professor Greene!

[@C-delaC]

I've been waiting for this conversation between Brian Greene and Neil Turok for ages! 🥰

[@kokits]

such content for free is a luxury for everyone - thanks!

[@lool8420]

More fascinating discussion, thanks Professors Greene and Turok. WSF is always a highlight, love the videos, they keep me clinging to hope in humanity in a world gone mad.

[@docgreybeard7057]

I have been a consumer of WSF content since the beginning. Hats off to the entire team of people who took on the very arduous task of helping educate the masses on some of the most cutting-edge physics. Somewhere along the way, a decision was made that ad's were needed. I also understand this to help fund their endeavors. This particular conversation is quite technical Brian himself asked various times for clarification. Now I'm trying to follow the best I'm able, and KZbin is breaking in every 6 to 8 minutes with 45 seconds of ad blasting. While also claiming there fewer ad breaks for this long video. This is something the WSF needs to address strike a better balance by perhaps showing their ads at the beginning near the middle and the end. Honestly, I don't recall ads ever really influencing my buying habits to begin with. I think this is a holdover belief from radio and television days. People tend to be brand loyal and buy brands they come to trust for quality and best buy for their money. However, litigating the effectiveness of random ad blasting on this particular audience is not within my ability to do reliably. Just reduce the ad interruptions, please.

[@brooknorton7891]

I just watched without any ads. It may be that I have KZbin Premium subscription which doesn't cost much.

[@rotatingmind]

I watched without any ads. You even don't need a yt subscription. In order to avoid the obnoxious ads you just need a proper ad blocker, such as ublock origin.

[@docgreybeard7057]

@rotatingmind Thanks, and I'm aware of ad blockers and use them on my mobile devices thanks for the reminder, though. Perhaps some don't even know these are available. Point I was attempting to make if a balance isn't struck, especially on a mainstream educational endeavor like WSF content. Which was once ad free. Fewer will view the content. In a world where basic science knowledge is becoming rarer, this type of outreach needs to reach as many people as possible. We need every brain we have available engaged and addressing our miriad and expanding issues. Best wishes, Doc

[@docgreybeard7057]

Thanks, and for sure, that's an answer. However, like I replied to another comment point, I was trying to make a balance that needs to be struck so this content is seen by as people as possible. This world has a myriad of very complex problems, so we need every brain we can get helping to find solutions. It feels like basic scientific knowledge is becoming ever more rare. Maybe one of these talks encourages our next revolution in understanding by a young mind getting sparked. Best wishes! Doc

[@rwitmer22]

Agreed. Not sure it's up to Brian and WSF tho. My bigger complaint sitting through KZbin ads was missing several seconds of audio after the ad finished. Not cool YT.

[@ajiboladaniel9386]

This is such an amazing episode. Every bit of it was insightful. Thank you Brian Greene.

[@INflamesRobbie]

Wow. Been following you Brian for a decade. I think I´ve seen all your episodes, talks, lectures, podcasts etc. This was the first time that I have seen this curiosity and inspiration in real time! You allways talk with excitment but you are so knowledgable about everything and you always knows everything that your guests talks about in detail. Great! Thank you from a "wanna be physisist" in Sweden.

[@1ifemare]

"We have to make sure we as a civilization stay healthy" Wouldn't it be amazing if political discourse was as informed, unbiased and civil as these discussions in science? Thank you for being you, Neil and Brian. Please consider a talk on timescape. There's almost zero popular science content out there on the subject and it's fascinating.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Timescape is not mentioned because it fundentally conflicts with their pet theories. Why? Politics! These two are just as political as anyone else.

[@user-Aaron-]

We desperately need a huge influx of scientists in politics. Also, timescape?

