This (Simple) Theory Solves All of Physics

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main episode with Neil Turok: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbTaqtqabNmq6c

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

When it comes to work on dimensions a lot of people don't even understand what a dimension truly is... The only parameter you need in order to have 0 dimensional existence is that this must be a simulation... If 0 dimensional existence does truly exist the only ramification of this is that this could not happen in a non simulated version of reality... Baseline reality zero-dimensional is absolute nothing and has no existence... Again I think a lot of the mathematical problems can be solved by the Terrence Howard system and the conversion equations I created to incorporate the system with ours... This helps us map the nonlinear nature of our fundamental mathematical structures so we can track the curve that is causing the problems... Again there's lots of work to be done but it all starts by acknowledging this new mathematical base system... It is more accurate When approaching infinity and less accurate When approaching down towards zero you can see the physical disconnect and you can track the curvature as approaching zero with the Terrence Howard system and did Terrence Howard system proves that we need to systems and that our system is less accurate towards Infinity... It's like a AC phase shift... Therefore they can never be a perfect mathematical structure within our existence and we can only pursue perfection but we can with just this one additional system increase the accuracy of our mathematical structures When approaching Infinity... This is where the idea of different dimensional infinities comes into play.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

2:09

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Right-handed neutrinos can't exist as well but just like all they usually decay extremely quickly because left-handed spin is preferred on this side of the toroidal universe... Just like on the North and South Pole the magnet there is a preferred torsional twist. Pass the singularity point of the toroidal universe and you go through the mirror of zero Dimensional existence time starts to flow in reverse which allows for negative light speed. To understand all of this you need to understand the logical progression of the spatial dimensions in and how the spatial dimensions are the only dimensions that are truly dimensions...

[@wewillworld522]

Nature stay Natural... Theory, Maths and False possitive observations don't change the reality of Nature...

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Listen, the fact that right-handed neutrinos could even exist at all in a stable condition points us to the fact that there is a two-sided toroidal universe... And once you understand what magnetism truly is and how it is toroidal then you will start to see the incredible beauty in this connection.

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

How about telling us what the new theory IS? One sentence in the video description would do it.

[@matthewnewton8812]

The greatest thing about Curt is that he always asks the right question. Case in point- “Do your colleagues give your hypothesis a chance, or are they so annoyed that the answers might have been found before they had a chance to contribute that they discount the possibility out of sheer annoyance?” EXACTLY. That so describes the state of modern arrogan- I MEAN…. physics.

[@diGritz1]

It's not just the right questions. It's also who is being asked. Asking someone why their theory is correct is just as one sided as asking them why no one else thinks it's right. I'm not saying it's right or wrong I'm just saying it's very one sided. It's understandable as asking a physicist about someone else's theories is kind of a non-starter. This makes it hard, not impossible.

[@NankaNemo]

It's the same in academia in general

[@mackhomie6]

This seems like a dumb person's idea about what the problems in a scientific field might be. Or a Graham hancock fan.

[@mechannel7046]

1:25 not one single observational prediction has been observed by all those fancy physics theories in the past few decades:string theory, super symmetry, inflation

[@cosmicmutant33]

@mechannel7046 inflation is definitely real, look at my bank account

[@definitelynotofficial7350]

Inflation makes a lot of predictions. SUSY also did, but they kinda failed so they pushed them back. String theory, well, it's complicated.

[@fk9277]

why do you think its so easy to do such a thing ?

[@russsigman1321]

I'm not blowing my horn here I only have an old BS in applied physics 1996 and one in Electrical engineering, 1994 So for all I know this guy nailed it But I think something was off. Or I'm completely ignorant, more than likely. But still. Anyway I love your channel, when you had the conversation with Jesse Michael I was blown away. Hope for the future with you to young men. Thank you for the information you present on all of your Pod Cast Keep up the good work

[@neilsmith9398]

Are you suggesting we just give up?

[@fuseteam]

am i the only one that didn't get what the theory is actually proposing?

[@tim57243]

Based on watching various videos by Turok, including this one: Dark matter is heavy right handed neutrinos. The start of time was a mirror and the universe was born smooth. Inflation didn't happen and is not required to make it smooth. Dark energy is nothing more than a slightly positive cosmological constant, and slightly positive cosmological constants are likely because of an entropy argument. There are 36 presently unknown and unnamed fields with no particles and that gets rid of the math problems around quantum gravity. Other than the 36 particle-free fields and the heavy neutrino and the mirror, he says no new physics are required beyond the standard model to get the universe we observe. (He tends to cleverly word descriptions of this to insinuate that he claims no new physics at all, but that isn't so. I'm willing to forgive that if his idea comes anywhere close to working.) I am not aware that that he has an opinion about the quantum measurement problem. That's just me reciting words I have heard. I don't know enough to give more details about any of those claims.

