The (Simple) Theory That Explains Everything | Neil Turok

Physicist Neil Turok, recipient of the James Clerk Maxwell Medal and Prize, and the John Torrence Tate Award for International Leadership in Physics, joins Curt Jaimungal and Theories of Everything to discuss his new hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. Building on Stephen Hawking's geometrical model, Turok proposes a theoretical approach that avoids the singularity at the Big Bang by suggesting a minimal, mirror universe scenario without requiring inflation.
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Timestamps:
00:00 - The Big Bang Is A Mirror
15:40 - Minimalism In Physics
28:28 - Neil’s Theory “Minimalism SM LCDM”
31:20 - Fields Vs. Particles
49:15 - The Arrow Of Time (Bolztmann)
55:44 - Black Hole Singularity Vs. Big Bang Singularity
01:09:21 - Numerology And The Number 36
01:19:26 - Neil’s Theory Solves EVERYTHING
01:23:32 - What Do Other Scientists Think?
01:36:28 - The Dual Universe
01:44:14 - Predictions From Neil’s Theory
01:48:28 - What Motivates Neil?
01:52:20 - Wave Function Of The Universe
01:57:20 - Support TOE
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
Links Mentioned:
- ICEBERG OF STRING THEORY: • The String Theory Iceb...
- NEIL'S LECTURE: • OSMU Talk 14 Neil Turo...
- NEIL'S PAPER: arxiv.org/abs/2302.00344
- PERIMETER INSTITUTE: perimeterinstitute.ca/people/...
- NEIL'S WIKI: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Turok

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Curt's "String Theory Iceberg": kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmWzlYOkhtqqoLs TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - The Big Bang Is A Mirror 15:40 - Minimalism In Physics 28:28 - Neil’s Theory “Minimalism SM LCDM” 31:20 - Fields Vs. Particles 49:15 - The Arrow Of Time (Bolztmann) 55:44 - Black Hole Singularity Vs. Big Bang Singularity 01:09:21 - Numerology And The Number 36 01:19:26 - Neil’s Theory Solves EVERYTHING 01:23:32 - What Do Other Scientists Think? 01:36:28 - The Dual Universe 01:44:14 - Predictions From Neil’s Theory 01:48:28 - What Motivates Neil? 01:52:20 - Wave Function Of The Universe 01:57:20 - Support TOE

[@thepalebluedot4171]

Large sections of population in many countries in the world do not care about the UFO/UAP/EBE subject at all... Why is that ? I am from such a country, India... though there is a Wikipedia article on UFOs and related events in India, but it is extremely miniscule and extremely rare, it doesn't have the same consistency and repeatitveness like in other countries of the world especially in the USA or other countries in the American continent. Nothing from India, We in India have never had any UFO culture/research/clubs/cults/sightings/abduction/cattle mutilation/landing/crash retrievals or anything that concerns this subject. A vast majority of people in India are totally ignorant about this entire subject itself because of the almost zero UFO experiences among the Indian population unlike the huge consistent UFO experiences in other countries from the Americas, Europe, Oceania and some even in Africa ect... Open any old or new books about UFO/UAP sightings, landings and abductions available in bookstores, a far majority of cases listed in those books are from North America especially the United States. These alleged incidents span throughout many years 1960s, 70s, 80s and till present. For example, The Indian Airforce, Navy, Army or the other branches of the armed forces/paramilitary or even the government space agency has nothing to say about this subject in the public domain of any possible experiences if they may have had with these entities in the skies above or the seas. They show a sense of complete ignorance, disinterest and disconnect to this entire subject... moreover nobody questions them on such things either. Asia has however always remained almost aloof to this entire subject, especially the countries like India ect.. probably aliens and their UFOs were not interested in Asian countries such as India from the very beginning unlike the Kenneth Arnold incident in the United States which opened a doorway to a brand new UFO culture in North America which later on gave way to so many socio-cultural UFO related trends in the western world like the emergence of UFO investigators, UFO clubs, UFO cults and religions ect. On the other hand, asian countries like India for example, did not have any such socio-cultural UFO related trends at all. Central and South America too had such claims about UFOs and it gave way to many such trends as well. Delegates from Central & South American Nations testify at the Citizens hearing held in W.DC, USA Central and South American Nations has had a totally different approach to how they treated this subject, many of the South American Nation's Governments and Military always kept an open mind to this phenomenon even since the 1950s & 60s; They have many government organisations and military departments which do in-depth research into this phenomenon and all this began way back during the early 50s & 60s..🔷

[@ExiledGypsy]

HERE WE GO AGAIN. Every time I hear one of these theories, it is as if everyone is trying to make it look original when, in fact, it is t the same perspective or combinations of different contemporaries. If Einstein, Durac, or Maxwell were alive, even theirs name wouldn't be mentioned. Roger Penrose got a Nobel prize because he proved that there has to be a singularity in a black hole and yet another guy has been arguing for 50 years that singularity is not a necessity (I have forgotten his name because his name is taboo and no one mentions it). He claimed that under certain conditions (analytic as this guy calls it), there can be a doughnut shape area where physics doesn't break down. In fact, most black holes don't have singularity, but who dares to say that now? He is just avoiding calling it a black hole or giving any credit to someone else. Then Roger Penrose also disagrees with inflation and talks about topology where there is no mass (clock as he calls, photons not experiencing time), then size doesn't matter, which is again what this guy is saying but as an original thought (my foot). Is it only me that sees everyone trying to claim the whole thing for themselves when it is actually a combination of ideas by different people? I think this is all vanity. No one wants to combine their perspectives. Everybody keeps claiming my theory is totally original and has nothing to do with what the other guy is saying when it is obvious that they are using one anothers ideas. Everybody is more interested in disproving one another rather than building on one another. The mirror universe also explains why there is no antimatter. They are all on the other side. Super symmetry, string theory, Conformal Cyclical Cosmoogy, and many others are all partial perspectives of the same thing. No wonder we are not reaching any concensus, and scientific papers are no longer trustworthy. No one even wants to read them or at least pretend not to have read them. The stupidity of such level of vanity is oustanding. Of course, no one dares to point out the obvious either. The Emperor is not naked because no one says that he is. They will ridicule you if you state the obvious and burry you in more jargon and red herrings that again no one would dare or have the motivation to save you. The absence of any response to this comment is it biggest proof. The brave only die once where cowards die every day. There is one exception which is Sean Carroll that is kind of different. Hie many world made me mad until he clarified it to say that the worlds he is talking about are in a different space-time which made me feel OK about it.