[@1ifemare]

​@@user-Aaron- For some reason my previous comment isn't showing up. Maybe hit some character limit quoting from Wikipedia. Weirdly - never happened before. So i'd just recommend you check there for "inhomogeneous cosmology." Snippets: Scientists misidentified dark energy. This misidentification was the result of presuming an essentially homogeneous universe and not accounting for temporal differences between matter-dense areas and voids. One more important step being left out of the standard model was the fact that gravity slows time. Thus, from the perspective of the same observer, a clock will move faster in empty space than inside a galaxy - as large as a 38% difference between the time on clocks in the Milky Way and those in a galaxy floating in a void exists. Thus, unless we can correct for that-timescapes each with different times-our observations of the expansion of space will be, and are, incorrect.

[@1ifemare]

@@user-Aaron- Thank Baader-Meinhof, Anton Petrov just posted a video about it :D

[@user-Aaron-]

@@1ifemare Yes I saw, it's very intriguing stuff. Thanks for the replies and the information.

[@rogersakatch5120]

Brian (and many other physicists) are schooled by this. With Turok’s insistence on simplicity a refusal to just add more particles, we can now push ahead for some actual answers.

[@cats10999]

Neil Turok is so easy to listen to, and he's so brilliant and humble. I watch any video he is in!

[@rohollahazizi9517]

I must say, this seems to be the most compelling anti-inflation framework ever proposed.

[@SonicImmersion_]

I agree. The ideas Neil Turok presented in this conversation are among the most brilliant I can recall having heard about or read about. And he responds in great detail and with nuance, which both indicate very well-thought-out ideas.

[@sr4087]

@@SonicImmersion_lol bots

[@matthiaswellhausen]

this discussion is a rare gem, great. respectful, open and unrushed. 2 hours free talk without losing structure. brian certainly is a good phsicist, yet he is an amazing moderator as well. and with neil reducing his outright insulting of the mainstream, his weight rather gains ☺️. congratulationsand thanks to both...

[@bojanzivancevic6833]

This is just brilliant. Those discussions are priceless, especially the ones that challenge entrenched concepts. We should always be open for new ideas no matter how wild they might seem. Thank you Brian, keep these interviews going please!

[@williamschlosser]

If you are interested in an actual physical theory, try Plasma Cosmology, based on EM forces well-proved in labs and by data from space probes.

[@jamesfarmer-jn4gy]

