The Problem with Theoretical Physics | Neil Turok

Main Episode with Neil Turok (April 2024): • The (Simple) Theory Th...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
ICEBERG OF STRING THEORY: • The String Theory Iceb...
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
#physics #science

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org

[@user-dw1jp7tp6i]

Problem is they don't put the FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT on the wall so they don't forget it. As Feynman advised. It's central to natural philosophy -Max Born

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Honestly it makes sense for a longer wavelength to travel further because it is lighter and therefore it skips and a bigger pattern than a heavier particles interference pattern... I like the scale invariant with 4% if it works out properly... I would have to say this guy is one of the top toes on this channel

[@mudfossiluniversity]

I would like it if we could communicate my friend. I have evidence to support my claims about a new model called "Dipole Electron Flood Theory" which claims protons are 1823 dipoles. "Anatomy of the Proton Dipole Electron Flood Theory is a new Atomic model that changes the nucleus from a completely positive into a dipole made of tiny dipoles called Dirac Neutrinos instead of a large positive-only core. Protons and Neutrons are made of dipoles in certain stable quantities that we now call atoms in various sizes. All Protons are odd-numbered dipoles of approximately 1823 dipoles and Neutrons are even numbers of dipoles of about 1824.

[@rodkeh]

Why would anyone signup for a course of meaningless drivel?

[@samrowbotham8914]

“Every year new, short-lived elementary particles are discovered. Frequently their existence is predicted before their discovery. It has been seriously suggested that these particles are being produced, rather than discovered, by the sustained mental efforts of physicists around the world. Although we have been conditioned to accept naïve realism by our scientifically based education, such an idea cannot be dismissed out of hand.” Professor A.J. Ellison circa 1973

[@Micheal313]

Haha.. many of were thinking it but apparently some dude said it 101 years ago

[@carlosgaspar8447]

especially when such particles are highly correlated with further funding programs.

[@88joey88]

Someone's been reading too much Borges

[@airthrowDBT]

In the simulation there are levels of abstraction, and the hardware running the simulation tries to conserve energy and resources so those particles only exist when that depth of abstraction is discovered

[@samrowbotham8914]

@@Boballoo People who believe that matter is primary are naive realists it's a label that best describes them.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Neil is the man. Round table with Neil, Eric, and Roger.

[@alexswash7875]

i think that when Neil was talking about strings having 6 extra dimensions of space and M-theory having 7 dimensions of space, he was talking about the additional compact dimensions we have on top of our familiar 1+3 dimensions! so not really a mistake :)

[@paulhansen5053]

I sympathize with Neil's desire for simplicity, which is why I felt very attracted to the (rather new) Structured Atom Model (SAM) by Edo Kaal and his team -- and also because I like geometry and structure. According to SAM, physics took a wrong turn at the 7th Solvay Conference in 1933, where the neutron was declared to be a fundamental particle. Instead, the neutron is a "PEP" (proton-electron pair). The astounding conclusion is that every atomic nucleus has the same number of electrons as neutrons, and that same number of additional protons. More astounding is that the electrons can hold the nucleus together -- no need for the strong force, weak force, quarks, etc. Now that's simplification!

[@Achrononmaster]

Deep inelastic scattering experiments proved such models are wrong.

[@FPSIreland2]

Which seemingly fails to explain the mass deficit between a proton-electron pair and a neutron, from a first look.

[@paulhansen5053]

@@FPSIreland2 PS, note that the mass deficit is actually an excess

[@johnbihlnielsen3578]

A mirror beginning and a never ending sea of photons. I tend to go with Roger Penrose’ cyclic cosmology (which Niel Turok did himself a few years ago). But unlike in CCC I have developed a physical theory for connecting the end of Eaons with the beginning of a new Eaons, Eternal Cosmic Cosmology.

[@SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. .