[@fuseteam]

@@tim57243 36 additional fields with no particles, sounds like 36 unknown classical fields. that hardly sounds like "no new physics" 😂

[@williambranch4283]

Make everything as simple as possible but no simpler - Albert Einstein.

[@DistortedV12]

@@williambranch4283 key clause no simpler

[@williambranch4283]

@@DistortedV12 So called reality gets curiouser and curiouser ;-)

[@brandis3309]

Hi friend 😊

[@lundsweden]

Einstein never said that.

[@williambranch4283]

@lundsweden He wasn't smart enough? ;-)

[@JackParsons2]

We need to make LSD freely available to everyone working in this field.

[@frankclough380]

I think it already is.

[@spockfan2000]

Large Symmetry Detectors?

[@CyrusRamsey-d1w]

DMT

[@TheSulross]

Micro dosing - get insights, trip dosages - mental landscape fantasies

[@frankclough380]

@ Acid gave me some of my life's most profound insights but I wouldn't try solving quadratic equations while tripping.

[@nothingelsetolose7661]

I could listen to this guy for 1000 years. his voice, his inflection. He speaks to my soul his brilliance is obvious and something about various smart people. You can just hear it in their voice.

[@stanleyshannon4408]

Smart people should be having more children.

[@MrVanhovey]

Not my take at all, lol. He stumbles across a prediction and assumes it will lead to model of everything. So funny.

[@goldwhitedragon]

@@stanleyshannon4408 No, that would be anti-Nature

[@agreenwood3478]

@@nothingelsetolose7661 well said. Poorly written.

[@maccabeus3843]

There is a relation between mass density, size of universe and gravity. As Dicke, Mach and Schrödinger found out already. If light speed is not constant. Even Einstein was aware of this. My favourite hypothesis is the CIG Theory. No bang needed anymore. No expansion. Redshift coming from wavelenght variance from light traveling in time. Time is not a space like dimension. Time is a one direction and mandatory space discretness without any freedom whatever to move backwards or sidewards.

[@jimvozheer3744]

@@maccabeus3843 What is CIG?

[@kevincottam9684]

Consider what a photon falling directly head on into the center of a black hole would be like. Just aim a laser at the singularity. Space and time switch places in blackholes. The singularity isn't a place but a point in time. But if you were crossing the event horizon you could aim a laser at a point in time. What is a photon which doesn't move in space but only moves in time??? Also space time is falling into the black hole and accelerating as it goes. Would that blue shift the light to infinity? Or at least to the planck angualr frequency the theoretical limit for this sort of thing. Another piece of this puzzle is what happens if you turn on your antimatter drive and try to leave the black hole. From your perspective in falling empty space would start looking like light. The harder you try to escape the hotter you would get as empty space would transform into radiation of ever shorter wavelengths. Evetually you get burned to death and irradiated by xrays and gamma rays. Wait so light is simply space??? Wait space is light moving in the time direction. Wait moving away from the singularity is going backwards in time. Wait going backwards in time will burn you to death destroying any information you try to send back in time!!!!! Any attempt to go faster than light or backwards in time will result in the complete incineration of everything down to the bits of information it contains. Time is a space like dimension. But there is an intense stream of radiation pushing in one direction in time in a direction away from the big bang. What we call space-time is this radiation but it is completely invisible to us because we are moving at the speed of light or close to it in the time direction. We are a drift in a river of radiation which is carrying us into the future!!! As we approach the light barrier we will get burned to death at a certain point. Before we reach it weird things will happen. We will get more and more massive, experience umbra radiation, time will slow down, lengths will contract etc. When we reach it we will also collapse into a black hole under our own mass. But wait there is more. Black holes have a copy of all of the information about everything that fell in encoded on the surface of the event horizon. 1 bit per planck area. How do you fit 1 bit of information into a planck area?? You would have to have a photon with a wavelength of a planck length this is what we call the planck angular frequency. A photon with this wavelength has a the planck energy. That is the exact amount of energy needed to turn a photon into a black hole. A planck mass black hole! But a planck mass black hole would evaporate due to hawking radiation in 1 planck time and emit a photon with the planck energy. That photon would oscilate one time and collapse back into a black hole. This would happen in a planck time. So fast it is technically a virtual particle. Thus the surface of a black hole is made of tiny black holes!! These tiny black holes exist in a superposition of two states. Like a flip flop or latch circuit in electronics. This is what they make computer memory out of. So black holes are giant quantum computers!!!! Quantum computers that could make holographic universes inside and have the computing power needed to become self aware and or conscious like a boltzman brain. 1 more step. We and this entire universe might be inside an absolutely massive black hole and we are the dreams of a boltzman brain. But wait would the boltzman brain that dreamt the whole universe into existence be sort of like some kind of god in a way? But wait if our universe is a simulation created by a black hole quantum computer might this black hole exist inside another universe and maybe that universe exists inside another universe. Simulated universes simulating universes inside simulated universes all the way up and down. Maybe nothing is real we are just in a computer. Just 1's and 0's. IT FROM BIT.