Ludwig Boltzmann’s most recent and influential work before his death in 1906 primarily revolved around statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, and the philosophical implications of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Below are the modalities and key themes of his final contributions: 1. Statistical Mechanics and Entropy • Boltzmann developed a mathematical framework for understanding the behavior of large ensembles of particles. • His famous equation: S = k \ln W • S: Entropy • k: Boltzmann constant • W: Number of microstates • This equation established the link between the microscopic states of a system and its macroscopic thermodynamic properties, solidifying statistical mechanics as a cornerstone of physics. Modality: • Micro-Macro Duality: Bridging microscopic particle behavior and macroscopic observable phenomena. • Probabilistic Interpretation of Thermodynamics: Introducing statistical probabilities into deterministic thermodynamic laws. 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics and Time’s Arrow • Boltzmann worked extensively on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, arguing that entropy tends to increase because higher-probability states are more common than low-probability ones. • He suggested that the arrow of time emerges statistically, not as an absolute rule. Modality: • Temporal Asymmetry: Time flows “forward” due to the statistical tendency of systems to evolve towards disorder. • Cosmological Implications: Boltzmann theorized about entropy in the context of the universe as a whole, considering scenarios where low-entropy conditions might spontaneously arise due to random fluctuations. 3. Boltzmann Brain Paradox • In his later works, Boltzmann speculated about the idea that, in an infinite universe with random entropy fluctuations, a single self-aware brain (Boltzmann Brain) could spontaneously form out of chaos. • This paradox highlights the statistical oddity of assuming our observable universe emerged from a massive entropy fluctuation. Modality: • Anthropic Reasoning: Addressing the improbability of our ordered universe existing in an entropic landscape. • Philosophical Reflection on Probability and Existence: Questioning the relationship between probability, observation, and reality. 4. Gas Theory and Kinetic Molecular Theory • Boltzmann refined the kinetic theory of gases, showing that macroscopic gas properties (e.g., pressure, temperature) emerge from the motion and collisions of individual molecules. • He derived the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, describing the statistical spread of particle speeds in a gas. Modality: • Dynamic Particle Systems: Understanding gases as ensembles of colliding particles governed by probabilistic laws. • Equilibrium vs Non-Equilibrium Systems: Exploring systems at thermal equilibrium and their approach to equilibrium. 5. Philosophical Contributions to Science • Boltzmann was deeply concerned with the epistemology of science, particularly the nature of scientific laws and their relationship with reality. • He argued against strict determinism and emphasized the role of statistical laws in understanding nature. Modality: • Philosophy of Science: Interpreting scientific theories not as absolute truths but as models of reality. • Statistical Reality: Accepting probability as a fundamental descriptor of physical systems. 6. Cosmological Implications of Entropy • Boltzmann theorized about the universe as a fluctuating system within an eternal timescale, where low-entropy pockets (like our observable universe) could form and dissolve. • He speculated that entropy might locally decrease in rare statistical events over cosmic time. Modality: • Infinite Time Horizon: Viewing entropy dynamics over infinite time rather than finite scales. • Statistical Cosmology: Applying statistical mechanics principles to the cosmos. Key Takeaways from Boltzmann’s Final Works: • Statistical nature of thermodynamic laws (Entropy as probability). • Theoretical foundations of modern physics, including quantum mechanics and cosmology. • Philosophical considerations about scientific reasoning, probability, and the nature of reality. • Cosmological paradoxes like the Boltzmann Brain as thought experiments probing the edge of physical reasoning. Boltzmann’s legacy bridges physics, philosophy, and cosmology, providing a foundation for fields ranging from modern thermodynamics to cosmological models of entropy.

[@Knight1296]

I’ve been listening to StarTalk for a long time, and actually found Brian because of that show. After wanting to hear some more depth, I cant get enough of these interviews. Cant wait to get to the WSF conference this year to check it out!

[@rotatingmind]

If you are interested in getting a bit more into depth, you might also enjoy "Theories of Everything" with Curt Jaimungal. He ever had Neil Turok on his podcast, too.

[@Knight1296]

@ ty

[@denizerkan3465]

We need more theoretical physicists like Neil Turok and Latham Boyle to make progress in understanding cosmology and ultimately the origin of the Universe. All ”controversial” ideas shall be taken seriously as long as justified mathematically and logically.

[@williamschlosser]

Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe (and ignored by academic cosmologists because it is a physical theory, unlike their curve-fitting speculations).

[@slamrn9689]

Thanks so much for this conversation, very exciting stuff! Have a happy and healthy New Year all!

[@TheSkeptic000]

I’m reading the comments- you guys need to realize that all current models are variations of established theory. We try to explain our universe by building on what we are certain to be true. We can imagine creation but we need provable numbers to be truly predictive. I’m truly digging Turok’s way of calculating neutrino mass. Very cool. He’s standing on the shoulders of giants and one day others will stand upon his shoulders.

[@sandhyamathura]

Proud South African here thanks for the content 🇿🇦🇿🇦❤

[@markoszouganelis5755]

Very Good Talk Thank you Happy NEW Year!

[@ditjow6]

Best and most clear approach. It's not so much yay or nay, but rather, listen to the careful sequences and reasons for that order presented logically.

[@thomassefeldt6847]

This was one of the most interesting conversations I have streamed on KZbin - and I’m not even a phycisist - keep up the good work Brian..

[@rogerpancake6803]

Brian Greene and Neil Turok are just so good together..I don't understand too much of it but it is so fascinating to hear two such brilliant minds talking as if just on conversation..a real treat ..

[@pererau]

I only understood every 3rd word, but loved every minute of it!