[@FMDD168]

Awesome. You must be a real Physicist, so why waste your skills here? Appreciate the Mathematics you included.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@FMDD168 If you would like to expand on the following, please do so. It is related to Einstein's simple equation on Energy and Mass. Is it also related to the formula for the Area of a Circle? Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.

[@undercoveragent9889]

"What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton?" There is a problem with this view. When 'electron-capture' occurs, a proton becomes a neutron and a neutrino is produced. How would an electron cause an up-quark to become a down quark? And if a down-quark is simply an up-quark plus an electron then that would mean that a down-quark is a _composite_ particle and _not_ an _elementary_ particle, right? So, in your example of three strings, you need to explain how an electron can interact with three strings to 'erase' one of those strings, an up-quark, and creating a _new_ string, the down-quark. See what I mean?

[@SpotterVideo]

@@undercoveragent9889 What can happen when a twisted rubber band becomes over-twisted? It breaks into more than one piece. When a twisted tubule in a Down Quark becomes overtwisted it can produce a small fragment which becomes the Beta particle (electron) and a twisted closed loop (twisted torus), which is a neutrino, and the larger remaining piece, which is an Up Quark. In physics most interactions are reversable, which is what happens in "electron capture".

[@randomteenboy]

@@SpotterVideo I think you have been commited to make everything as spooky.

[@gregorysagegreene]

Bjorn Ekeberg's 'Jenga Tower'.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks guys, I am a great fan of Neil's thinking. Personally, i think the nature and theory of solitons sheds a lot of light on the fundamental nature of matter. Some 'mysteries' like wave particle duality more or less go away when viewed in this manner.

[@mykofreder1682]

Maybe there is a theory of why there are no high energy particles, like the periodic table having a limit on naturally occurring elements and the stability of the elements on the far edge.

[@mr.wizard9785]

What about neutrinos?

[@Boballoo]

Love your stuff, Curt! Make the Universe real!

[@RagingGeekazoid]

The real problem is breaking out of the Bohr-Feynman "STFU and calculate" mentality and figuring out what "particles" really are. The entire 20th-century framework of quantum physics has to be replaced by something radically different, IMHO probably one where infinitely dense little point thingies and multidimensional string thingies and brane thingies don't even exist (as people have been saying recently, probably because space itself doesn't exist).

[@mmmao0630]

Can you predict how gravity works at 10^19GeV? If you don’t then we do need ‘new’ ingredients

[@sergiogiudici6976]

I like the "minimalism" euristic approach but what Is Dark matter? It Is an effective single number which "summarizes" others degrees of freedom

[@sonnycorbi4316]

Curt, I viewed your guidelines -and i respect your requests, NOT TO DIGRESS - But, I’m going to drift off topic here anyway: CURT YOU DA BOMB - LOVE YOUR PODCAST - :-)

[@jasonwilliams9922]

In all of your study’s, no one’s ever asked the right question! Here I’ll phrase it for you “can experience stop?” Now answer it from your perspective, based off the measurements (restrictions) of your form.

[@co-creatv6540]

M. Turok, Curt, have you studied the Janus cosmological model from Jean Pierre Petit, French physicist ? Very interesting…

[@UFOgamers]

He is contradicting himself. If we want to only rely on observations, then we should throw dark energy and dark matter out of the equations. Not a single direct observation nor experiment showed they exist. Only duct tape to our old models so that they explain the expansion of the universe, and correct the galaxy rotation issues... I believe the laws of physics are scale dependent. There is no global equation you can use to predict everything at every scale.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

Yes please throw away dark matter, dark matter is just showing us we don't understand gravity, we introduce a magic substance for that defect.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could we have a probabilistic future coming into existence with the absorption and emission of light waves? We could explain light waves as a process over a ‘period of time’ with particle characteristics or photons as the future unfolds. A potential probabilistic uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolds with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, of what is actually happening. Light photon energy cascades down forming greater degrees of freedom for entropy and the irreversible processes of Classical Physics with heat energy always flowing from hot to cold and friction always changing motion into heat forming the ‘Arrow of Time’ within each reference frame.