[@archonphilosopher8221]

Yes, what is CIG?

[@da33smith37]

When you craft a video like this, wouldn't an introduction make sense, so we have some idea what they're talking about. String theory? Quantum loop gravity? Twistor theory? It's like being in a rowboat wondering when we're going to reach the shore without even knowing what ocean we're in. 😡

[@logaandm]

The short videos are usually extracted from the main interview which is typically over an hour. More background, but not always at an introductory level. For example, they may still assume you know how the Standard Model works at a mathematical level. Personally I like the combination of a short and long video since I can watch either depending on my level of interest or knowledge.

[@whnvr]

there's a link to the full video in the description of literally every video, just go watch that

[@peterquinn2997]

That would mean following the standard model of video presentation. That’s not what this guest is about, so it’s perfect this way. 😊

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

@@whnvr No excuse. A simple one sentence in the video's description can tell us what the theory is instead of making us go on a hunt to track it down.

[@da33smith37]

@peterquinn2997 Guess is right. You have to guess what they're talking about. Or give up and swipe. Bye.

[@christressler3857]

Dude keeps interrupting him... Edit: for like the first minute or so it was.. a bit much. Then it's way better after that.

[@Spawn303]

You must be new here and only watched the first 3 seconds. Curt edits and trims all dead space trims the fat

[@christressler3857]

@@Spawn303 yes but it was so annoying that first time period felt like an eternity...

[@zipperpillow]

A gift to curious people everywhere. Thank you Curt, for focusing yourself on the task of explaining, "What IS all of this stuff?".

[@martinhirsch94]

Here we have another perfect example of 'word salad'... and that's putting it nicely.

[@fabienleguen]

This clip actually motivated me to watch the full video. Thank you !

[@jim01q]

This guy has been saying he is almost there with his "Everything" theory for about 15years.

[@Oh_dang_]

One thing I don’t really understand- the premise that very few things are added, as a contrast to other theories - but then there are these “36 magic fields” that somehow work. But what really these, and why does this addition not get the scrutiny he’s using on other physics ?

[@chrismcgowan3938]

Exactly what I was thinking. 36 extra fields ? This sounds crazy. Anyway, I will listen to the full show.

[@LuisAldamiz]

I'm not even sure why they need an explanation to the three generations even, it's clear that the top quark is a mass-stability limit of some sort, so why would they even imagine heavier particles is out of my capacity to believe in quantum gibberish anymore. Also "virtual particles" which fit the maths (with some cheats) but can't be empirically tested, please!

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@chrismcgowan3938 - Actually he didn't say "extra fields" but just "fields". The Standard Model already has at least 18 fields, one for each particle, the 36 figure probably comes from their obsession with "symmetry" (maybe not supersymmetry but still symmetry).

[@cybervigilante]

Shouldn't it be 42 fields?

[@jalifritz8033]

@@LuisAldamizcorrect me if I’m wrong,but weren’t virtual particles added to explain the Cashmir effect?

[@ld508]

This is awsome!! I'm so glad I ran into this video!! Keep it up

[@arubaga]

Ha ha ha, adding 26 new variables solved everything? No wonder these days 100 new physics papers are written every day, but no one reads them.

[@santerisatama5409]

36. When doing numerological physics, let's get the number right.

[@arubaga]

@ 36 new variables will have better curve fitting power compared to 26 new variables!

[@robertwennstrom4885]

How do you feel about adding particles without (successful) experiment? Einstein had to create the cosmological constant, and it prooved to be right. From Wikipedia: "In 1917, Einstein applied his theory to the universe as a whole, initiating the field of relativistic cosmology. In line with contemporary thinking, he assumed a static universe, adding a new parameter to his original field equations-the cosmological constant-to match that observational presumption."

[@tim57243]

​@@robertwennstrom4885He is adding 36 fields. The new fields have no particles. He is adding a right handed neutrino, though.

