As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe Main episode with Neil Turok (April 2024): kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbTaqtqabNmq6c
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler2 ай бұрын
My question is how does his system account for the observation of a relativistic uneven distribution of matter (as non spherical, when expected for a 3D system to be even and spherical) in a flat disk of our 3d universe without accepting the logical progression of the spatial dimensions‽ Logic based off of observations points towards a higher spatial dimension and us not being the fundamental highest spatial dimension... Remember given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions if this is true then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence dimension exist then it would create a relative compressed state or shape of our three-dimensional universe... Given the logical progression of the spatial dimensions this is really the only way this can happen. I challenge you to come up with a better solution for this because you can't.
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler2 ай бұрын
I consider myself a string theorist. But a lot of string theorists do not understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions and if you don't understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions then you start talking about ideas of compactified rolled-up dimensions which is just total BS...
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler2 ай бұрын
Yes a neutrino could roll over like a pole shift and maintain its spin and when it does this it appears to change its spin but it's actually just upside down... Same effect though I just don't think you have enough observation of right-handed neutrinos to be able to warrant the amount of dark matter and dark energy we have in our model... The Math just doesn't add up.
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler2 ай бұрын
I also think it's a big jump to say that left-handed neutrino can oscillate to right-handed spin and like I said I think what you're actually observing is kind of like a pole shift of 180° I think the spin is a effect not a baseline property of the particle. And maybe our universe has a northern pole region in the southern pole region where a certain spin is favored over another and that's why we observe more left-handed spin than right-handed spin.
@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler2 ай бұрын
I will say if this is a infinite three-dimensional multiverse then there's no reason why there can't be 0 dimensional existence... I do say it all the time but at my core it doesn't feel right but that's not based out of logic that's based out of my own feelings. I think it would be wise to treat it kind of like a Infiniti when approaching zero-dimensional it is technically impossible to reach absolute zero dimensional and we are getting something along the lines of it still being dimensional but in in between states. This is the beauty of string theory with membranes that can be destroyed being able to put matter into States in between dimensions.
@lazloholyfield99022 ай бұрын
I am glad to see physicists out there daring to do TOE's besides string theory. What an exciting time, and this gives me optimistic hope for physics.
@PK-tc2uqАй бұрын
TOE goes toe-to-toe with string theory.
@ardeleanvladgeorge7493Ай бұрын
I don't know who you are or where you came from, but I am your biggest fan from now on. Whenever you come to Romania, just shout, and I'll come and give you free beer and food! Thank you for this amazing show!
@Neceros2 ай бұрын
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🧪 The theory involves four-derivative fields with a subspace where inner products are positive, but only includes the vacuum.* 00:53 *🧩 Adding 36 dimension-zero fields fixes the vacuum of the standard model without introducing extra particles.* 01:22 *🌌 The theory potentially solves multiple problems: vacuum catastrophe, hierarchy problem, three generations of matter, Big Bang singularity, density perturbations, dark matter, and dark energy.* 02:13 *🔄 The approach is radical in its simplicity, contrasting with the current culture of complex theories in physics.* 03:53 *📊 The theory explains scale-invariant fluctuations and the small tilt in early universe perturbations.* 06:01 *🧑🔬 Many physicists are reluctant to engage with the new theory, often dismissing it without proper consideration.* 07:50 *🔍 An observational signature, particularly related to neutrinos, could convince more scientists to consider the theory.* 09:31 *🧠 The theory incorporates right-handed neutrinos, explaining neutrino masses through the seesaw mechanism.* 11:35 *🌑 One of the three right-handed neutrinos could be the perfect dark matter candidate.* 13:46 *🔬 The theory predicts that the lightest neutrino must be massless, which will be testable in the next 3-5 years.*
@ika56662 ай бұрын
👍
@FunkyDexter2 ай бұрын
"36 extra fields" "it's very simple guys!" 😂
@Haveuseenmyjetpack2 ай бұрын
Thanks ChatGPT!!
@owainjohns28152 ай бұрын
could there be 9 of something to make teslas 3 6 9 ?
@Haveuseenmyjetpack2 ай бұрын
@@owainjohns2815 haha
@Sidionian2 ай бұрын
"We tried to make the fewest new assumptions...we just added 36 new unobserved fields... "
@daviddiez68877 күн бұрын
better than 10 , 11 or 26 extra dimensions not knowing where to squeeze them to
@wuweiwilson2 ай бұрын
Enter the 36 Chambers. Wu-Tang knew the whole time.
@PK-tc2uqАй бұрын
Not Wu-Tang. The Wu-Tang Clan.
@axle.student2 ай бұрын
I am keen to see what emerges from this line of thought.
@OmegaCaldereroid2 ай бұрын
Neil is becoming more and more my favourite physicist
@mw-th9ov2 ай бұрын
That snip was the most important part of the talk because it connected the entire frame work to the mass of the lightest LH neutrino to give the mass of the otherwise unobservable RH neutrino candidate for dark matter and all the rest. Now will someone explaine dimensionless fields?
@JohnOlavOttesen2 ай бұрын
This must be it, very promising indeed!👍 The multiverse is a fantasy and we all know that as soon as you involve infinity, it all deteriorates to nonsense!
@marcfruchtman94732 ай бұрын
This sounds very exciting. It would be nice to get a more detailed explanation. Thank you for the interview.
@TheoriesofEverything2 ай бұрын
Hi. The full podcast is here kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbTaqtqabNmq6c and the presentation is here kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5jamaSjhdaFopY with equations. - Curt
@marcfruchtman94732 ай бұрын
@@TheoriesofEverything Thanks. I had been looking for that link in the "description" then realized you placed it in your first comment. (sorry about that).
@melvynobrien6193Ай бұрын
@@TheoriesofEverything I had a good laugh listening to nonsense based on Einstein's nonsense. And the Big Bang references were the funniest of all. Dark matter, me arse; black holes, me arse; all lunacy based on Einstein's "corrupt" equations, as Oppenheimer called them.
@vincentbutton59262 ай бұрын
Explain it like I'm a 5th grader: "36-dimension" zero-fields, or 36 "dimension-zero" fields? If the former, that's a lot more dimensions than string theory, and what's a "zero field"? If the latter, what's a "dimension-zero" field? Oh. That's a scalar isn't it! I think I've answered my own question.