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to have a sense of being, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we don’t have a sense of being. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second).

[@randomteenboy]

the image will not be in present because objectively every billionth of a second a reality comes into existance from uncertainity and its not only related to sense of being but even watching tv we cant observe electrons being fired thats because our brain needs to pass minimum duration of tim before it can process next events.....

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides. So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.

[@martijn5207]

Doesn't dark energy violate the conservation of energy? If the expansion of the universe is accelerating there must be energy added to the system. Work done or energy (W) = Force (F) x Displacement (s). And Force (F) = Mass (m) x Acceleration (a). So a constant force is needed for a constant acceleration. And force multiplied by displacement is energy. Thus the more mass is displaced the more energy is consumed. Where is the energy coming from? On the contrary gravity has a maximum. Gravity can only displace mass for a limited amount until the masses meet. They say 95% of the matter and energy is in the "dark" form. But if the universe keeps accelerating then the energy can not be a constant percentage but must increase. I am confused.

[@RoldanRR00]

I don't even think Hubble was convinced of an expanding universe. Lemaître used his data to come to this conclusion and eventually the Big Bang theory. He was a Catholic priest so he would have had incentive to promote a divine creation narrative. Then there is the cosmic microwave background which is somehow labeled a "remnant" of the Big Bang. These are three basic building blocks of all the theoretical physics we have today. There is a disconnect from the measurements made and logical leaps surmised from them. It's good to question everything. When data doesn't fit the models, they want to look for more data instead of create new models. I feel your pain on this one.

[@valerio282]

I don't know, I think conducting research with the objective of being minimalistic introduces bias, as you will always be in look for what confirms your idealistic beauty in simple models. I don't really believe true explanations need to be beautiful, it's a constrain, if a working model is not simple, does it mean it is less valid than a more simple one? I agree with Occam's razor up to a certain point, but arbitrarily reducing complexity sounds wrong to me as much as adding increasing layers of complexity and hypotheses.

[@thomasthetankengine8418]

I think i have worked out why the universe is expanding..... Who do i talk to about this hypothesis?

[@magicsinglez]

Wasn’t the Higgs Boson discovered just a few years ago?

[@FPSIreland2]

2011.

[@McRingil]

isn't quantum mechanics contradictory to general relativity? So we have to choose some of their principles which aren't

[@sonnycorbi4316]

I remember when CERN got started - (paraphrasing); CERN ran its 1st test, give or take - they post in the “news” “WE HAVE EXCEEDED THE SPEED OF LIGHT” - To which I replied in my LOUDEST POSSIBLE VOICE: “NO YOU DID NOT” - The very next day CERN RETRACTED ITS COMENT, “WE ALMOST DID IT”, (again paraphrasing) - I would like someone to PLEASE tell me that CERN does something besides bursting distilled-quantum cosmic pixels - and elaborate please, what are those other types of experiments -

[@rl7012]

CERN is a big money grabbing con job. They know their 'results' are impossible to verify outside of themselves so they literally make stuff up or rename old stuff.

[@wulphstein]

You should ask if your interpretations and assumptions about physics are wrong.

[@tempura112]

yes!

[@Nate8247]

We haven't began to understand the reality. " Lord Kelvin (William Thomson), who reportedly stated in a lecture around 1900 that there was nothing new to be discovered in physics, only more and more precise measurements."

[@spectrumsix2]

I think Neil is 100% spot on, we need to look back for answers, namely the strong nuclear force.

[@johnbrown4568]

Yes indeed, as was predicted a very long time ago...it's turtles all the away down.

[@baneverything5580]

How do we explain the paranormal? Between 1967 and 1985 multiple individuals saw a glowing red head floating in our house. I felt heat coming from it and it looked very vicious. My cousin was present with me and saw it too.