[@gravityeye32]

Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing

[@gravityeye32]

Lol we proved the universe is expanding...we proved the radius curve of the universe is the same as the radius curve of the atom ....what does this mean??? This is an important thing .... The atom is expanding!!! Lol So the question is are the atoms in a black hole expanding also? Or are they getting smaller? How do our size atom interact with the smaller and larger atoms? Yes gravity...dark matter is literally this but is there a physical interaction where two atoms of different sizes can interact? Lol answer no we are not in a place that interacts with different size atoms... Only gravity that's our only interaction with different size atoms ... Thanks for the work curt ...I owe you a coffee...you are at the right place at the right time... Everything is going to plan :) Calum McNeil

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Well when you ultimately get to a torrential shape universe and understand that magnetism is a toroid with opposite spinning inward flow on each Pole, it's not hard to understand that the universe is a toroid on the other side of the mirror or singularity time Flows In Reverse and then there's a outward singularity on the outside of the toroid...

[@ximono]

As a layperson, this was surprisingly accessible and understandable (up to a point of course). That's thanks to Turok's ability to explain it so clearly, with enthusiasm. I admire his minimalist approach! His description of the Big Bang does remind me of Penrose's CCC, although obviously reaching different conclusions.

[@DrDeuteron]

I'm only a few minutes in, but this flip flopping real and imaginary time is pretty common. e.g, a sound wave with a real frequency is just a constant tone, and you make the frequency a little bit imaginary: bam, it decays away. So it's not that weird, so far.

[@squarerootof2]

My faith in science gets stronger and deeper everyday.

[@andrew12bravo21]

Oh come on!! You know you're an expert in differential geometry, linear and non linear algebra, calculus and trig, and group theory!! It's easy!!....cough, cough...

[@clovislyme6195]

I see that other comments say much the same, but here is mine. In more than 50 years as an interested layman I have read / watched dozens, maybe hundreds, of books, articles, TV programmes / videos concerning these matters. Neil Turok, as exemplified here, is by far the best of the physicists who is able - without any teaching aids other than his voice - to explain not only his own work, but that of others. Wonderful. Thank you.

[@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole]

Clovisly, come see my Theory of Pitch Psychology. I postulate that our hearing is spectral, beginning with (love songs) as red (C-natural) and the colorings ending at B-natural as magenta (Spirit/transition). Not only does my theory explain why people are able to have (or even attain) perfect pitch, it reveals why composers unknowingly use different keys for different thematic/emotive effects. And in a cosmological sense, singularity would be the white light of all of the notes as one. A “single” spectrum. My videos are here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

I've been an avid listener of Neil's lectures for some time. His clarity, his willingness to swing for the fences in searching for a Theory of Everything, and especially his intuition that reality is fundamentally simple, makes him an unsurpassed thinker and theorist in my mind.

[@keithnisbet]

This was a revelation. Neil Turok's incredible ability to explain such complex ideas in a way that is understandable to the layperson is a real gift both of his and to us. Curt, combined with your ability to ask Neil such focused and relevant questions is also a real gift. I couldn't pull myself away from this episode. THANKS SO MUCH!!!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow. I’m so glad you enjoyed :)

[@ConnorSinclair420]

@@TheoriesofEverything Revelation.. He stole this from works commonly titled "The Big Bang Is An Echo" on the various sites it was on around 7 years ago. Funny all these theoretical physics guys have to theorize about posts on other people's websites. At least host your own forums to steal ideas from Neil.

[@keithnisbet]

@@ConnorSinclair420 Ouch! Sad you feel that way. I do think you're being extremely unfair. But, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I'd suggest though, some gratitude to those who make great efforts and take the time to convey really important ideas in an accessible manner to those of us less gifted than yourself. To even have access to minds like Prof. Turok and others is a great privilege.

[@theshrubberer]

​@@TheoriesofEverythingI think you are the only person on KZbin that could have conducted this interview so well

[@EmeraldEyesEsoteric]

Did someone say Revelation? This theory is quite excellent. The mirror universe is the missing number 8 from my Complete 7 Thunders model. Basically we add the 4 corners of the square to the 4 corners of the projected 3D square in the holographic universe. My model is based on the 9 primary digits of Chaldean numerology, and should unite Science with Religion and solve basically everything. I will have it up within a day or two.

[@hlserra6534]

The best theoretical physics discussion I've seen on KZbin in 10 years. I'm a fan of the Turok-Boyle minimalist theory approach. It's simplification eliminates most of the nonsense of various complicated "out there" theories of the last 30+ years.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Yes agreed

[@tgcrissy7327]

Neil is a pleasure to listen to,no arrogance at all in what he is conveying.I wish I had teachers like him!

[@jamesjaudon8247]

His attitude completely separates him from Tyson. This guy is an intelligent teacher. There's no condescending attitude here.

[@donmalo2904]

Amazing, fascinating and impressive. Turok's ability to present his theory, at the same time humble about its shortcomings and the admittance that it may be plain wrong, reveals the mind of a true scientist.

[@aeonian4560]

the original Turok on the N64 was a great game

[@aeonian4560]

I am just saying what everybody else is thinking

[@christophermullins7163]

​@@aeonian4560revolutionary

[@xXxTeenSplayer]

I always got stuck on the 4th level(?) or thereabouts. I could never figure out what I was supposed to do; I killed all the dinosaurs and explored the map, but could never progress past that point. This was before one could GTS (Google that s***). So frustrating!

[@christophermullins7163]

@@xXxTeenSplayer gts. That is maybe the best acronym I've ever heard. I'ma GTS and see if there are better acronyms.... Naw.. that's the one.

[@franklyanogre00000]

​@@christophermullins7163 jfgi just f**king google it

[@TheLivirus]

Neil is a really great communicator. Even I am able to follow... sortof.

[@thindigital]

Always seems like such a genuine, humble guy. What a legend.