@mikedougherty10112 ай бұрын
I think he means add 36 scalar fields
@ArkAngelHFB2 ай бұрын
At what point did the universe agree to be explainable to a 5th grader?
@markcounseling2 ай бұрын
@@ArkAngelHFBAt the very beginning, in its primordial simplicity.
@McRingil2 ай бұрын
@@markcounseling why would a primorfial simplicity be simple to a 5-year old
@markcounseling2 ай бұрын
@@McRingil A fifth grader, not a five year old. Kids around 11 can be pretty bright.
@Usrnet2 ай бұрын
If I’d consider the vacuum space to be an underlying aether or field density is vital for gravity. Quantum fluctuations would be a point in space combining the surrounding energy at the point which becomes a particle and the field forms a gradient of energy around it that defines the gravity of the made up particle. Like in two dimensions if you had a stretchy fabric it would rise up at one point where it would become as dense as to form a particle and around it it was gradiently streched where it becomes thinner when you get closer to the particle. That would be my take on quantum gravity and I think it could , once mathematically described be superpositioned to a macro scale. Waves considered accordingly just that the underlying density wouldn’t become zero but it would be still less then one around the diffusion of the particle.
@dewiwood21062 ай бұрын
I have listened to this part of the interview many, Many, MANY times .. Neil Turok .. Respect.
@joejoe-lb6bwАй бұрын
For whatever it is worth Sabina just posted a critical KZbin video of this theory ( same one afaik).
@TheoriesofEverythingАй бұрын
It's not the same theory Sabine was talking about.
@idegtekeАй бұрын
You will never realise you can walk until you throw away your crutches. Or, putting it into different words, as long as you only have a set of (beautifully crafted) hammers, you must assume that your only task is to find more nails to hit. The method of always trying to fully justify the most recent model with any potential new model is the precise example of the Achilles vs. turtle paradox. Can’t you see that we end up nowhere like this?
@zacharyshort3842 ай бұрын
"So what's left?..." Consciousness once more not invited to the *everything* party lol
@dozenalmath2 ай бұрын
good point. it's what planned the party in the first place.
@ArkAngelHFB2 ай бұрын
We recently found out that a chemical in the brain happens to oddly be able to have quantum properties and interact in quantum entanglement ways despite being very much on a higher scale of size than most quantum interactions. You know how of the three anesthesia drugs they give during surgery... the one that makes us not remember the pain/events... we don't know how it works? Turns out it works by interacting with that chemical and collapsing the wave functions of those chemicals in your brain... and basically you stop being a conscious being. In short God in his infinite mysterious ways seems to have hid if we really have free will in the one place we can never ever look at to find... Behind the curtain of the planck scale in the realm of quantum interactions.
@____uncompetative2 ай бұрын
@@ArkAngelHFBI can't decide whether I have Free Will, or not. Is this an example of quantum indeterminacy?
@HikikoAmore2 ай бұрын
rightly so
@ArkAngelHFB2 ай бұрын
@@____uncompetative It is some kinda uncertainty principle for sure. Imagen you are a robot with a bundle of wires leading from the back of your head to a little whole in a wall. A wall you could never get past... and any messing with the bundle turned the person off until the bundle was back to normal. Maybe we can mess with the bundle in interesting ways to get some insights into what is going on... but we will never get behind the wall to see what it is plugged into or how.
@PK-tc2uqАй бұрын
"It is witten." I don't know where it is witten, but maybe on a bathroom stall.
@nikedunkshombre2 ай бұрын
You don't own that degree, that degree owns you. I don't want it.
@drowningpenguin15882 ай бұрын
You should have a Theolocucion with Bob Greenyer from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project and Neil Turok Bob has been studying toroidal moments (occurring in cavitation a the Aharonov-Bohm effect) and their interactions with neutrinos as well as other types of matter.
@ferrantepallas2 ай бұрын
A theory of everything is as impossible as a perfect map, which can only be a perfect representation if it exactly duplicates in actual size the terrain it represents, in which case the map would be useless.
@rogerfroud3002 ай бұрын
Being an Engineer, not a Scientist, I hear alarm bells when you need 36 fields to make this work.
@siljrath2 ай бұрын
I bet some Alchemists baulked at the Chemist's elementary maps similarly. ;D
@albertosierraalta32232 ай бұрын
I know. I found it so funny when he say he added the minimal necessary, and the minimal is 36 new fields
@alexistzou7447Ай бұрын
But is it worse than 11 dimensions
@JoeWyleyАй бұрын
But 11 dimensions sits well with you?
@blijebij2 ай бұрын
I love Turoks attitude always as for example related on the simplicity of nature, I wonder however how zero fields relate to information?
@rippedtorn23102 ай бұрын
Isn't it ''dimension zero'' ie with no dimensions ?
@blijebij2 ай бұрын
@@rippedtorn2310 Having zero dimensions does not cut it free/ or makes it independent from information.
@Carbonbank2 ай бұрын
Neil took the words out of my mouth…🤣🤣
@apparentbeing2 ай бұрын
The ether field theory of 42 fields explains everything, including consciousness
@casteretpollux2 ай бұрын
@@apparentbeing What do you want to know about consciousness?
@jeremyholbrook20942 ай бұрын
How do you not have 1 million subscribers. Great work 👏
@asynchronicityАй бұрын
The physics of this interview style is interesting
@julioaduranАй бұрын
Current physics is like crashing stones and categorizing debris with different names because of their common characteristics. Sorry this makes no sense.
@waynemorellini21102 ай бұрын
Sounds similar to my old theory. But 36 fields was more than I was looking at. I was applying it in a different way. I'm still not convinced there are not still some particle and energy field aspects undiscovered. But, deviations in testing interactions based on his theory, if correct, should show up any missing aspects.
@mrhassell2 ай бұрын
Neil is fundamentally right. Much more interesting to listen to Sir Roger Penrose, state that Lambda Λ cold dark matter, doesn't exist.. the wave function doesn't exist and even quantum mechanics itself isn't real... theoretically he can shampoo my crutch. Neil Turrock is a brilliant man. I failed to appreciate the genuine nature and reality of his genius at first (not knowing anything about him), but with this show, it's become abundantly clear this is a man, who isn't just theorising and wasting time, boasting about how many gold medals he's collected.