[@MrWolynski]

Invent new particle to cover the hole. The big bang never happened.

[@FMDD168]

Armchair physicists are the worst

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@sitbone3]

He wants to explain interstellar travel using steam power.

[@SpiritTracker7]

I agree, there is zero reason to put arbitrary restrictions on science just because the older generation of scientist are getting impatient between discoveries. I think Neil Turok is just tired... he's spent a lot of time facing theoretical science that is just out of reach... he wants that old school science back when we felt like we knew what was going on... but we have to let each new generation of scientist come in and make new theories, make new discoveries, regardless of where that might lead. I do agree that at this point it's an absurd idea to build a new but 10X larger Hadron Collider. It's like the gambler who keeps losing but doesn't know when it's time to fold them and go home. The unfortunate truth is that we can't expect cosmology or theoretical physics to make discoveries as often as biology or technology. There may very well be long dry spells while collecting data etc..

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@SpiritTracker7 Theoretical Physics is like Sociology but for Mathemagicians larping as Enlightened. The problem isn't the oldies.... its reification and production of phenomena rather than discovery.

[@SpiritTracker7]

@@jaydenwilson9522 science is what it is... how long was Einstein's General Relativity theoretical physics before the validity caught up with the evidence? The other problem is that no-one is funding science unless it can be commercialized, militarized, or pharmacuticalized. Other than that, you have to let science go wherever it may. Anything less and it's not real science. Claiming that we already have all of the cards in the deck and just have to configure them in certain ways to find new answers hasn't lead to any new discoveries in decades either.

[@plutoloco2378]

Curt is handsomb

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

[@cybervigilante]

That's public physics. We have no idea what has been going on with DARPA physics, which was not constrained by String Theory Madness.

[@jmf5246]

It seems like we should relook at the entire field of particle physics. Classical mechanics, maxwell, special and general gravity all were testable. Quantum mechanics math works great but the physical reality is missing.

[@BattousaiHBr]

QFT is the most accurately tested theory in science. what you're thinking of is the whole field of theoretical physics, from string theory to supersymmetry and wimps.

[@randomteenboy]

if its not matching with your subjective classical view than this doesnt mean its missing reality....

[@angeldelcourt6882]

I think I'll have another beer.

[@k9876k]

Does he think that the hypothetical graviton particle might not exist?.

[@k9876k]

His mindset reminded me of Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually the one that is correct.

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

If a number of people were zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be all one zero dimensional point. No one could have a different opinion. Imagine if you keep mixing an infinite number of pinballs that are the same size forever, and you still end up with one pinball that is the same size. That’s what it would be like if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one zero dimensional point without any dimensions. These zero dimensional points may not be in any space, or separated by any space, but be separated by time. One way to leave the point that you and the other points are part of and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points you’re mixed with on what number you are looking at. Or another way would be to just forget the number. If one individual point mixed in with another point composed of a number of points, it would still be like two individual points mixing together, so this individual point would make the multi point point its mixing into half as different then the individual point would become meaningless because it would now be part of one point. Or could this individual point completely take over the multi point point so the multi point point becomes as meaningless as one point mixed in with a multi point point, following by the individual point that is taking over (as it to is now part of a multi point point). If you imagine 20 scattered individual points, you yourself are an individual point with a consciousness of 20. You could be part of a zero dimensional multi point point composed of 90 other individual points. The other 90 individual points mixed in with you could also think they each are the ones theorising 20 scattered individual points, thereby giving the multi point point you are mixed with a consciousness of 20.

[@advaitrahasya]

One substance arising. … simple enough?

[@Juju--Cat]

I liked the Neil Turok interview much better ;-)

[@jaz4742]

"We already have all the laws of physics". This is such an arrogant thing with no reason to give a toddler civilization that just started the benefit of the doubt. Yet there it is. the ridiculous statement.