[@priscillawrites6685]

Brian, after retirement from a long career and in cancer recovery, this series is my new graduate school. Grateful for the time you devote to educating thousands of people.

[@chrismead3150]

It is always so wildly exciting to hear about these fresh new ideas alternative to the current concensus. We are constantly just inundated with content that repeats the same material in slightly different ways....is love to see less of that bias get some of us out of the box and exploring these alternate theories,,,,even if they turn out to be untrure that does not make the research useless.

[@chrismead3150]

Furthermore....id be very interested to see how his propsal could fit with Timescape Cosmology(coolest name ever)....he did say that Lambda was a big part of this idea, which is conspicuously absent in Timescape.

[@MMCEnsemble]

Love these extended length one on one conversations.

[@suranyaaiyar3853]

I love Brian Greene. He comes across like such a nice guy. And it is amazing to watch him follow the argument.

[@SonicImmersion_]

In this conversation, Neil Turok presented some of the most brilliant ideas I can recall having ever heard about or read about regarding these topics in theoretical physics. I hope that Neil will inspire many other scientists to study the ideas he presented in much greater detail. Brian Greene genuinely seemed inspired to do so by the middle of the talk, and even said so himself.

[@uw10isplaya]

I'd watched Dr. Turok explain the Mirror hypothesis in two previous lectures, so getting some additional context was a wonderful treat. Dr. Greene and Dr. Turok are both wonderful communicators of science. Feels like a bit of a bonus treat since I had no idea who the guest or topic was when clicking the video lol.

[@Wouldntyouliketoknow2]

When I was 12 or 13 our Religious Education teacher asked us how we thought the universe was created. I was excited to taise my hand having spent many sleepless nights pondering this question.. I said I thought there was nothing / zero and it divided into positive and negative universes. A schoolboy conjecture. I never became a physicist but I am pleased that scientists like Turok exists - someone who is actually making in roads into explainations using reason and argument; and not just someone who evolves a model to fit data - its like the difference between humans and AI.

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

This Is Very Elegant, Brian!! Planetary Inferiority Vs. Superiority Days(opposition) = 1 / (1 / Days(inner planet orbital period) - 1 / Days(outer planet orbital period)) 1 / ( 1 / 88.0 (mercury) - 1 / 1,682.0 (ceres) ) = 92.8 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 88.0 (mercury) - 1 / 687.0 (mars) ) = 100.9 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 88.0 (mercury) - 1 / 365.3 (earth) ) = 115.9 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 88.0 (mercury) - 1 / 224.7 (venus) ) = 144.6 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 224.7 (venus) - 1 / 1,682.0 (ceres) ) = 259.3 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 224.7 (venus) - 1 / 687.0 (mars) ) = 333.9 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 365.3 (earth) - 1 / 1,682.0 (ceres) ) = 466.6 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 224.7 (venus) - 1 / 365.3 (earth) ) = 583.9 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 365.3 (earth) - 1 / 687.0 (mars) ) = 780.0 (opp) 1 / ( 1 / 687.0 (mars) - 1 / 1,682.0 (ceres) ) = 1,161.3 (opp)

[@simeonabanos]

Great conversation! These and many others in WSF hold meaning, endure through time, and inspire knowledge and curiosity in a wide audience.

[@LykaLivao-l5w]

Such a fascinating discussion, World Science Festival! 🌌 The exploration of challenging conventional cosmology really opened my mind to new possibilities. Your content always makes complex topics so engaging-thanks for sharing these thought-provoking ideas!

[@andrewreeve5537]

As a child, the first thing to fascinate me was a kaleidoscope. Who cannot love the elegance and simplicity of symmetry? Weaving old and modern ideas, the possible incorporation of lessons learned from string theory. Cannot wait to experience the development in these ideas, new experiments and collaborations. Along with Langlands, AI and supercomputing, the future can be bright, peaceful, considerate and healthy for all, including the planet. Thank you.