@gee3696Ай бұрын
Curt, another incredible guest! Turok's theory was so digestible & rings true on every front. I haven't fully bottomed out on what's fundamental (non-physics or physics; not sure there's a line there) & I probably won't until I die & find out😉, but if I were forced to choose I'm with Turok all the way... thanks for introducing us to another brilliant thinker.
@muratyumusakkaya8882 ай бұрын
14:17 Kütlesiz olduklarını ispatlamanızı heyacanla bekliyoruz❤
@cakemoss46642 ай бұрын
Lots of people here throwing shade on the good doctor Turok. They need to remember that his theory is nothing until it makes testable predictions. Let's wait for those.
@SaveTheFuture2 ай бұрын
But does it have engineering applications?
@non-inertialobserver9462 ай бұрын
Lol
@BRunoAWAY2 ай бұрын
Lol squared@@non-inertialobserver946
@somethingclever12342 ай бұрын
can we weaponize it??
@SaveTheFuture2 ай бұрын
@@somethingclever1234 your words, not mine.
@spacecase02 ай бұрын
yes, go watch bob greenyer
@rotatingmind2 ай бұрын
One thing that I don't understand in this model is: for all leptons except the neutrinos the lefthanded particles have the same mass as their righthanded counterparts. Why should the lefthanded and righthanded neutrinos have such a huge mass ratio?
@illogicmath2 ай бұрын
Wow, so the biggest obstacle to us knowing the truth about the universe is the theoretical physicists themselves
@kebeleteeek42272 ай бұрын
Theory of Everythings is IMPOSSIBLE ... due to Godel incompleteness theorem ..
@illogicmath2 ай бұрын
@@kebeleteeek4227 I think you're mixing apples and oranges, I don't see the connection
@AnnonymousPrime-ks4uf2 ай бұрын
@@illogicmathGodel Incompleteness theory states that there can be no mathematically sound system of axioms that could be self consistent and describe itself. Given that science is the understanding of the natural world and it's laws. The same applies to it as well as no matter how much you try to model a system at the end you will not be able to explain everything for (1) you have finite comprehension and (2) there's not necessarily a one to one way of mapping between your model and reality creating the liar paradox in which the interface you use to comprehend reality is not the same as what you are experiencing.
@kebeleteeek42272 ай бұрын
@@illogicmath The implication of Godel theorem : It's IMPOSSIBLE for cosmos as self-contained / independent entity ... In other words: The existence of cosmos is supported by the exixtence of something beyond cosmos ...and so on ..
@dejavue3013Ай бұрын
You should interview Zhang Ciangqian. His views are so far ahead.
@brandonb50752 ай бұрын
Very interesting that it goes to 36, I have seen research of EVOs (exotic vacuum objects) where they have postulated that at 48 “sub-toroidal” moments are the max. This has been extrapolated from experiments. This is where they postulate the Aether “transmutations” are taking place in the quantum foam. Wonder if these theories will ever meet? Have a great one all!😊🤙🏼
@Myrslokstok2 ай бұрын
Maybe they should try out 48 and skip some simplifications!
@brandonb50752 ай бұрын
@@Myrslokstok That would be for the math jockeys to determine…but in the cad models of the fractal toroidal geometry. The initial torus can be subdivided into an equatorial band of 48 max sub-toroids because the internal half gets pinched and then the structure breaks down. However, when Dr. T said 36, I had a thought that 36 would be stable mathematically and visually because the “sub-toroidal moments” would not be deformed in the equatorial array. Hope that helps someone…ha! Appreciate the input. Have a wonderful day.✌🏼
@peterpodgorski2 ай бұрын
This sounds really cool
@MilushevGeorgi2 ай бұрын
Nice smile J, keep it up
@DuckDodgers692 ай бұрын
I'm so glad that is settled
@audiodead73022 ай бұрын
We can all quietly quit science, knowing that its all solved.
@FrankReddickАй бұрын
With the Gallium problem in my mind, I have hopes.
@diGritz12 ай бұрын
Simulation Tech 1: Oh crap they figured it out. Sim Tech 2: Your kidding...... ST 1: I wish I was. Lets scheduled for an immediate purge of the server and start over again. ST 2: Oh well. Think of the overtime.
@johnnisshansen2 ай бұрын
very exiting
@wulphstein2 ай бұрын
Is it simple? Does it obey Occam's razor?
@marcomclaurin67132 ай бұрын
The math is over my head, however, I'd like to share my observations that points to electrical processies in my video 'Sound reason '
@illogicmath2 ай бұрын
Would it be possible for all of us in the community to create a list ranking the most prominent theoretical physicists from most to least modest? I'd put Neil Turok first. And in second place, Maldacena, or am I speaking heresy?
@ivornelsson22382 ай бұрын
How can the human invented concepts as dark matter and dark energy which isn't found or explained, fit into any other assumptions at all?