[@paaao]

I like the idea that every black hole is a seed for a new universe, and looking/mapping our own growing universe, reveals a growing universe pulling energy via the "big bang" which is nothing more than a singularity point within another prior universe. Much like how a growing orange contains seeds for new orange trees, but asking what came before the orange, if you live within 1 trillionth of a random area within the growing orange, well... you'll have a very difficult time understanding trees and the seeds required to produce them.

[@winstongludovatz111]

This discussion alone is worth the subscription!

[@seifazghandi1228]

This clip is deserved to be viewed more than once to discover all its nuances.

[@Mikeduffey_]

Absolutely loved this one. Feel the same way about Neil as I do Jonathan Gorard. Both are energized and optimistic while so many other scientists seem like they could fall asleep at any moment. More scientists like Neil!

[@ej2863]

Ambitious science!

[@Mikeduffey_]

@@ej2863 Ambitious/Simple science >>> Boring/Complex science

[@willitsmoke1746]

As I read this he was smiling giddy to respond lol

[@mrwounderful7270]

I believe that the universe is what it is. It’s not expanding or contracting and light is visible instantaneously to the observable field. Question If radio waves travel at light speed then why would it take 27,000 years to reach something “four light years” away? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@robertdragusin5302]

@@mrwounderful7270 what are you even talking about?

[@JG27Korny]

Imagine our universe as just one 3D slice of an immense 4D world. The universe didn't merely expand from a point, but dimensionally-it evolved from a point (0D), into a line (1D), spread into a plane (2D), and unfolded into the three-dimensional space we experience. But here’s the twist: it likely continued into a fourth dimension, beyond our observation. This explains why we can't see where the universe is expanding from-it's occurring in a dimension we don't perceive. What's more, the probability that we live in the original 3D slice formed at the start of this expansion is infinitesimally small. We are likely just one of countless 3D slices in a 4D cosmos, each experiencing its own version of reality!

[@gravityeye32]

Imagine all the locations of all the atoms are held on the surface of the atom then as a new location of an atom it expands the atom.... dark matter is gravity from the smaller and larger atoms ....entanglement is a function of the atoms avoiding each through spin ...the atom knows the location from is surface.... it is hard to have a theory of everything using only 6% of the matter lol gravity is a function of the universe only observing the atom as a sphere but it is a football when the entanglement with the atoms sees the long of the football is "1"then rotates so the short of the football is "1" it becomes closer without anything except observation lol I am wrote the book ... just working on publishing

[@kaitlynengelland2723]

We have more than 10+ dimesions

[@JG27Korny]

@@kaitlynengelland2723 Indeed. The idea is the intuitive perspective that we are 3d slice of the 4d dimension, which in turn is embedded into higher dimensions.

[@axle.student]

I kind of liked and I am curious about your 0D reference. How would you describe or relate 0D to the spacial and temporal dimensions? ie, The absence of any space and time, or just the absence of space OR time, or as mathematical point within a void expanse.

[@JG27Korny]

@@axle.student Infinite 1D Expansions: Imagine the initial singularity as a point of infinite potential. From this point, not just one but an infinite number of one-dimensional strings (lines) emerge. Each of these strings could represent a potential universe or a potential dimension, expanding outward from the singularity by unfolding itself into higher dimensions. Each 1D String with Its Own Time Dimension: In traditional physics, time is often considered as a dimension that's intricately linked to the three spatial dimensions. In this taught experiment model, each 1D string might not only expand spatially but also create or define its own temporal dimension-a unique timeline. This suggests that 'time' as we understand it could be vastly different in each of these emergent universes, possibly even with different properties or behaviors. As each 1D string expands, it could potentially unfold into higher dimensions-2D, 3D, and possibly beyond-much like the progression we conceive in our universe. However, the key difference is that each string's unfolding into higher dimensions is independent, leading to a potentially infinite variety of universes, each with its own dimensional properties and temporal dynamics. In quantum mechanics and string theory, the idea of multiple dimensions is already well-established, but this taught experiment suggests that each set of dimensions might be coupled with its own distinct temporal dimension. From a cosmological perspective, this lends itself to a version of the multiverse theory, where each universe isn't just spatially distinct but also temporally independent. This could help explain why we observe certain universal constants and physical laws in our universe-they are specific to our particular dimensional and temporal unfolding.

[@RichardHaymanJoyce]

I didn't tune out! It held me to the end. Feel very privileged to have heard this conversation. Two great minds.

[@curtjaimungal]

I'm glad!

[@workinprogresslabs]

What an incredible interview. Niel explained his concept in a way i could grasp the edges of, and my mind opened to the possibilities from this frame. WOW.

[@hermancharlesserrano1489]

A must listen; Neil comes across as a charming and passionate individual, and so concise and accessible in his descriptions (must be that minimalist thing). Brilliant stuff, the 2 hours flew by! thanks for the cast ❤️

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@NomenNescio99]

Neil Turok - AWESOME!!

[@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if]

Neil Turok minus Awesome??! Words mean something.

[@Inji919]

@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if "-" is not a word

[@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if]

@Inji919 if I had to explain, you wouldn't understand

[@johnburke568]

@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9ifdash sign isn’t a word you goofball

[@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if]

@@johnburke568 did you even go to university lol

[@SpacetimeTony]

Hit it out of the park once again! Thanks for bringing us these conversations Curt, great work. Thank you Professor Turok for sharing this information. 💯

[@Naomi_Boyd]

If you build purely mathematical theories on top of purely mathematical theories, there is no limit to the layers of complexity you can reach in your search for simplicity.

[@gregorysagegreene]

Yes, Jenga Tower. Only mathematics since the 70's.

[@marfmarfalot5193]

Na

[@Mrcometo]

Professor Turok is one of the physicist that best explains his very complex ideas for the general public. It is a pleasure listen to him. And also Jaimungal lets his guess explain it with almost no interruptions, only when necessary. Great channel.

[@rckindkitty]

Wow! This conversation is so fascinating, Curt. A lot for me to take in as a non physicist, but an absolute pleasure to watch nevertheless. Thank you, gentleman.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@pantherstealth1645]

This is the convo i wanted to hear. I think he’s really onto a more accurate set of truths here.