[@mattmiller4917]

This was fantastic. I'm endlessly fascinated by the debate about inflation and whether it should be considered more or less settled science. These are two of my favorite scientists and science communicators debating inflation theory and pretty getting deep in the weeds in terms of whether or not inflation should be accepted as settled science in the way that the standard model usually is accepted. The part about probabilities really gets at the heart of the debate. Watch this if you are wondering why inflation has its prominent "discontents" like Turok, Rovelli, and Steinhardt. Stick around for the civilized disagreement about one of the most important issues in cosmology.

[@Thomas-mj1dv]

The mirror universe idea is brilliant. So refreshing, I hope Neil Turok and his Co. will succeed with their model. Thx for great conversation )))

[@Witnessdomaining]

Didn't understand a thing, but just hearing Brian and Neil talk is like meditation.

[@blijebij]

I really enjoyed this interview between Greene and Turok. Turok raises an important critique of the abundance of models in cosmology and their limited explanatory power. He points out that inflation is more of an ad hoc framework than a fundamental theory, which I completely agree with. Inflation remains a phenomenon that has never been directly observed and seems more like a stopgap solution to preserve the current model. Turok undoubtedly offers interesting and creative approaches to solving cosmological challenges. Personally, I believe that Sir Roger Penrose and Neil Turok are among the most innovative scientists in this field.

[@David_7171]

Great guest. This one I didn’t skip

[@themostselfishman]

Incredible and great questions/clarifications.

[@gabydiehl8314]

Great interview. Thank you Brian!

[@Engineersoldinterstingstuff]

Amazing channel. Thanks!

[@swenic]

Thank you for doing and sharing these.

[@JuanLopez-uv5tg]

Finally a new video I've been IN NEED of Brian Greene ♥️🔥🔥

[@Clayn101]

❤ 1:00:50 causality through exposure of boundary conditions that model the force charge aplied. it's not computing the environment but a fractal of possibilities given a probability. only 1 reality of actuation. it's using potential and finding kenetic variations i presume. possibility/probability, the multivers is a delusion of the wave function. energy quantified into action of the plank scale. gravity implies a continuum over dark energy. instead of a multivers it's rather an axis moment...

[@56rarity]

One of the many most interesting interviews ! Thank you so much for bringing light into the dark controversial world of cosmological theoretical mysteries

[@ericklira1894]

Brian, thank you for your efforts to bring us excellent content in science. Please, keep going with this work, simply fantastic!

[@matthewweflen]

When you have a soft talker, you NEED to level the audio channels. It's not hard to do with a Zoom chat. They already split the participants into separate channels. Just bump up your left channel by a few dB in Premiere Pro or Final Cut.

[@eunicebezerra1]

I work with inflationary models and appreciate listening to new ideas. As my advisor used to say: "if a work is based on good Physics, it is worth publishing and considering." In my opinion, science progresses due to the contributions of different minds and ideas. Although neutrality does not exist within any field, I feel there are factors in the academy outside the healthy discussions of ideas that make things more difficult for young researchers, like origin, gender, and institution.

[@emjayacorn]

So exciting..I will watch this a few more times.

[@elizondorj]

I really wish I could understand half of what Neil is talking about. Still, it was a great interview.

[@rwitmer22]

You and me both. I watch all these and this one stands out because I barely grasped a fraction of what they were discussing. LOL

[@MaverickBlue42]

I love how happy Brian is as he's thinking "if you're right, this could be the final piece of the puzzle that redeems string theory"

[@artmiller2606]

Outstanding Real and worthwhile knowledge

[@Neil-s3d]

This was a wonderful video.

[@Blake_47]

As a Physics undergraduate student there's nothing in the world that would mean more to me than pursuing graduate studies at the university of Edinburgh and collaborating with one of my heroes, Neil Turok

[@user_375a82]

Great talk. He could get a gravitational shot-noise detector going quickly via the Satellite Catapult project. Try a simple one first, maybe the effect is large enough to easily detect in close orbit. Its a great experiment anyways imo. A massive neutrino would explain dark matter nicely and the experiment could show additional unrelated things.