@steve-realАй бұрын
**Quantum Geometric Dynamics (QGD): A Formal Physics Description** --- **Introduction** Quantum Geometric Dynamics (QGD) is a hypothetical unified theory that aims to reconcile quantum mechanics, the Standard Model, and general relativity by introducing the **Quantum Geometric Field (QGF)**. In QGD, spacetime geometry and quantum fields emerge from the dynamics of the QGF. This framework treats geometry as a quantized entity and proposes that particles are excitations of this fundamental field. --- ### **1. Quantum Geometric Field (QGF)** **Definition**: The QGF, denoted as \( \Psi_{\text{QGF}} \), is a fundamental field permeating all of spacetime. It possesses intrinsic geometric and quantum properties. #### **Properties of the QGF** - **Quantum Nature of Geometry**: Geometry is quantized, meaning that spacetime has a discrete structure at the smallest scales (on the order of the Planck length, \( \ell_P \approx 1.616 \times 10^{-35} \) meters). - **Dynamic Dimensionality**: The effective number of spacetime dimensions \( D_{\text{eff}} \) is a function of energy scale \( E \): \[ D_{\text{eff}}(E) = 4 + f(E) \] where \( f(E) \) describes the contribution of additional dimensions at high energies. --- ### **2. Mathematical Framework** #### **2.1. Action Integral** The action \( S \) for the QGF incorporates both geometric and quantum aspects: \[ S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left( \mathcal{L}_{\text{QGF}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{Matter}} ight) \] where: - \( g \) is the determinant of the metric tensor \( g_{\mu u} \). - \( \mathcal{L}_{\text{QGF}} \) is the Lagrangian density for the Quantum Geometric Field. - \( \mathcal{L}_{\text{Matter}} \) is the Lagrangian density for matter fields arising from excitations in the QGF. #### **2.2. QGF Lagrangian Density** The Lagrangian density \( \mathcal{L}_{\text{QGF}} \) combines geometric and quantum terms: \[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{QGF}} = -\frac{1}{2} \left( abla_\mu \Psi_{\text{QGF}} abla^\mu \Psi_{\text{QGF}}^* ight) - V(\Psi_{\text{QGF}}, abla \Psi_{\text{QGF}}) \] where: - \( abla_\mu \) is the covariant derivative. - \( V(\Psi_{\text{QGF}}, abla \Psi_{\text{QGF}}) \) is the potential term encoding self-interactions and geometric quantization effects. #### **2.3. Quantization of Geometry** Geometry is quantized via operators acting on the QGF state vectors \( |\Psi_{\text{QGF}} angle \): - **Metric Operator**: \( \hat{g}_{\mu u} \) - **Curvature Operator**: \( \hat{R}_{\mu u ho\sigma} \) These operators satisfy commutation relations analogous to those in canonical quantum gravity approaches: \[ \left[ \hat{g}_{\mu u}(x), \hat{\pi}^{ ho\sigma}(y) ight] = i \hbar \delta^ ho_\mu \delta^\sigma_ u \delta^{(4)}(x - y) \] where \( \hat{\pi}^{ ho\sigma} \) is the momentum conjugate to \( \hat{g}_{ ho\sigma} \). --- ### **3. Emergence of Particles and Forces** #### **3.1. Particles as QGF Excitations** Particles are modeled as localized excitations in the QGF: - **Field Excitations**: \( \Phi_i(x) \) represent particle fields arising from perturbations in \( \Psi_{\text{QGF}} \). - **Equation of Motion**: Derived from the variation of the action with respect to \( \Phi_i \): \[ \frac{\delta S}{\delta \Phi_i} = 0 \implies \text{Field Equations for Particles} \] #### **3.2. Forces from QGF Interactions** Fundamental forces result from interactions mediated by the QGF: - **Gauge Fields**: Gauge symmetries emerge from the invariance of \( \mathcal{L}_{\text{QGF}} \) under certain transformations of \( \Psi_{\text{QGF}} \). - **Interaction Terms**: Coupling between particle fields and geometric properties: \[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{Interaction}} = \sum_i g_i \Phi_i^\dagger \hat{\mathcal{O}} \Phi_i \] where \( \hat{\mathcal{O}} \) involves geometric operators. --- ### **4. Dynamic Dimensionality** At energy scales approaching the Planck energy (\( E_P \approx 1.22 \times 10^{19} \) GeV), additional spatial dimensions become significant. #### **4.1. Energy-Dependent Metric** The effective metric \( g_{\mu u}^{\text{eff}} \) depends on energy scale: \[ g_{\mu u}^{\text{eff}}(E) = g_{\mu u} + h_{\mu u}(E) \] where \( h_{\mu u}(E) \) encodes corrections from higher-dimensional effects. #### **4.2. Modified Dispersion Relations** Particle dispersion relations are modified at high energies: \[ E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 + \Delta(E, p) \] where \( \Delta(E, p) \) accounts for dynamic dimensionality effects. --- ### **5. Elimination of Singularities** Quantization of geometry prevents singularities: - **Minimum Length Scale**: The quantized nature of spacetime introduces a minimum length scale \( \ell_{\text{min}} \geq \ell_P \). - **Regularized Curvature**: Curvature operators have finite expectation values, avoiding infinities in extreme conditions. --- ### **6. Potential Predictions and Testable Consequences** #### **6.1. Modified Gravitational Waves** - **Quantum Corrections**: Gravitational wave propagation includes quantum geometric effects. - **Observables**: Deviations from predictions of general relativity in gravitational wave data. #### **6.2. High-Energy Particle Physics** - **Anomalous Cross-Sections**: At energies near \( E_P \), particle interactions show deviations due to dynamic dimensionality. - **Possible New Particles**: Excitations corresponding to higher-dimensional modes. #### **6.3. Cosmological Implications** - **Inflationary Dynamics**: Early universe behavior influenced by QGF properties. - **Dark Matter and Energy**: Effects of quantized geometry on galactic and cosmological scales. --- ### **7. Challenges and Mathematical Development** #### **7.1. Mathematical Consistency** - **Anomalies**: Ensuring the absence of mathematical inconsistencies or anomalies in the theory. - **Renormalization**: Developing renormalization techniques suitable for quantized geometry. #### **7.2. Computational Methods** - **Numerical Simulations**: Modeling QGF dynamics requires advanced computational tools. - **Analytical Solutions**: Finding exact or approximate solutions to the field equations. --- ### **Conclusion** Quantum Geometric Dynamics offers a novel approach by treating spacetime geometry as a quantized field and unifying it with matter fields. While highly speculative, it provides a framework that could, in principle, address the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity, eliminate singularities, and offer explanations for unexplained phenomena in cosmology. --- **Note**: As this is a hypothetical theory, the mathematical formulations provided are speculative and serve as a conceptual framework rather than a fully developed theory. Further rigorous mathematical development and experimental validation would be necessary to substantiate Quantum Geometric Dynamics.
@magnetsec2 ай бұрын
Does it solve everything in quantum mechanics? Bridge it with general relativity? Finally explain consciousness?
@kebeleteeek42272 ай бұрын
Not a chance ... Theory of Everythings is IMPOSSIBLE ... due to Godel incompleteness theorem .. ie: Cosmos's existence is supported by the existence of the outer layer .. and so on ...
@magnetsec2 ай бұрын
@@kebeleteeek4227 not impossible if we solve consciousness because that transcends godel's incompleteness theorem
@kebeleteeek42272 ай бұрын
@@magnetsec Consciousness is fundamental .. That's why it's unexplainable ... It's unsolvable ..