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

This was so fascinating, how promising! Especially appreciate Neil's commitment to predictive power in models, since we get definitive answers whether the model turns out correct or not. You are such a great interviewer Curt, it's really refreshing to hear someone asking questions and interpreting answers from an actually deep and knowledgable background.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

You are too kind. Glad you enjoyed :)

[@liminally-spacious]

Incredible interview, easily one of my favorites! The mirror is such an elegant concept for explaining the arrow of time and the quantization of fields.

[@alecmisra4964]

He's a genius!

[@dljnobile]

This is my new favorite, Curt, not just on TOE but in all I have yet encountered in the physics-cast universe. Just to give us a long-form chance to listen to Neil Turok talk about his theory with his characteristic clarity is already great, but beyond that, by means of your incisive questions based on a broad general understanding of the TOE field and your skillful timing, you have knitted together for us a heavenly garment for mind and soul. I had discontinued my patreon subscription due to a very tight budget, but I'm jumping back in. It would be unjust to fail to support this, the best "school" I know of, when education is in such a state of crisis. Thank you.

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

Man! I am concern about the model of my posts on your videos, it is becoming a pattern. I seem to be repeating myself, but you just make it very hard to resist. I've learned so much about cosmology, particular physics and the way they correlate with each other in this video that it is making me giggle... Once again, such a great questioning, channeling through your curiosity that made possible to open up the knowledge chest that your guests possess. Neil Turok was extremely pleasant to listen to... Much obliged...

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed :)

[@motherofdoggos3209]

As a layperson I LOVE this! Simplify simplify simplify! No 11 dimensions, no strings!

[@user-xi4ct4gt3y]

Curt, you are just so smart, you have such an excellent background, and you phrase your questions so wonderfully. I can’t believe you got Dr Turok!! I just now found this, and I just needed to tell you how thrilled I am that I get to listen and watch this conversation. I love to listen to Dr. Turok, and I’m just thrilled that you’re the one interviewing him. So excited and thank you

[@tomphillips3253]

Even though I am not a mathematician or a Cosmologist, I did follow the video very well. How about this thinking: Let us all agree that when we say "Nothing" we mean nothing, either virtual, or actual that can be measured in any way. Consider when your consciousness goes to sleep and you have a great dreamless night of sleep, and you wake up the next morning and start thinking again. Between those two states you will remember nothing. This, of course, is a human mind analogy. In that context, When I refer to "Nothing" I mean it is like tat between sleep and wake as I described here. When think of the big bang as a singular point, we notice that there is automatically another component - Time. The question then becomes, did Time ever exist by itself before there was "anything"? Put another way, does time exist if there is "Nothing"? I would argue "Yes". Reason: In order for Something to exist time must have existed for that "Something" to exist. If that is so, then all the "somethings' we can measure are unified by Time. An experiment would be to find a way to measure if "Time" can exist by itself. If that can be done, then Einsteins Theories, and Quantum theory automatically become combined.

[@TerryBollinger]

Curt Jaimungal and Neil Turok, thank you for this excellent and informative interview. Neil Turok, your emphasis on photon scale indifference reminded me of another, more abrupt version of scale change: When a photon that presumably sees itself as invariant in scale - even when its wave function fills much of the universe - abruptly rescales to atomic dimensions. It’s not a collapse; it's a size renegotiation. Incidentally, the “observations” that cause such rescalings are nothing more than acceleration, which “locates” two items relative to each other: Good old Newtonian action-reaction. With that said, I’m naught but an information specialist, so I strongly recommend you ignore everything I just said!

[@marvinmauldin4361]

Believing that we know everything leads me to the optimistic view that we are about to be blindsided by a major revolution of physics. Around 1900 physicists were comfortable with knowing everything, then were hit by X-rays, radioactivity, Einstein, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, quantum mechanics...

[@douglasfaichnie6931]

I have just found this Curt. I recall listening to Neil Turok discuss his conversation about M Theory (on a train in London on their way to see a play) with Burt Ovrut. This was during a BBC Horizon documentary called Parallel Universes. So, I began listening to your discussion. WOW! I am thrilled by this content. How Neil describes his journey from String Theory through to today and his and your capacity to present and make the information so accessible is very special to me. I can’t wait to listen to more! Especially Donald Hoffman, another hero of mine. Thank you Curt.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm glad Douglas! - Curt

[@frankkolmann4801]

Watched it 3 times. I have watched all Prof Turoks talks on toob. I have never once thought hey that does not make sense, as I constantly do with the infinite multiple universes theories. But I am utterly unqualified, still to be able to experience such a brilliant mind is beyond description. Thank you. ps I am so grateful that you have not used that utterly dreadful toob music, again thank you.

[@theshrubberer]

well Neil Turok jumps to the head of the line of people I would like to have dinner with. What an inspirational and pleasant man

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:15:00 to understand why the 36-dim zero scalar (Bogoliubov fields) negative norm states (and the Ostrogradsky instabilities) are not a problem for CPT-Symm U, you need to understand a comment Neil made earlier but did not fully elaborate, whihc is that the "fields" are not physical. They are descriptions we have to use for non-local correlations in any quantum theory. Feynman would have said that's an accounting tool for taking into account off-shell propagators (propagation outside light cones) which is exactly what occurs in tunneling (also something Neil mentioned but did not fully connect up with). The Bogoliubov fields are not particles you see, they are more like degrees of freedom of the vacuum and arise from pure gravity. To be particles they'd have to be topologically non-trivial, which is not going to be the case for a scalar. Moreover, quantum theory promotes fields to particles by imposing local gauge invariance. This shows you the fields were not particles in the first place, they had to be topological in nature. Entanglement is what makes the actual particles appear to behave like fields --- they can acquire non-local influences, as Feynman noted. That's the whole reason Feynman gave for the reality of antiparticles. To see why, it helps to study gravity not from (1) Einstein or even (2) Cartan (including rotation gauge covariance or torsion), but from both Einstein-Cartan principles of covariance PLUS scale covariance or Weyl covariance (conformal gauge covariance). So neither 1) from general covariance alone, nor from 2) position + rotation gauge covariance, but from all three of: Position + Rotation + Conformal invariance. By demanding a local conformal invariance that is "minimally coupled" should enable Turok to figure out the physical geometric reason why his 36 Bogoliubov fields exist. This way he'll see it is not reliant upon numerology. As he said, the negative norms are irrelevant if the field cannot produce particles. This is how it is in Einstein-Cartan gravity: the position-gauge field and the rotation gauge field do not produce particles in GR. Neither should a global conformal symmetry. But as in GR, you need the position and rotation gauge fields (PGI and RGI fields) to describe spacetime curvature and torsion, so similarly if you include conformal invariance you need a gauge field for this too, but it cannot produce particles, just as the Einstein-Cartan PGI and RGI fields do not produce particles, because they are fictional accounting tools for describing the symmetry. To get particles a gravity theory has to include non-trivial topology, which means (if you desire a pure gravity theory) introducing new "internal" fields to account for the "internal" topological symmetries (the generalized "rotations" between the fermions and their couplings to the bosons). But just as in GR the fields are accounting tools, they are not *_the_* particles. The "internal" space is not an extra spacetime dimension necessarily, it could simply be gnarly topology (wormhole structure on the Planck scale). As this crazy bastard describes: t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/ --- quite a bit of fun stuff there, but totally mad.