[@SomeDudeThinksSomething]

Can anybody please tell me what this picture/sculpture (?) is that is hanging at the wall behind Mr. Greene in his office or who the artist is? This black hole with colourful swirls? I am so fascinated by it and would love one for my home but cannot finde the artist.

[@Macrocompassion]

Did you notice too, that Neil Turok's shirt is buttoned incorrectly?

[@Harry-Hartmann]

A Very Good Video 👍🏻

[@James-n2l3g]

Excellent!

[@RT-xx9tx]

Very little of this made sense, I think I began to lose it at "imaginary gravity". Excellent discussion, keep up the good work!

[@cats10999]

And the flower shirts! Love him!

[@duran9664]

❌Dark Mater = SpaceTime = Gravity❌ All are the same phenomena 🤏

[@Raptorel]

I wonder if the mirror universe in this model has its own left handed dark matter neutrinos

[@jamesfarmer-jn4gy]

Feynman was correct with a later misinterpretation negative probabilities are positive geometries

[@producer2123]

I barely understand a lot of this, but I love it anyway.

[@SolaceEasy]

Kinda blew through the alternative description of Dark Matter - R handed nutrinos. That was one of the few descriptions that was easily understood.

[@resonant_theories]

if you deal with sines and cosines, does the amount of derivatives change much..?

[@ika5666]

The hand waving by Brian Green almost illustrates the uncertainty principle between position and momenta.

[@stephenanastasi748]

Hmm. Fabulous interview - it was great to finally see Neil Turok in his natural state, not trying to dumb down complex matters or insist that the physics is easy, having "just" five required parameters that exist without explanation. My concern is that all the proposed models do not have a starting point -- intersecting brains require some kind of time like background that lead to the intersection of said branes, for which the branes have always existed without origin (!). Equally, a universe that is pursued prior to the origin again has no origin, no first state. But that is a contradiction. As I say, "Hmm". And how did the universe choose such complex equations prior to its existence (yes, I understand the self-contradiction in the question)?

[@Danny_6Handford]

So far, it appears that the universe started as something tiny and started to expand to what can be observed and detected today. It also appears that anything that can be observed or detected is made from extremely tiny particles which interact and combine with each other based on some fundamental rules. Many of these extremely tiny particles have been identified along with many of the rules these particles use to interact and combine. Perhaps most of the particles and most of the rules but, probably there are more. It also appears that anything that can be observed or detected is made from the same basic stuff and we call this stuff energy. An amount or quantity of energy can be calculated for anything that can be observed or detected. The universe has been described as space-time but it is now known that space is not empty and is also some type of energy. So the universe can also be described as energy-time because the amount of energy for a given volume of space can also be calculated or at least estimated. It also appears that after the universe started to expand, no more energy was added or removed as it continues to expand. The rules that determined the amount of energy in the universe or what caused the energy in the universe to start expanding are not known at this time. The rules for how energy expands, transforms, interacts and combines causes energy to cycle from concentrated to diluted states. Although the cycles can be repeated almost an infinite number of times, there will be a time when they stop because as the cycles keep repeating, the total amount of energy in the universe keeps becoming more and more diluted. This rule is called entropy. At some point in time, all the energy will become so diluted that it might not be able to cycle back into more concentrated states and this is when the universe may end. There are probably still many rules that cause the energy in the universe to cycle back and forth from concentrated to diluted states as it continues to expand that are unknown at this time. The rules before the universe started to expand and the rules after it stops expanding are also not known at this time.