@magnetsec2 ай бұрын
@@kebeleteeek4227 you can still get the dynamics of a fundamental object/phenomena.
@ika56662 ай бұрын
The measurement of the lightest (electron) neutrino mass won't prove that it is exactly massless. However, I hope that it will as reliable an evidence as the evidence that photons are massless.
@TXLorenzo2 ай бұрын
Does anyone do experimental physics anymore or do we just play on chalk boards?
@asynchronicityАй бұрын
Experimental physics exploring gravity….Is there such a thing?
@01timegone19 күн бұрын
Hello!! It turns out the reason why Everybody is having so Many Problems With the Unified Field Theory is that they're Missing One Thing and when you have that it starts to put everything else together!! How do I know that because I've just recently Solved that Problem Last Week and It Unifies Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Properly!! Now I'm going to be introducing Unified Formula to get first some Private Feedback first, to make sure the Formula holds up, which so Far holds Real Promise!! Everyone has missed it because it was so Obvious but it was Supernova Explosions that led to this New Discovery!! I'm not going to say anything other than that, until I get some private feedback. Then I'll proceed from there!!
@prometheus0102 ай бұрын
You still have the horizon problem. Although vacuum energy is the unifying answer. Event horizons are the higher dimensional space. That said, it's one extra dimension, or two in fact since it's a 2D holographic surface. But event horizons of black holes and the cosmos can't be explained by Euclidean space so it has to be a higher or extra dimension and it is what emerges from 0D vacuum. The best candidate for the decay of the true vaccum into the false vacuum in my humble opinion is a virtual particle anti particle pair, which yes, could consist of neutrinos. If its anti matter counter part is missing in the false vacuum that could be why
@axle.student2 ай бұрын
0D or maybe 1 dimension of time and 1 dimension of space (or 2D but not euclidean as we typically understand it). All other dimensions may be just an emergent human illusion. That would make every point in space-time a singularity, so an infinite universe (maybe) of singularities. Pretty much makes everything a pseudo radial geometry of past and future from the singularity following only the 2D radial lines to the imaginary shell of a sphere. I think the 2D spherical surface is a human created illusion based in our need for some neat square geometry.
@alex79suited2 ай бұрын
Keep going Neil. 💪. Peace ✌️ 😎. Kick the big bang out of the theory. Lots of bangs? Or it will fail. It's a bias.
@aroemaliuged47762 ай бұрын
That sub space only contains a vacuum I need explanation from the start
@NathanBrahmbhattpavan2 ай бұрын
Hey Curt would you be able to share the transcript of this video with me?
@TheoriesofEverything2 ай бұрын
Sure, you can DM on Twitter @TOEwithCurt, but you can also download it with a subtitle downloader. Each episode is scrupulously transcribed. - Curt
@NeoKailthas2 ай бұрын
are you sure they are not 37 fields ? 😥
@BehroozCompani-fk2sx2 ай бұрын
If you make up a theory that expands the number of variables to what it takes, you can solve any problem. 36 fields? Huh...
@corrupted_realm2 ай бұрын
Sounds like the Higgs field is a singularity
@AnthonyCampanella-s2w2 ай бұрын
@@corrupted_realm jus the boson.
@PrashantNandaАй бұрын
Non collapse infinite vibrating strings re-entangled by it's ends to make design patterns to reobserve or represents, we call it's particle or objects but it is designed patterns collapsed and observed infinite. We r&d only on those ends of strings but ......not on our perception
@PrashantNandaАй бұрын
In those strings seven colours for energy to move like 7 pipe and you find like particle is face of ends of strings like mass, energy, particle is infinite energy
@kusha010Ай бұрын
Why does the universe, as current science understands it, break down into such small components like atoms and subatomic particles? Why does it have to start from such tiny pieces? I believe that successfully answering this question will be crucial to understanding some of the challenges current physics faces, such as the seemingly conflicting ideas of gravity and quantum mechanics.
@charlesbrightman42372 ай бұрын
QUESTIONS: 1. Is our spiral shaped galaxy collapsing in on itself? 2. Do all galaxies collapse in on themselves? a. Modern science claims that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime. Modern science also claims that matter can attract other matter. b. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime as well as a lot of matter possibly attracting other matter in a galaxy. c. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so as well as possibly matter attracting other matter in a galaxy? d. Or, is modern science wrong as to what 'gravity' truly is? e. And what exactly is 'space' that it can be warped? f. And what exactly is 'time' that it can be warped? g. Modern science claims that from nebula clouds in this universe that new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy can form. h. Modern science claims that nebula clouds come from supernova'd stars. i. It must have been a huge star that supernova'd so as to be able to generate a nebula cloud large enough to generate more stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy. j. Or, is modern science wrong about how all nebula clouds form? k. Is it at least possible that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, go supernova, thereby generating enough matter and energy so as to be able to generate new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy? l. Galaxy -> Collapses in upon itself -> Supernova's -> Huge nebula cloud forms -> New galaxy eventually forms. m. Possibly been going on throughout all of eternity past, is going on today, and possibly will be going on throughout all of future eternity? n. Possibly also why there are so many unanswered questions concerning the singular big bang theory, because the singular big bang theory is not really true? o. The universe always existed in some form, never had a beginning, and might possibly never have an end? No Creator necessary? Is that even why in part some cling to a singular big bang theory so as to be able to still in part be able to justify a Creator God existing (which probably does not actually exist in actual reality)? p. Modern science claims that an expanding 'space' of this existence will end in a 'big freeze'. But is it more correct that this existence will not end in a big freeze but just that galaxies and life just come and go in this eternal existence? Life just has to find a way to stay alive in outer space with galaxies that come and go, otherwise life ends one day from something, including possibly a collapsing galaxy?
@mikedougherty10112 ай бұрын
Item i. I think supernova adds heavy elements to an existing nebula. The new mixture collapses to form new stars b
@axle.student2 ай бұрын
"e. And what exactly is 'space' that it can be warped? f. And what exactly is 'time' that it can be warped?" Million dollar question for me :P
@charlesbrightman42372 ай бұрын
@@mikedougherty1011 But consider how massive the former star must have been to generate a nebula cloud large enough to make more stars. Or here again, do at least some galaxies collapse in on themselves so as to have enough energy and matter to make a new galaxy?