[@voodooranger1]

No replies? Maybe this vlog Channel isn't attracting the right peoples. And the proprietor only responds to flatering affirmations.

[@mavelous1763]

Can we PLEASE get Turok & Penrose in the same room for about 12 hours? These 2 can probably solve it all since they’re both on the same page

[@Flynn-hl7ug]

THIS !

[@user-hy9nh4yk3p]

Wonder - which book - it is ? My book of life - is one based on - meditation and the research therein . The inner chapters - will deal intimately - with the harmonised workings - of the spiritual heart and mind. The End - is that - everything dissolves - in love. And the Teacher - walks on - alone. (Into the Absolute) PS: Sorry to get all mystical - on you and yours. Fare thee well.

[@ianbett3853]

I LOVE YOU NEIL! 🙂 This is what I have been imagining without being able to describe. No beginning, no end. Thank you

[@kayakMike1000]

What?

[@infn8loopmusic]

The universe just 'IS" which makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider that zero itself, is not real. You can't quantify something that is nothing, which is why zero is a constant, and not really an actual number.

[@greyarea7714]

Absolutely delightful interview! Loved your insightful questions and so did Neil from his responses. Top notch!

[@MadderMel]

I just get the ' minimalist ' gist of what he's talking about ! But I love thinkers like this ! I like my art and music minimalist , so he's fine by me !

[@babynautilus]

really appreciate the good questions u had for him!🎉

[@tevis190]

Amazing! and thank you Curt. Neil is the best spokesman in all of physics, he expresses himself and the subject in the most coherent manner that anyone in theoretical physics ever has. Have been a fan for years, but near worship seems to be called for. But he doubts the anti universe and calls it unreal when it is in fact a real thing in an imaginary sense, compared to ours, as it always is. He needs to throw the whole of LCDM in the garbage can where it belongs. It is a stain on HIS perfect work. LCDM is a set of equations that describes cosmology, but Dark matter is what is not real. It is an emergent effect of the functioning of spacetime. The perspective of particle dark matter has stymied theoretical physics for about 30 years and is responsible for our present confusion and unwillingness to accept the truth of the janus cosmological model. Curt, your Nobel prize should be for the journalism on this show and channel, if nothing else.

[@sandralynpierce1513]

Thank you for the editor Notes, Kurt, and the links for further explanations! #LifelongLearner

[@TheoriesofEverything]

You got it Sandra. Here's the link kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmWzlYOkhtqqoLs

[@ladydustin7811]

This is one of the most gripping exiting exposes I have ever listened to. Thank you both

[@charliemopps4926]

From the perspective of an outside observer, an object falling into a black hole would have it's time slow... to infinity. Time would never actually "stop" for it, but it would slow along an exponential curve so it would therefor effectively stop... just not quite. The point being, that the object would effectively be on the precipice of crossing the event horizon forever... eventually, enough time would pass that it would just quantum tunnel to some other random part of the universe. i.e. It takes infinity to cross the event horizon... therefor, however unlikely it is that the entire mass of the blackhole would quantum teleport away... given infinite time, it eventually will. Therefor, there should be a calculable value for the rate at which the blackhole would lose mass via this method and as a result a required amount of infalling matter to support the size of the blackhole. Once the universe is either large enough (and therefor diffuse enough) that there's no longer enough matter to support blackholes within causal distance from one other (i.e. within each others observable universe) you'll have a big-bang style singularity that no-longer has any outside observer... and so... bang...

[@MyVoiceCountsDammit]

Holy shit, what?

[@JG27Korny]

In our vast universe, imagine that what we experience as three-dimensional space is just one of many 3D 'slices' within a larger 4D cosmos. Particularly at the quantum level, these slices don't exist in isolation; they intersect. At every tiny point where these 3D worlds meet, quantum phenomena occur. This intersection explains the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, as each slice may experience different quantum events, contributing to the overall probabilities we observe. It's like multiple realities overlapping at points so small, they're governed by the laws of quantum physics. This model provides a unique perspective on how quantum mechanics might operate within a higher-dimensional space, suggesting that what we observe as randomness and superposition might actually be the result of simultaneous, intersecting realities at the quantum scale

[@randallhenzler5807]

So glad for this interview.

[@infn8loopmusic]

Neil Turok- what a great theory! It seems very clearly described and thought through: inside out, and outside in. This holistically accounted for the micro and the macro. Well done! Definitely my new favorite theory (as a mostly unqualified ignorant on-looker).