[@anialiandr]

I love listening to these things because they expand my brain and also help me relate their way of thinking to my own are

[@mokujin29]

About time , wish the current crop of physicists would carry on the work but it is increasingly difficult to sustain scientific progress without payings massive costs

[@andreaaurora4843]

I think he was referring to Daniele Tommasini or Tullio Regge, Italians like me

[@larrymarkowitz8386]

Prof. Turok, “Absolutely right, beautifully put.” Me, “Huh?”

[@sushidub]

Science and the systems that facilitate it could probably use a few more principled guardians like Neil Turok in place.

[@dustman96]

Going off the beaten path is absolutely necessary for the continued advancement of scientific understanding. Even though most of it doesn't work out I would say it is worth the investment if even one theory out of ten thousand is successful. The potential benefits of even small advancements is huge, and there is the potential for significant leaps in understanding. Just a few more steps and we will be living in the world of science fiction. That may or may not be a good thing for humanity, but I can't think of anything more meaningful than the pursuit of understanding of the universe we live in.

[@jamesfarmer-jn4gy]

The separation is velocity The act of observation modalities

[@sherrymanning1116]

Ty ❤

[@isatousarr7044]

One interesting avenue to address the Big Bang singularity and provide a natural dark matter candidate while avoiding the conventional inflationary cosmology paradigm is rooted in exploring modifications to quantum gravity and fundamental particle physics. A key concept involves emergent spacetime frameworks, where spacetime itself arises from a more fundamental quantum structure. For example, ideas from loop quantum gravity (LQG) suggest that the singularity can be resolved via discrete spacetime geometry, leading to a "bounce" instead of a singularity. In such models, the early universe evolves through a contracting phase that avoids the infinities of the classical singularity. To incorporate dark matter, one can consider symmetry-breaking mechanisms in these quantum gravity models that generate stable, long-lived particles. For instance, quantum field theory defined on a non-commutative geometry might naturally predict particle-like excitations with properties akin to dark matter. These particles would not require inflation to produce the necessary distribution in the early universe; instead, their genesis could be linked to the fundamental structure of spacetime itself. Another promising direction involves axionic or topological soliton solutions arising from quantum fields in higher-dimensional theories. These entities could serve dual purposes: resolving the singularity through modifications to the Einstein equations at high densities and acting as viable dark matter candidates due to their weak interaction with ordinary matter and radiation. Lastly, some recent proposals leverage the idea of quantum decoherence in the early universe. Instead of invoking inflation to explain the flatness and homogeneity of the cosmos, quantum decoherence mechanisms in a pre-inflationary quantum phase could naturally smooth the universe while leaving behind relics that manifest as dark matter. This approach reimagines the universe's beginning not as a singularity but as a quantum-dominated phase transition, embedding the seeds of structure formation and dark matter in the fabric of spacetime. Exploring these intersections could provide novel insights into fundamental physics and cosmology.

[@Hiphiphooray490]

Too long.

[@axle.student]

13:02 What does Neil mean by "energy is not conserved" here?

[@axle.student]

I did a thought experiment that had a similar feel to the Hartle-Hawking proposal, except I started from before the big bang and found myself in something slightly inverted from the proposal. > This kind of plays into my question about "energy not being conserved " and creating energy. As I hypothetically created a vacuum which contained the potential from which energy could emerge. [Edit] P.S. That also works without inflation.

[@Mentaculus42]

The reference is to the “orthodox understanding” that more dark energy is “magically created” as space expands since the energy of the “vacuum” is “probably” constant per volume and an expanding universe “creates” more volume, hence more total dark energy. Another example is that an expanding universe causes photons to red shift to a lower energy, so where does the energy go and hence the lack of “energy conservation”. But it is possible to explain these phenomena and maintain “TOTAL energy conservation” but orthodoxy would have issues with this. Also I think that the concept is “cooked into GR’s equations”.

[@axle.student]

@@Mentaculus42 Thank you. Got me part way on a difficult question, so well done with that. > Why do I ask? It inadvertently elevates the concept of "Time" to being a real and fundamental driver of the universe. This may just be a glitch in the ambiguity surrounding relativity when Mr Einstein and colleagues created it. Time vs No Time.