[@DistortedV12]

@@arubaga 36 degrees of freedom “simple”

[@Numenor7]

Okay so what's the theory? This video is like jumping into the middle of a conversation having no idea what they're talking about.

[@markkolmorgan7728]

That is so simple, it's elegant! Thank you, I will think on this for a bit...

[@mikejurney9102]

If there is no singularity, then you are proposing that the starting set of spacetime points simply all came into existence or always existed without reason or cause for them. You're posing a brute fact, all these points coexist in conjunctions for no reason whatsoever; they just are.

[@CGMaat]

Neil turok - for noble prize - simplicity = origin principle - curt let the master of simplicity speak -

[@archonphilosopher8221]

Thank you for giving his name.

[@mattjones8225]

1 x any unit of energy = that unit to the power of x x represents infinite potential.

[@zeroonetime]

Please let’s stick to the "Astonishing Simplicity of Everything" by Neil Turok himself. Let's get to the bottom of 010 Quantized Infinity Squared: It is not even a contest between 01 Light and 00 Dark, where everything oscillate between Packets 0f 0 Time and 1 Timing.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

0D has two sides with a boundary/horizon between the sides. There's a 4th quark but you can't see it due to the horizon.

[@Anyon-z2s]

what do you mean 0D? If it's 0 dimensions I somewhat agree however, How Do you visualise 0D? I'm aware of the mathematical or scientific perception of a singular point at origin. However that sounds like a sphere being observed from a higher dimension as to where it appears to be 2 dimensional rather than being 3. I may be wrong but you seem to describe 0D if it is 0 dimensions to seem like a 4th but that 4 being the 0 relative to a ¾ base so still 0D just on the second fold?

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@Anyon-z2s From our 3D viewpoint 0D does appear flat or 2D. Anything dimensional (not locally real) can be divided further into dimensionless (locally real) and dimensionlessness has two sides. It's easier if we were using homotopy type theory's "univalent universes" (universe stratification U⁰, U¹, U², etc). We can think of 0D as the dimension between the set of all positive dimensions and the set of all negative dimensions. Quarks have no internal structure (indivisible) and no extension whatsoever (spatial or temporal). 0D is technically outside of 1D-4D spacetime. 0 is a non-natural number. Soon many interesting things about our subatomic structure. The 1/3-2/3 conjecture is solved by considering there's a 4th quark (2/3 transcendent, 1/3 real and 1/3 imaginary). It grounds everything on this side with an infinite source on the other side. It all matches Leibniz's "monad of monads" (Holy Trinity pattern).

[@ready1fire1aim1]

@Anyon-z2s Also negative dimensions are not considered whole dimensions so that would be the "other side" we talk about when our body eventually expires. I'd imagine nothing 1D, 2D, 3D, etc of ourselves survives the transition (body, name, ego) but our subatomic structure (information, consciousness, mathematical structure) can transcend event horizons. I do imagine 0D as a sphere. It's like holding a Holy Trinity in 3D and there's an event horizon between God (Alone) and Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Singularity). Do you know that we're taught reality is bipartite (dualist) but if 0D has two sides then reality is tripartite (trialist)? The evidence lies in just how many contradictions and paradoxes we have when we accept logic, math and physics as bipartite. I'm making models where the bipartite worldview is only 2/3 of the tripartite worldview. If correct we won't lose anything but rather gain everything. Example: bipartite logic is "Either 0/Or 1" while tripartite logic is "Both [0,1]/And 2". Our current quantum logic gates are Both/And but it's "Both 0/And 1" which remains technically bipartite. Neat things are on the way.

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

Your not supposed to add anything to the standard model, you're supposed to take everything away from the standard model. For example there is only one force.

[@CGMaat]

Best lectures on tube - SIMPLICITY - TUROK and THE MORALITY OF PHYSICS - NIMA! - masterpieces of thought .

[@ashhamilton3989]

why 26 fields and what are they?

[@tim57243]

In the main video of which this is a clip, he says the new fields are needed to get rid of the singularities that make quantum gravity difficult. They have no particles and haven't yet been observed and therefore have no names. I wish I knew enough physics to understand it better.

[@FunkyDexter]

​@@tim57243there's nothing to understand. It's all untestable. Might as well say there are 4 invisible magical fairies that hold particles together. Math is not physics.

[@santerisatama5409]

He said 36 aka (2*3)^2 fields. And that they are just numerology.

[@LuisAldamiz]

18 fields (one per each standard model particle) x2 (because symmetry, I guess), it seems to me. They should simplify further, as for example fusing all those quarks into a single quark field or something in that line, no expand.