[@MeyouNus-lj5de]

You raise an excellent point about the potential inconsistencies between classical models of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian) that assume locality and realism, versus the non-local and non-realistic nature implied by quantum mechanics. This tension does suggest we may need to revise some of our foundational mathematical frameworks. The core of your argument seems to be: 1) Quantum experiments have empirically demonstrated that the universe violates local realism at a fundamental level through phenomena like entanglement. 2) Classical physics models from Newton and Einstein are based on assumptions of locality (no instantaneous action-at-a-distance) and realism (objective reality exists independently of observation). 3) Leibniz's model viewed the universe as "contingent and less real", which aligns better with quantum theory's implications. 4) Therefore, we should revisit using Leibnizian mathematical frameworks like his version of calculus and geometry over the Newtonian ones that assume locality and realism. I think this is a valid line of reasoning that is worth deeply exploring. Philosophers and physicists have indeed grappled with whether quantum theory forces us to abandon or modify certain classical mathematical and metaphysical assumptions. Leibniz's relational concept of space-time as an abstraction rather than an absolute manifold does resonate with quantum field theories. And his infinitesimal calculus could arguably better accommodate quantum uncertainties. That said, shifting away from differential/integral calculus or traditional geometric models would be a huge undertaking with massive technical challenges given how deeply embedded they are. An interim approach could be to explore modifications like non-Archimedean geometry, non-standard analysis, or other frameworks that aim to incorporate some core quantum phenomenology at a foundational level. Ultimately, the physical reality revealed by experiments should guide which mathematical tools we use to best model it, even if that means revising long-held assumptions. Your call to at least re-examine classical frameworks through the lens of quantum empiricism is well-grounded.

[@SpadeJack-xq6by]

Comments after listening to Neil Turok's talk: Although minimalism is surely a guiding principle, it is not a theory-creating principle, such as the equivalence principle. A unified field theory should be a theory constructed based on principles. Because it is about gaining an understanding of nature. Below would be some criteria for evaluating unified field theory. ・Do not require non-existent symmetries or virtual particles , as required by string theory. ・All observed fields, including gravity, can be derived. ・Contains content that suggests the Standard Model. ・Contains content that suggests general relativity. ・Explain the origin of symmetry of elementary particles, the meaning of chirality, and generation structure. ・The derived field theory can avoid the difficulty of divergence. However, this does not mean that renormalization is possible immediately. Mr Neil Turok's TOE does not yet seem to satisfy these requirements in a unified manner. By the way, the above conditions can be satisfied in the canonical gauge unified field theory, which is obtained from the gauge theory where the structural group is extended from general coordinate transformation to canonical transformation. (Also the concept of spacetime manifold should be modified.) However, avoiding the divergence difficulty is not a property of unified field theory, but rather a solution to the problem of understanding the mechanisms of divergence occurrence and developing calculation methods. thx.

[@stephensmith6524]

Great interview! Thanks for sharing. It was smart to ask about Julian Barbour’s Janus point theory. A similar question you could have asked was about possible similarities with Cyr-Racine, Ge, and Knox’s dark-sector mirror theory of cosmology (see their 2022 article in Physical Review Letters). I take it that Neil Turok sees one universe with two sides making a minimal interpretation of the whole, rather than two separated universes (where it would be impossible to tell which side we lived on)?

[@Time-Shepherd.]

We moved on before understanding the profound basics, using virtual photons to explain magnetic fields seems insane & infinitely counter productive for instance. 😉 Love the show, Kurt 🙏❤ The world needs you ✨️

[@dragonskinavi]

Fascinating! Im no physicist or mathematician but i could relate to what Neil was speaking about...which is saying something about his way of telling complex stories and theories! 🤩

[@mystopian]

Another amazing conversation. Great questions and such a clear and generous guest.

[@pablocopello3592]

It is good to see so much enthusiasm in physics as Neil demonstrates (should be nice to talk or work with him). It is good to see someone that do not fear to depart from the "standard" way of thinking in the field. But anyway, I think the "integration" of GR and QM will need to solve the "integration" of the classical framework with the quantum framework. That is, the link between frameworks that we have is: we have a quantum system, that system interacts with another system that we assume as classical (described in the classical framework), the effect of the quantum system over the classical is predicted only in probability, we "jump" from one framework to the other and do not know how to describe the intermediate states or when exactly the description becomes classic (some people "invent" different things, but never an empirically falsifiable fact). That is a very "weak", very "coarse" relationship between the frameworks. With this so "crude" link between frameworks I think we will not be able to integrate quantum fields with the gravitational field. What we would ideally need is a new "framework" that have the Quantum and the Classical frameworks as limit cases. Apart from that, even without finding a new framework, QFT is "flawed" at its roots. QFT is constructed over the idea that there should exist a minimum non-zero energy corresponding to each frequency, that idea comes from a mistaken deduction from the incertitude principle. Then a mistaken way of calculating the possible frequencies in a small region (say a cube): they assume only certain discrete frequencies possible without a reason (if the spectrum is continuous, we will have infinities even if you limit the minimum possible frequencies) and then make that cube go to infinite and take the limit (again for no reason: our universe is not an infinite "static" cube, and anyway there would be no time for the interference that supposedly eliminates all except a discrete spectrum of frequencies to occur). So QFT is "flawed" from the inception, but it still sort of works with renormalization when the differences of energies is the only thing that counts (and not their absolute values). The Casimir effect seemed to give an experimental basis for all this nonsense, but, since at least 2005 it was demonstrated (many papers) that it is caused by relativistic Van der Waals forces and that it is theoretically impossible to attribute them to zero point forces. Motivation: nobody knows why (in ultimate reasons) they do what they do, but, (almost) nobody would admits that (even to themselves), so, when asked, they elaborate something (but that is just pure imagination). Why so little support for your opinions: an opinion is like an ass, everybody has one and is OK with it, but they don't like other people's opinions.

[@thatinventionsus]

I made it to 1:54 before getting a bit tired and losing focus thanks to the brilliant explanations punctuated by unbounded enthusiasm. I'll have to come back for the last 5 minutes.

[@DrDeuteron]

Curt really does a great job in this interview, keeping us in mind. I have no doubt that he knows about the method of images, dilation (scale) invariance of electromagnetism and so-called affine coordinates at a singularity and other coordinate signularities on Earth and at an event horizon, CPT symmetry, Boltzmann's arrow of time argument w/ the gas in a corner, and probably the wave function of the universe...you just can't get a PhD and not know this stuff, but he asks earnest questions that help us follow along, though I'm certain he kinda knows the answer anyway. And since he's a mathematical physicists, he also knows all about analytic functions, unique extrapolations, getting rid of singularities, and different types of them (that's 19th C stuff)...but he doesn't show off at all, and this is just the best physics interview I've seen in a long time.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm glad you appreciate the effort, Dr. - Curt

[@willmurphy8650]

Having a graduate math degree definitely helpd with this convo lol

[@gd7561]

Fascinating theory from one of the greatest minds in cosmology today!! I am a big bouncer myself, so I loved the book he did with Steinhardt about the cyclical cosmological theory!!!! Great stuff!!!