@charlesbrightman42372 ай бұрын
@@axle.student Currently, for me: 'Space' is energy itself, the 'gem' photon, 'Time' is the flow of energy, 'Space Time' being energy and it's flow. The 'gem' photon being energy fields with modalities of gravity, electrical and magnetic varying possibly in energy density and energy frequency. (At least until something better comes along). Consider also: Go outside and look at the night sky on a clear night. The light ('em') from far away stars and galaxies reaches your eyes. Now move to a different location looking at those same stars and galaxies. Light ('em') from those stars and galaxies still reach your eyes. So, at an absolute minimum, 'space' is filled with electrical and magnetic energy fields. And then also consider that we exist in a gravitational energy field as well. So, 'space' is filled with energy fields, gravitational, electrical and magnetic. Now also consider: 'Time' (the flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'Space' (energy itself) exists and 'Space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no time) is basically useless. A person cannot even think a single thought without a flow of energy. Hence 'Space' and 'Time' are linked together as 'Space Time'. And as energy fields can warp, so too then could space and time warp.
@axle.student2 ай бұрын
@@charlesbrightman4237 Thank you. That is an interesting way of thinking about it. Would you still differentiate between space and the void? Or do you see it as "No such thing as a complete empty void ever could be."? > I had linked time as an emergent property of motion (flow of energy), but had not linked space as energy itself (at least not in that context). I still can't but help seeing (conceptualizing) space as a "Void" filled with energy. > Is there anything in particular that leads you to think the universe is eternal (no beginning or end)? ( I am guessing you would associate infinite size with that?) > I have had a bit of a personal deep study going on for a while on some of the space-time and origin questions. I am not an indentured physicists which is probably a good thing as I reject religious practices when it comes to science.
@classicalmechanic89142 ай бұрын
Standing on the shoulder of giants should not be considered radical. Most scientific progress was made without adding any unnecessary assumptions while confirming previous theories.
@ChopperChad2 ай бұрын
@@classicalmechanic8914 Bayesian inference
@yanntal9542 ай бұрын
But he is forgetting the wave conjugations and linchpins
@jccusell2 ай бұрын
Header SOLVES EVERYTHING First minutr of the video: It has limitations.
@bigpicture32 ай бұрын
Any theory after all is a Thought Structure, and the results of Thought Structures are after all IMAGININGS about reality, symbols that are connected in such a way as to maybe form a "representation" of Reality. Since apparently there is always going to be "assumptions" then they have to be "rational assumptions", (1) Identify what the assumptions all are (2) in relation to everything else in the theory, how "rational" are these assumptions. For instance Einstein made the Relativity assumption, that there is an "objective" universe, that would "be there" whether there was any consciousness to be "aware" of it or not. But to use "rationality" in this assumption, if there is no "awareness" of it, then it is pointless to say that it is there or even exists. So the "rational" assumption would be leaning more than 50% toward it's not there if there is nothing to be "aware" of it. It is a better assumption to say "we cannot know what cannot be known", and if it cannot be known without "awareness" there is a higher probability that it doesn't exist. (rational assumption) We should not be making assumptions that are in the categories of Fairies and Santa Clause, and the wildest imaginings.
@axle.student2 ай бұрын
You have touched upon a serious problem of the human condition and our subjective human reality that we use to describe the universe "out there" in which we indirectly experience. It's quite possible that the universe is very simple, too simple for our subjective mind that requires us to pack everything into nice little neat box descriptions where we create complexity that may not exist. I don't think the universe cares about our neat complicated human concepts or descriptions :)
@OlivierGalizzi2 ай бұрын
Not clear to me, we wanted to add nothing to explain everything yet we ended up with 36 new fields ?
@wailingbearАй бұрын
New infrastructure for scientific publication? Nows the time.
@petratilling25212 ай бұрын
Wouldn’t it be crazy if there were 42 fields?
@cdurkinzАй бұрын
It's so frustrating how exciting these always are and then nothing. And the engagement from actual scientists is one of the most infuriating thing ever.
@maladyofdeath2 ай бұрын
Good luck proving the right handed neutrino
@oldskool2352 ай бұрын
I made to 1:17 and had to stop. Same old crap. It's hard to believe these people are considered "smart".
@ElementUup5112 ай бұрын
Curt should reach out and try to interview Ken Wheeler on his Field Theory. i think his theory is the most plausible even beyond general relativity and quantum mechanics.
@v2ike6udik2 ай бұрын
Can Curt handle Ken? ;D idkidk. Try, Curt, try! wanna know smth fun, (i´ve been discovering a lot of fun actually), but for starters true formulas for schumann resonance peaks? not some goobeldigock formulas that Schumann pulled out of his arse. true cause. Go!
@ElementUup5112 ай бұрын
@@v2ike6udik yeah idk. Ken's got an abrasive personality towards those he disagrees with but i think curt has the patience and open mind to at least hear him out whether he agrees or not with ken. i think it would be interesting regardless and i do believe his theory deserves more consideration than it has received in the past 10 years.
@Spongemonkey262 ай бұрын
I've come to the realization that I'm not smart enough for this channel...
@zacharyshort3842 ай бұрын
All you need to know is it's about a lot of smart people disagreeing with other smart people about the smartest models of reality.
@RSCa32182 ай бұрын
Don't left brain it, just expose yourself to the terminology and follow the white rabbit
@ika56662 ай бұрын
36 = the dimension of H \otimes O?
@husamwadi26352 ай бұрын
Awesome
@Myrslokstok2 ай бұрын
Hmm seams like a bit like history, what is the simplest thing!
@wulphstein2 ай бұрын
I don't know what "it" is.
@opelmantamechanic8438Ай бұрын
42 is the answer to life the universe and everything. So I'm not sure where you're getting 36 from ? Ask Roger Penrose for his opinion 👍😁
@MaxPower-vg4vr2 ай бұрын
Don't forget that 0 = 0 + 0i.
@RealQinnMalloryu42 ай бұрын
Neil Turok is superstare in cosmology heared in other video on television befor other one of farthef eternal inflation
@TheNaturalLawInstitute2 ай бұрын
Niel: He's done it.