[@quantumpotential7639]

This Neil is a far far better alternative to the other Neil. 💪

[@randomteenboy]

that one is joker full of superiority complex....

[@revoldaily2158]

“Maybe we have physics all figured out?” I hate to say it but it’s mindsets like this that have held science back, scientists used to think planets were incredibly rare and that our solar system was a really rare formation and it took decades for them to see otherwise.. same with the Fermi paradox, it was incredibly out dated and inaccurate and people still refer to it today.. thoughts and ideas that don’t fit with mainstream science are pushed to the side.. but to say or honestly believe that in just a little over a hundred years that we humans have figured it all out, is lazy and ignorant and shows the true ego of some scientists..

[@quantumpotential7639]

Didn't Nassim Heiraman solve the theory of everything???? He spent a lot of his time living in his van down by the river being a ski and tennis instructor.

[@jeffreykalb9752]

Turok sounds a lot like Lord Kelvin...

[@WacKEDmaN]

the biggest problem with theoretical physics these days is over inflated EGOs.... majority of them (NDT being #1 on the list) make out they know everything and are above everyone else after writing one paper on some obscure topic that brings nothing new to the table... ...how many times was Hawking wrong?, how many times did he change his mind?.... how many years did he stagnate physics?.... ...Neil Turok on the other hand...has the goods to back up the ideas...

[@markbennett1599]

You better be in the profession to say something about the profession. Otherwise you full of du du.

[@timothyblazer1749]

Let me get this straight...because we havent found new things using the old models and methods, there are no new things? Oh, and of course, the dissenters must be crazy. Got it. Doesnt sound like church at all.

[@alex79suited]

Neil, gravity is a local phenomenon when an atmosphere environment is present. Otherwise the law is VEM =0Msquared. We know that galacty are closed systems, we know this because the blacksphere is a closed system. It trickles down and up but it starts at the sphere. Now, the gravity or weighted mass always appears when an atmosphere environment is present, never without it. So that make gravity a phenomenon, that's all. Otherwise, it's EMFSYSTEMS. Nothing exists without these fields. All those other things you mentioned only exist after the first position. This is how we must approach this, while keeping the infinite ♾️ vacuum space and the matter-verse separate properties. And the answer is right there. Peace ✌️ 😎. Neil I like ur work but what we see around us is not the starting position. The great attractors are from which our starting position was born. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@alex79suited]

Gravity is a product of its environment. Otherwise, it doesn't exist whatsoever anywhere. That's reality. When you find a starting position stop collapsing and blow the star up no gravity needed and the EMFS bubble holds the star and is also depending on which kind will determine the size of each star, by metal content. The more metals the smaller the stars less metals bigger stars. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@wulphstein]

Can you imagine if today's physics community was trying to discover what matter was made of? The correct answer is: the atom. We think that matter occupies a multiverse. We think matter moves forward and backwards in time. Matter exists in 10 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Sweep physics constants under the rug.

[@charlesprabakar]