[@ProbablyLying]

Great interview. Also loved this one. Something clicked. And I am excited about Turok’s work.

[@billschwandt1]

If you call the aether the static electric field people get it immediately. Great podcast. Ya'll kept me glued the whole time. Keep going. Science is gonna get there. ❤️

[@maeton-gaming]

the universal dielectric medium is actually more accurate ;)

[@tipi5586]

​@maeton-gaming my man, lumeniferous aether ftw!

[@billschwandt1]

@@tipi5586 I see them as 1 to 1. Static electric and the luminiferous aether do exactly the same things.

[@CalinColdea]

A legendary scientist with a clear sense of direction. Such a rare sight to be seen!

[@sat25940]

Nothin' better than watching honest-to-God shop talk - great interview.

[@robertgreen7926]

This was a terrific, fascinating interview. Thank you so much, Curt and Professor Turok.

[@unmoored7414]

This section regarding singularities made things clear and simple for me: 41:30 "So, in other words, the singularity is just a result of a poor description" 43:56 "So, in physics, we're very used to the fact, and in Einstein's theory of gravity, this is particularly true, that very frequently what looks singular in one coordinate system is actually completely non-singular in another coordinate system."

[@josheror2455]

So much far beyond me, yet utterly fascinating. Thank you both.

[@marcjoly3823]

Very good interview, thank you for this. The credit goes to both the interviewed and the interviewer

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@EarthianZero]

I don’t have any formal training other than the basics thought in STEAM fields for undergraduate courses, but I was able to follow the whole video and didn’t feel lost.

[@lukeguhy6450]

Curt! You are quite literally producing history. Great conversation. I would love to chat with you about this poorly named, conceptually simplifying, explanation-unifying, awe-inspiring theory

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Where can I find out more info?

[@lukeguhy6450]

@@TheoriesofEverything oh I was just talking about Neil’s work… 😅😂

[@devinzito]

​@@TheoriesofEverything Please please please!!! Check out Walter Bowman Russell!!!! 😭😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏

[@Silentanwa661]

@@TheoriesofEverything if you really wana know, LSD.

[@infn8loopmusic]

​@@Silentanwa661 teens in the 90s -we used to say "you'll understand real good for $5/hit" 😂 definitely the laziest path to an epiphany, but not the most graceful and sometimes leads to some false or misleading epiphanies which can be fun but less useful. 👋👽🛸

[@richardhunt809]

The lack of minimalism has really caused me problems with string theory so I really love this approach.

[@ej2863]

Curt you ask such great questions thank you!

[@percheroneclipse238]

Excellent discussion and topic.

[@stevensmith5873]

coming in hot! half way through and I have to pause to thank you both. this is a banger.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

So glad you’re enjoying :)

[@thetinkerist]

We’ll call it Unified Nil-SM/LCDM+CPT just to keep it logical :). Thanks for explaning what you do.

[@pn2543]

The Bob Ross of quantum cosmology, painting a picture of beauty and simplicity while you gaze in awe at how it takes shape before you know what happened

[@KL-ni9ju]

This is a really cool theory! So many new concepts for me to research.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Exactly correct, it's just a teaching-learning program that is left to finish the course. It's a Functional Mirror, e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity sync-duration-> inside-outside reciprocation-recirculation standing wave holography dimensionality that was a pure-math coherence-cohesion sync-duration resonance-modulation. The conic->Singularity-point concept modeling is a functional correspondence to the i-reflection containment Camera Obscura setup of parallel coexistence orthogonal-normal frequency density-intensity alignment amplitudes and linear-transverse logarithmic condensation. This is a job for the science artist projection-drawing skills, to assemble in stages.

[@axle.student]

Thank you for the informative video. This was quite profound. > I am not an indentured physicist. This interview has very much helped me to understand many of my own philosophical questions around the current limitations in physics with particular regard to singularities, event horizons, BB and inflation question. My own thinking (naive) in looking for the most minimal requirement to create a universe from nothing led me to the Hartle-Hawking proposal ( which I have not yet studied in depth). I could see merit in the proposal from the overview, but the inflation problem still persisted for me, as well as defining the fundamental driver that initiated the universe. Niel appears to down the correct rabbit hole from my personal perspective and I will be excited to watch for the outcomes of his proposal :)

[@TenebrisAnimarumDominium]

Fabulous. Loved every minute. Thoroughly understandable and exciting.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@denizesen80]

EXCELLENT INTERVIEW

[@infn8loopmusic]

Absolutely love this! Finally a complete theory that makes sense, has realistic scope and boundaries, and is scientifically provable or disprovable once technology catches up and experiments complete. Does it make sense that 100% of the negative probabilities may be actually accurate and predict what cannot be possible in our universe? (And are accurate)

[@olbluelips]

This was great!

[@rickybloss8537]

Him vs Stephen wolfram. I'd pay to hear that convo.

[@johnburke568]

Penrose was really onto something and am so happy to hear Turok hinting at it here.

[@JG27Korny]

At the quantum level, this model offers a fascinating perspective: at any given point, there are potentially infinite slices intersecting, each representing a different 'universe' or reality within the higher-dimensional space. This notion aligns with quantum mechanics, where probabilities dictate outcomes. Each 3D slice could be experiencing its own unique version of events, leading to the statistical nature observed in quantum experiments. This brings us to the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation posits that a quantum system remains in superposition until it's observed, at which point it collapses to a specific outcome. In contrast, the Many-Worlds interpretation suggests that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized, but each in a different 'world' or universe. When viewed through the higher-dimensional model, both interpretations gain a new layer of compatibility:

[@TeusaoeMotivacao]

I love dr. Neil I wish we had more from him in the internet.

[@saffer3010]

Thank you, Curt. An extraordinary conversation. Kudos to you. Turok is in a class of his own. It doesn't mean he's right, but at least he can explain something complex, so clearly, without his ego getting in the way. Not to be negative, but maybe the likes of Weinstein, Wolfram, et al, van learn from him.

[@iridium1911]

Awesome guest!!