@QuickCanon2 ай бұрын
Jicle Silente
@LeonelLimon-nj7tuАй бұрын
❤
@kataiwannhnАй бұрын
So, the Majorana neutrinos.
@beautheory60472 ай бұрын
Hoberman sphere has #24Bars36Joints
@peterbroderson60802 ай бұрын
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!
@Andrew-yt6pf2 ай бұрын
If only this was in English 🤐
@TerryBollinger2 ай бұрын
Dr. Turok, my apologies, but no matter how I try to look at your canceling-fields idea, all I see is a tautology riddled with the same non-physical infinities that undermine most quantum theories. You have created a negative image of the Standard Model in your vacuum and - no surprise - it cancels out the positive image problems. Why would it not? Similarly, your new mirror interpretation of your initially promising Boyd-Turok dual universe model - you nailed the importance of CPT symmetry nicely - confuses human math with experimental reality. Yes, you can interchange the maths of a physical mirror image and a fully reversed physical body, but a mirror remains an utterly different phenomenon from a physical entity. Your original genuinely doubled universe trivially solves the missing antimatter problem and beautifully preserves critical conserved quantum numbers such as momentum. The new mirror version does none of that, so I am baffled why you took this unpromising new direction.
@____uncompetative2 ай бұрын
I agree. It smells of reverse engineering from observations. The much needed "dual" itself being unevidenced. It is likely to remain that way. Turok might yet find a way to test that this "dual" exists, but I would prefer a model where a second parallel universe in which time flows in the opposite direction relative to our own, would be part of a 9 dimensional model, which has our 4 dimensional universe, and its 4 dimensional parallel universe which has decoupled physics, so it isn't a "dual", and then the _Quantum Gravity_ conundrum is circumvented by using Galilean time for a properly formulated _String Theory_ where an additional non relativistic quantised time dimension yields a 4 + 1 + 4 = 9 dimensional set up. This speculation wouldn't be of interest if wasn't the case that the cardinality of the unrestricted set of dimensional measures of 9 dimensions is 54 where 4k + 2 = 54 where k = 13 which means that this can be complexified and used to form a large structure group of topological Dirac spinors, and then decomposed to define the gauge group of metric Weyl spinors common to both: Z⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴·⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴ U(67108864, 67108864) structure group of Weyl spinors† ⇡↓ π₂ Y²⁷·²⁷ the 54-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold "behind the scenes" i⇡↓ π₁ X¹·³ our 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian spacetime, East Coast [- + + +] ⇡ T the 1-dimension of non-relativistic quantised virtual simulation clock time ⇣ P¹·³ another 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian spacetime, West Coast [+ - - -] !⇣↑ π₁ O²⁷·²⁷ the 54-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold "behind the scenes" ⇣↑ π₂ N⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴·⁶⁷¹⁰⁸⁸⁶⁴ U(67108864, 67108864) structure group of Weyl spinors† † decomposed from U(134217728, ℂ) Dirac spinor such that U(c, ℂ) where c = 2²⁷ where 27 = ⌊54 / 2⌋ where H¹·³* x V⁶·⁴ → C(Y)²⁷·²⁷ or Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → Spin(27, 27) Due to the excessive symmetries the _Unified Field Equation_ when expressed in 54 dimensions becomes ridiculously simple: 𝒞 = 𝒯 ω ω Here the extension of the _Yang-Mills_ Curvature equations to 54 dimensions forms the fiber bundle upon which the single unified field ω (omega) exists as a pervasive excitation at all points within that Ehresmannian geometry. This is equal to the Torsion, from which can be recovered our (1, 3) Lorentzian manifold along with its (6, 4) field content via a Spin 3 field that undergoes a symmetry breaking into Spin 5/2, Spin 2, Spin 3/2, Spin 1, Spin 1/2 and Spin 0 which also plays a role in the Starobinsky inflation model based off the parameters 5 and 68. This means that the reason for our baroque chiral _Standard Model_ with its awkward incomplete set of symmetries is because it is the broken fragment of the _Pati-Salam_ model that is itself broken from Spin(7, 7) at the point of the singularity, but then all Supersymmetry is within the fibers and not in spacetime, which explains why the LHC hasn't discovered Squarks, and this SUSY adds a further Spin(20, 20) to each "side" so that it has C-symmetry, P-symmetry and Supersymmetry, and then adds T-symmetry when it is 20 + 7 + 7 + 20 = 54 in total. All of this would be meaningless if I hadn't worked out the Lagrangian for our (1, 3) section of the (7, 7) portion of dimensions which govern our spacetime, and where its: (7, 7) - (1, 3) = (6, 4) where Spin(6, 4) is isomorphic to the _Grand Unified Theory_ created by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam: Spin(6, 4) ≅ SU(4) x ( SU(2) x SU(2) ) ᴸ ᴿ and this _Pati-Salam model_ is non-chiral and P-symmetric, but it includes _The Standard Model:_ SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) ᶜ ᴸ 𝛾 which is chiral and violates P-symmetry, which is a huge clue that it is not the whole story. Similarly, the choice of Spin(1, 3) includes the Lorentz group L = SL(2, ℂ) as a non-compact group which yields our X¹·³ spacetime, which would also apply to the parallel P¹·³ which is another 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian spacetime, with a West Coast metric [+ - - -] ˷ SO⁺(1, 3) ≅ SL(2, ℂ) ≅ Spin(1, 3) so, essentially the puzzle of the disorganised and asymmetric pattern of fields that we see in _The Standard Model_ is missing most of the puzzle pieces, which in 14 dimensions we would then see all fit into a complete picture, and it would be a highly symmetric one, but there would be Supersymmetries to then account for, which would consume 20 dimensions, and