Good to hear a self reflective view from a physicist with a need for integrating relativity theory with standard model without adding any more ingredients Turns out, we as a firm have a similar view as well. For example, what if the duality of classical and quantum relativity (as explained by the holographic principle) is anchored on FSC(α) as the hidden variable of EPR paradox and Maxwell's daemon of entropy with a following duality mapping - ads(n dim) = QVF(n dim) = EPR - cft (n+1 dim) = observable universe = ER So, what if the ultimate TOE of the observable universe is using Riemann’s Zeta function based wave function (see below), that is governed by the perturbation probability FSC(α) QVF This way we can explain all three degrees of computational complexities of Universe using our varying FSC value theory - a) Big Bang's high gears operation of BBS with a different value of FSC b) Current gears of operation of universe using current FSC value c) Black hole dynamics in reverse with a different FSC value? Turns out our firm’s TOE/SOE Engine (aka CONSCIO-SCOPE), is one such machinery only, that is being developed by theoretically legitimizing & "Gödel Completing" 10+ century-old unsolved math hypotheses (including 5+ $1MM Prized Riemann Hypothesis from Clay institute ) -- which brings us to our TOE/SOE thought experiment (TE) -- What if the "fundamental frequency of QVF/ZPE and FSC(α)-Einstein-Bohr-HV-Maxwell Daemon governed TOE Engine" is nothing but the fundamental frequency of Riemann's zeta function Ζ(S) with a singularity of S=1+0i, that is made up of his harmonic oscillating zeros(S=1/2+it stacked on his 1/2 critical line (as per Gauss's prime sequence counting function), before being transformed as a 137 frequency-spin momentum matched dipole, using our FSC(α)-GR-PLA+5 AITGE origin formulas? In other words, our TOE/SOE engine is the one that is transforming the Riemann's zeros into an artistic unit charge dipole(see visual), by contracting/expanding its electric flux as the center of mass (as r = αR), before rotating its magnetic flux by 90 in such a way that it can be extended into the left plane as a paired unit charge, using the "only possible analytical continuation of Zeta" -- which brings us to our proof This "one & only allowed analytically continued Zeta dipole" is what limits/constrains the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to a value of 137 cycles( per Laurent/Cauchy residue including the α=r/R,=fe/fp=we/wp logic of our CP function as explained in my post today (and attached one page exhibit for details (facebook.com/share/p/82EkRtmM5Kd77zXh/?) lim t→ ∞ CP(1/2 + ti) = 1/α cycles of dipole Similarly, we have also hypothesized that this toggle also lands as a dipole/quadrupole using the very same Riemann zeta function logic (z=1/2+it), in perfect alignment with the 4 gene bases of DNA helix(adenine, cytosine, guanine & thymine with golden ratio pattern, the flip side of FSC coin), with an unique S-number, thus deciding our unique genetic code perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle! That said, we will be the first to admit that additional research and experiments are still needed for us to be 100% certain - and this is where we are looking for collaboration possibilities if your research aligns with these ideas. This brings us to its implications in the form of our top 10 Nobel quality business ideas(lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ), that have been developed by this very same logic (& synthesized as 1 sentence below and in exhibit). -- Every Maslow’s holacracial(1) economic need is a direct/indirect manifestation of QE caused Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model problem(2) only -- that is solved using the Principle of least action & its new insight(3) driven Fine-structure-constant(FSC) caused Attention factor (4) driven FSC/GT/Nash Equilibrium(5) based reality accurate S-economics model(6) caused Friedman’s Attention-Pluck(7) -- that is followed by an Solow’s TFP-expansion( 8 ), before it being executed by “sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion(9)” motto, driven Next-Gen capitalism called Sovereign/Conscious Sustainalism(10)! Similarly, if I I may expand it as a 10 line summary (lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ) 1 Maslow's hierarchy model advanced as our Holacracical model (lnkd.in/gTeWVYUC) 2. Scripture/Griffith’s human condition/depravity model advanced as Quantum Entanglement (QE) caused depravity model((lnkd.in/gp5kcCa2) 3. Feynman path integral model advanced as Principle of least action's new insight driven CP Path Integral ((lnkd.in/gu9GsuN4) 4. Attention Economy model advanced as FSC-Attention Factor economy model (lnkd.in/gBe_bE5G) 5. Game Theory Nash/Market Equilibrium model advanced as FSC Equilibrium model(lnkd.in/gWkaPKdB) 6. Landscape economics model advanced as reality accurate FSC-S-Energy economics model(lnkd.in/gbtsDNpQ) 7. Friedman's Plucking model advanced as FSC Attention Plucking model(lnkd.in/gD_qzV5z) 8. Solow’s TFP model advanced as FSC legitimized TAFP model(lnkd.in/gWZ3-tsK) 9. Friedman's Free-To-Choose model advanced as Sovereign-to-choose with collaboration without coercion model(FSC(lnkd.in/g-xExeUm) 10. Current capitalism model advanced as purpose score driven incentivized COP28 solution enabling Next-Gen Conscious Sustainalism model(lnkd.in/d7A6U6dg) That said, we will be the first to admit that additional research and experiments are still needed for us to be 100% certain - and this is where we are looking for collaboration possibilities especially with those of you whose research projects align with these ideas.