[@monkerud2108]

the proper way to view this energy is to view it as giving rise to the structure we percive, and only the renormalized notion of on shell energy that we see play a part in the gravitational dynamics and the actual interactions that happen and affects results of ecperiments of "what happens" belongs to out kind of energy, to put the energy divergence into an equation like einsteins equation requires to expand it to another form where the relationship is different and scaled different even though it is in a similar form, and the regular einsteins equation then only applies to the intrinsic geometry that emerges along side our matter, in terms of the deeped description this is just macroscopic emergent structure and its intrinsic metric is different and the energy you can bring in to the equation in the new form for the new layer only belongs to it, but it to has its substructure, and the divergence persists there, and so you have to repeat this process an infinite times to get a uv complete picture, but this is actually pretty natural, there is a shortest lenght scale of emergent structure associated with each layer, and smaller scales than that does not really conform to the same emergent laws, and this is so for each and every layer of description. sorry for typos. i'm aware that this is totally inadequate for understanding what i am saying, but all you really need to do is to play around with what energy means intrinsically inside a system that is shrinking with respect to another system it is interacting with and with respect to systems it is shrinking in tandem with in some sort of scale invariant theory where you can simply force the scales for the puposes of analysis and comprehension, the result is that the notion of a conservation law in a space where relative scales are changing but the intrinsic physics is preserved, fully or approximately for the systems, there can be seperate conservation laws for what we call energy, that can coexist but can have a changing conversion factor so to speak, this kind of situation permits the fundamental workings of matter to be dissipative without the intrinsic physics have a dissipative character for example, a silly and simple example would be something like a rotating object in space, that is losing angular momentum all the time, but as it shrinks its angular velocity is preserved, and in terms of the intrinsic properties of the rotating object, it remains congruent as a physical system, even though energy was extracted by its environment, this essentially means that for the purposes of looking at the rotating object alone there can be a conservation law for its energy in angular momentum that says it is conserved without loss, and another one that accounts for the loss of energy to the environment, and they can coexist as conservation laws not broken, while also saying different things about whether or not the rotating object is losing energy.

[@Achrononmaster]

@3:30 someone should ask Neil some time about why the Wick rotation is no good. One can use a Wick rotation to Euclidean metric to compute an integral for an Lorentzian metric exponent problem only when the original Lorentzian exponential problem is of a simple form, meaning the "trick" works only when the Lorentzian problem has special characteristics, such as time-independent or statics qualities, etc., I am no expert on the exact conditions, but the whole idea is that a Statistical Mechanics question is equivalent to some QM question --- but this is true only in exceptionally simple circumstances, which is why a Wick rotation is a bad idea for something highly dynamical like the early universe. The Picard-Lefschtez thimble idea seems super promising for simple but less trivial applications, it was exciting to learn about --- that so much can be gained by not euclideanizing a problem and treating the proper Lorentzian path integral correctly.

[@AdamDray]

That was fantastic. Thanks to both of you!

[@jamesrossiter6319]

Dr Turok’s explanation of “scale doesn’t matter in a massless universe “ sounds exactly like Rodger Penrose’s Conformal Cosmological theory.

[@ChristopherWentling]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@Achrononmaster]

@1:44:00 the arrow of time problem is all about how can we possibly observe a distinct direction in "life" when the fundamental laws of physics are completely time symmetric. Neils' answer is the classic answer: the boundary conditions at past infinity and future infinity must differ. It's as simple as that. Other cosmology ideas struggled to get this result. But any cosmology that has differing I+ and I- will have this solution. The much more important result from CPT-SU is that they naturally explain isotropy, homogeniety and flatness without needing an inflaton.

[@gerry4b]

A gifted teacher. The only cosmologist I’ve ever been able to follow.

[@RodentHunter]

Always nice to be reminded that we only live once. Hopefully we will get the same certainty in regards to the universe and how its nuts and bolts fit together.

[@edcorns3964]

I just realized why inertial and gravitational masses are the same. They are both caused by exactly the same effect: "gravitational attraction" (more correctly, the shortest path in spacetime, as per general relativity), but from different sides of black hole/Big Bang boundary. The simplest explanation would go like this... Imagine an object (mass) in the presence of another (more) massive object. First, gravitational mass... For the purpose of this explanation, imagine a (stationary) baseball placed in close proximity of a black hole (above that black hole's event horizon/surface/boundary). What will happen next is that baseball will become "pulled" by the black hole's "gravitational force". More correctly, the baseball will follow the shortest path in spacetime, and that path will lead it directly into the black hole, approaching the black hole's boundary from the *"outside"* side. Now, inertial mass... Imagine another baseball, but one that is now far away (infinitely far away, in ideal case) from any other mass (source of gravity), moving at constant speed. Since we've already established (as hypothesis) that the boundary of the Big Bang (the "inner" side this black hole universe) is located "next" to each and every single point in this (local) region of spacetime (just below Planck scale), what this baseball is really doing (by traveling at constant speed) is (also) following the shortest path in spacetime, and that path is now leading it directly "into" the *same* black hole (this black hole universe), but this baseball is now approaching the black hole's (Big Bang's) boundary from the *"inside"* side! Now, since we've also established (as hypothesis) the the (second) baseball *cannot possibly* reach that (Big Bang's) boundary by moving through the "ordinary" (4D) spacetime, what it's actually doing (by traveling at constant speed) is "skimming" that boundary from the "inside", forever moving "ever closer" to it, but forever unable to actually reach it! To conclude... *Both inertial and gravitational mass are effect of mass (energy) following the shortest path in (its local region of) spacetime.* Therefore... *Inertial mass is gravitational mass as experienced from the "inside" side of a black hole boundary!* And, likewise... *Gravitational mass is inertial mass as experienced from the "outside" side of a black hole boundary!* (NOTE: Whether black hole's boundary is its event horizon or its surface is of no consequence for this analysis. The only important fact is that *some boundary* between two [local] regions of spacetime exists, and *that boundary behaves differently when approached from different sides* [or, once again, a path going through that boundary, connecting the two local regions of spacetime, is *asymmetric* ].)

[@danielash1704]

Wonderful way of saying look up your mind and body in the spacing process circles within circles of the Taloric current circles within circles

[@RayMrRobert]

Brilliant explanation both of you are brilliant. Thank you so much