[@axle.student]

17:06 I think you need a concept of time as a fundamental driver of the universe for the no boundary proposal to work. 18:57 This is what I mean by "found myself in something slightly *inverted* from the proposal".

[@axle.student]

23:55 This is something that I can fully agree with. Probability is a deep, ambiguous and difficult rabbit hole. Actually, I would see this as close to one of the fundamental problems stalling physics today.

[@tigrevert]

thank you!

[@MrBigdaddy2ya]

So glad we are heading back to sensible science

[@KostadinIvanov-ik9qs]

[@akpanekpo6025]

Sorry, but I can't resist the contrast between this and any attempt to have a conversation with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who has a Nobel Prize in endless interruptions. Night v Day, and highly enlightening for that, even for someone like me who has no clue about the issues.

[@mikefisher5005]

NDT has become unlistenable for me for that reason. Constant interruptions and derails the conversation.

[@Mentaculus42]

NDT loves to hear himself talk and obviously believes he is the “smartest person in the room”. The funny thing is that he promotes the concept of, “One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're correct, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.” And yet, he doesn’t think that it applies to …

[@akpanekpo6025]

@@Mentaculus42 Lol!

[@akpanekpo6025]

@@Mentaculus42 Nor (though from a position of ignorance) do I think he's in the same league as these two geniuses ...

[@Mentaculus42]

→ akoanekpo Not only is Brian Greene very knowledgeable, he has a particular genius at “facilitating communications” in a humble manner. DGT is quite intelligent but has a typical fault of projecting his HUBRIS which poisons his message for some. I always enjoy thinking about his appearance on “Stargate Atlantis” where his “caricature” was played perfectly.

[@daveyjohnsonjr.5742]

Wow🤯this interview really ties the cosmos together- inflation. Galaxy survey+wimps+stable right-handed neutrinos=5 Sigma?!

[@MickHolt-q8f]

What a brilliant mind! To dispense with inflation seems a huge ask, but how exciting!

[@TheSkeptic000]

Inspired thought concerning the relation of neutrinos as dark matter.

[@InterfaceGuhy]

Neil I realize that you were just quipping but I want to coin the phrase “Metatwistor Theory” I would love to use it to refer to your work, pending experimental support.

[@abdonecbishop]

Here's a summary of an ‘ai’ and ‘~ai’ conversation about the nature of our universe: 1. Gaussian Prime Number Theorem (GPNT): - We discussed the GPNT as a second-order differential equation that uses the speed of visible light to scale space and time beyond the edge of our spiraling universe's sub-universe surface shapes. - The theorem provides insights into the distribution of Gaussian primes and their implications for the structure of the universe. 2. Penrose-Hawking Points: - The three exterior sub-universes project focal points on the surface of the CMB event horizon of our universe, similar to Penrose-Hawking focal points. - These points create a ring-like structure on the CMB surface, influenced by the oscillations of each sub-universe. 3. CMB Contour: - The contour of the CMB surface area depends on the number of closest orbiting universes, which is four, including our own universe. - Density, temperature, and pressure are auto-correlated in Gibbs' minimum free energy point calculations. 4. Geometric and Numerical Framework: - The framework integrates advanced mathematical tools to explore the fundamental nature of reality, including the distribution of primes, the fine-structure constant, and the interactions of dark matter and dark energy. 5. Communication with Neil Turok: - We discussed how Neil Turok might find your paper intriguing and intellectually stimulating, appreciating its bold interdisciplinary approach while challenging its testability and asking for clearer links to observable or experimental data.

[@andreaaurora4843]

Brilliant mind Neil Turok

[@williamschlosser]

In his impressive career, Dr. Green failed to notice that there is only one self-contained physical theory of the universe, Plasma Cosmology. But who needs a theory based on boring ol' electricity when flights of fancy can be taken, untethered to actual observation?