[@4pharaoh]

Provide a way for members of the general public to submit papers and 50 years of stagnation in multiple areas of science will end, virtually overnight. Make the submission open sourced, professional critiqued, and provide a cash prizes for the top submissions then all the eyes of the media will be focused on the results. The tired and ubiquitous (and quite frankly sad) regurgitation of fundamental physics will give way to fresh new avenues. (C'mon Mr. Musk)

[@mrfatuchi]

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” ― Nikola Tesla

[@aquariumlife2929]

Physics is a science. Science became to be a product instead of a service ( as used to be ) . Skeptism became a huge industry where a lot of people makes a lot of money comfortably where they already stand. If skeptism would go open public on the stock market ( which btw is not really far away from happening) , i would buy a lot of shares just for the sake of profiting out of s-t'u-p'i-d'i-t-y... No i wouldn't, i'm just kidding...i'm just placing it as figurative as possible, i stand with science as a service rather than a product

[@morbidcorpse5954]

Good channel but the hard physics is beyond me. Miss the UFO material

[@risunokairu]

Then the Linken field helped him with breaking the habit

[@christopherellis2663]

Ark bark dark hark lark mark park quark shark snark stark spark (kvark) 😂😅 clever chaps chattering their clatter. Observation trumps theory. It has nothing to do with the quart.

[@wulphstein]

The problem with theoretical physics is that it's mostly malarkey. It has nothing to do with real experimental physics or nature.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Neil talks about the experiments and predictions that arise from his theory in the full interview.

[@kayakMike1000]

Well... Einstein was pretty good at theoretical physics. Got that mercury orbit figured out pretty well, solved that photo electric effect, and some other stuff.

[@mitchellhayman381]

This only shows your missunderstanding

[@alexbenzie6585]

Another clueless armchair scientist😅

[@mathematicalmonk1427]

How do you imagine experimental physics without theoretical physics

[@francisdelacruz6439]

Is it productive? Current quantum physics have not been productive and explains discovered phenomena and not find new ones. Productive meaning plethora of new discoveries technologies leaps.

[@logicbomb8977]

Theoretical physics is a joke without experiment. With enough mathematical masturbation, theoretically anything could mirror reality without direct experimentation.

[@Boris29311]

Eh,so what?

[@yonatan2806]

"...perhaps we do know all the laws of physics". Anthropocentrism at its worst. Even the LHC still probes *exactly* 0% of all scales. For this reason, any physical theory which is not founded on the principle of scale covariance is doomed to be, at most, phenomenological.

[@rodkeh]

The problem with theoretical Physics is Einstein! Once we throw Einstein out, the universe becomes self-evident. Einstein was the first one that decided that he was smarter than God so he didn't need to study the real world, he could just make it all up out of his own imagination and it would be exactly what God had created! Einstein's hubris defies description but after him, all theoretical Physicists adopted his method so all of them think that they are smarter than God so they don't need to study the universe, like Einstein, they can just make it all up. Einstein was an idiot and modern Theoretical Physicists are all crooks and swindlers that think they can just con us all into believing them. TOE is straightforward once you throw Einstein out and start to study the universe and ask yourself, "What is the universe telling us?" Not pretend that they are, all knowing and don't care what the universe is shows us.

[@panmichael5271]

The mania for particle (high energy) physics consumed too much money, wasted too much talent, exhausted rational thinking and in its place substituted fantastical speculation, and finally theoretical physics trapped itself in a rut. - Back to the drawing board, guys!

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides. So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.