then the whole arrangement would be doubled for the T-symmetry, so that P could be defined to have time flow in the opposing direction. This then explains our cosmological origin as it isn't a singularity before which there was no time, or there was some inverted "dual". A black hole in our universe is actually a wormhole which connects from X to P and spews what it consumes into that space as part of an inflationary bubble within a cosmos of baby bubble universes that obey conservation of energy as a whole when considering both X and P. So, from the other direction P gives rise to our "Big Bang". So, these are not true singularities but phenomena which relate to ER = EPR via the Torsion tensor which induces time inversion as it turns the matter and energy it consumes inside out for recycling in the other parallel universe. This means that the cosmos is "Steady State" and eternal. The universe has unresolved questions, because we are only looking at part of the puzzle. The Lagrangian for our (1, 3) spacetime is represented in LaTeX as follows, and includes the parameters needed to have an inflationary epoch which matches recent JWST observations. \mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{Higgs} + \mathcal{L}_{Dirac} + \mathcal{L}_{Gauge} + \mathcal{L}_{Rarita-Schwinger} + \mathcal{L}_{Gravity} + \mathcal{L}_{Antigravity} + \mathcal{L}_{Torsion} + \mathcal{L}_{Inflation} + \mathcal{L}_{Interactions} \\ \\ \text{where} \\ \\ \mathcal{L}_{Higgs} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_A \omega \partial^A \omega_0 - V(\omega_0) \\ \\ \mathcal{L}_{Dirac} = \overline{\omega}_{1/2} \left( i \Gamma^A \partial_A - m ight) \omega_{1/2} \\ \mathcal{L}_{Gauge} = -\frac{1}{4} F_{AB}(\omega_1) F^{AB}(\omega_1) + \text{tr} \left( A \wedge F - \frac{1}{3} A \wedge A \wedge A ight) + \overline{c} \left( \partial \cdot D ight) c + \left( D_A \phi ight)^\dagger \left( D^A \phi ight) \\ \mathcal{L}_{Rarita-Schwinger} = \overline{\omega}_{3/2} \left( i \Gamma^A \partial_A + \frac{1}{4} \Gamma^{ABCD} \Gamma^C T_{ABCD} ight) \omega_{3/2} \\ \mathcal{L}_{Gravity} = -\frac{1}{16\pi G} R(\omega_2) \\ \mathcal{L}_{Antigravity} = \overline{\omega}_{5/2} \left( i \Gamma^A \partial_A + \text{interaction terms with } \omega_{5/2} ight) \omega_{5/2} \\ \mathcal{L}_{Torsion} = \text{terms involving } T_{ABCD}(\omega_3) \\ \mathcal{L}_{Inflation}(\omega_0) = \frac{1}{2} \partial_A \phi \partial^A \phi - V(\phi) + \xi R \phi^2 + g^2 \phi^2 A_A A^A + y \phi \overline{\psi} \psi \\ \\ \text{where Starobinsky inflation uses potential} \\ \\ V(\phi) = \cases{\frac{{M^2_P}{M^2_{*}}}{8} \left( 1 - e^{-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\phi}{M_{P,14}}} ight)^2, & $\phi \geq \phi_{*}$\cr \frac{{M^2_P}{M^2_{*}}}{8} e^{2\gamma\left(\phi - \phi_{*} ight)/{M_{P}}} \left( 1 - e^{-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\phi}{M_{P,14}}} ight)^2, & $\phi \leq \phi_{*}$\cr} \\ \phi_{N_{*}} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \log \left(\frac{4 N_s}{3} ight)M_P \simeq 2.32 {\hskip 2mm} M_P \\ \phi_{N_{e}} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \log \left(\frac{4 N_e}{3} ight)M_P \simeq 5.52 {\hskip 2mm} M_P \\ \text{where there is $N_s$ e-folds before the start of inflation where we assume $N_s$ = 5} \\ \text{where there is $N_e$ e-folds before the end of inflation where we assume $N_e$ = 68} \\ \text{To obtain compatibility with Cosmic Microwave Background observations we need} \\ 0.38 \lesssim \frac{\phi_{*}}{\phi_{N_e}} \lesssim 0.47 \\ \text{Hence, for $N_e = 68$ and $N_s = 5$ the exponential behaviour of $M$ starts at} \\ \phi_{*} \simeq 2.32 {\hskip 2mm} M_P {\hskip 2mm} = N_s I would publish this on arXiv but I am unaffiliated with any academic institutions, and this is a requirement and therefore a barrier to entry.
@brittanylee21632 ай бұрын
Agree
@williamnelson4968Ай бұрын
@@____uncompetative you might want to edit your response because the mathematical notation is not being displayed properly.
@diycraftq86582 ай бұрын
I need weinstein to comment on this asap
@GianniLeonАй бұрын
Me!! ✋
@jeremyholbrook20942 ай бұрын
Great theory
@M31Galaxy12 ай бұрын
In your face Witten
@TheCjbowman2 ай бұрын
😆
@Essexviix2 ай бұрын
@@M31Galaxy1 😂
@mitchelljacky16172 ай бұрын
Fuck yeah! The brain drain is dead
@SteveDickman12 ай бұрын
Hahaha 😂😂😂
@Lobexx2 ай бұрын
😂
@JayDee-x2b2 ай бұрын
Electric universe theory, not New. Plasma
@JayDee-x2b2 ай бұрын
Aether
@PietroColombo-em5mz2 ай бұрын
Natural born genius🥂.
@WalterSamuels2 ай бұрын
"Where's inflation?" as a basis for rejection, he says. It's so funny that academia has such a gatekeep on the perception of the universe. Like, oh, your theory doesn't support our current dogma? Sorry, you're out!
@marcosunt12062 ай бұрын
Penrose CCC clone ?
@davidwilkie95512 ай бұрын
One on one, you can demonstrate 0-1-2-3-4-etc exponentiation-ness superposition equivalents to 3x3x4 space orientation-observation resonance bonding along the line-of-sight type string nodal-vibrational emitter-receiver Sublimation-Tunnelling jumps that maps out a coherence-cohesion structure ready for your choice of sequential labels. This may take some time, and if BBT is still your starting to reason in the absolute absence of a relevant time-timing information property.., it's pretty hopeless. Eg saying Singularity is a problem..?? In empathy, "the more you learn the less you know" (Student Prince movie) Logarithmic Time is like that.
@afterthesmash2 ай бұрын
From Gemini Advanced: The text you found appears to be a complex mix of scientific-sounding terms and concepts, but it lacks coherence and meaningful connections. It seems to be an attempt to impress or confuse with jargon, rather than convey a clear message. ... Overall, this text seems to be a form of pseudoscience or technobabble.
@AnthonyCampanella-s2w2 ай бұрын
I know.. I know... pick me.. I really do tho... Is 3d..no dark anything..no xdimentions...no antianything... And i have math 4 it...!