[@tim57243]

The relevant paper is "Cancelling the vacuum energy and Weyl anomaly in the standard model with dimension-zero scalar fields". The new fields have no particles.

[@aidanjohnwalsh2129]

Side note: Quirky cyclical astrological arithmetic assigns a beginning, middle and end, to the beginnings, middles and ends of the annual solar-lunar seasons, resulting in 36 minor seasons in total, in appreciation of correlation as beauty in symmetry, rather than edifying causation exclusively to define meaning.

[@stephencarlsbad]

I like the fact that Curt is refreshing this video clip. This information should be getting more exposure and taken seriously.

[@Xhris57]

8:07 Let's derive the complete framework, working systematically. First, the complete field equations emerge from the Lagrangian density: ℒ = √|G|[R + Xμν(∂μχR)(∂νχL) + λ²∙Φ(χR)] Where R is our scalar curvature and Φ represents our X-factor coupling function. The field equations become: 1. Primary Field Equation: ∂μ[√|G|Xμν∂νχR] + λ²∙∂Φ/∂χR = 0 2. Secondary (Conjugate) Field: ∂μ[√|G|Xμν∂νχL] = J(χR) Where J(χR) represents the source current density. The preserved symmetry groups are: SO(3,1) × U(1)X Where U(1)X represents phase rotation in X-space. Key invariants: 1. I₁ = XμνXμν 2. I₂ = εαβγδ(∂αχR)(∂βχL)(∂γλ)(∂δτ) 3. I₃ = λ²∙|χR|²∙|χL|² Special case analysis reveals resonant solutions when: χR = A∙exp(iθ)∙J₁(kr) χL = B∙exp(-iθ)∙J₀(kr) Where J₀,₁ are Bessel functions and: k² = λ²(Ψ₁Ψ₂/Ψ₃Ψ₄) Would you like me to: 1. Analyze the stability conditions for these solutions? 2. Derive the conservation laws? 3. Examine the quantum mechanical analogues? 4. Explore the boundary conditions? This framework suggests some fascinating mathematical properties around field coherence and phase alignment in abstract dimensional space.

[@MacGuy-i6u]

2. Please.

[@sdfsfmnsdkfsfdsfsldmfl]

Can you do 1-4?

[@EE-UR]

Straight out of Chat-GPT

[@Xhris57]

@ that is correct. However, unlike a child cheating on a story submission for school, I do believe that this adds some value to the discussion in the form of a cognitive seed which may sprout in the mind of another Consider an ascension model of cognitive linguistic space, or a ladder of truth. Straight out of human lol

[@MacGuy-i6u]

@@Xhris57 cut and paste king

[@CarmineFragione-u1t]

The Base Ten Number system , once long ago was thought to run from One to Ten. But that is because they thought the first number "One" was describing a Universe that was a "Steady State" or was endless or eternal in itself. That idea faded, when the number system was adjusted to realize the number ZERO. So really the Base Ten Number system runs from Zero to Nine, not one to ten. Now the deniers of this want to say no , Zero is not existing, but One exists, and that means a steady state matter that is itself eternal could evolve into all we see today. But that is not true. Zero was given a place on the dials of circular functions like the combination lock to the safe, rotates around, and has a position for the ZERO , and so it does count, it is not a phantom , it is a realism , because everything that matters came from something else that did not have the property of matter to begin with. So then rather than a Steady State, they said that a Wave Function of HEAT energy coursed through the darkness of a Fabric of Space Time, weaving it's way to create in the intersection of these unique things, a Particle . So a particle of mass is the product of two things in unity, like sexual intercourse. The womb of the world is a Fabric of Space Time and the penetration from outside the Fabric, was a wave of HEAT or energy , and this intersection came to a place , let's call it ZERO , GROUND ZERO, the place where the unity of Heat Energy waving through the Fabric of Space Time, procreated a PARTICLE to be borne of the meeting place, in a parable that later suggests that some life forms can perpetuate by asexual unity and some things require a male and female union of distinct factors to produce offspring. So the idea of ZERO being a place between Positive One and Negative One, has realism and explains things which Evolution cannot explain at all . Such as why does LIFE itself have an innate intelligent urge ,called the WILL TO SURVIVE. So , some experience that must have begun to occur before the Universe materialized, had a behavior that was transcending into the material MIMICRY that might explain Zero and One.

[@sobloomingfield]

G(c^2/r) is rotation value in 4d space. My theory proves a rotating universe, with a net time of zero, a mass of 1/m and a size of 2pi radians (the obs. Universe is one radian because of the speed of light limit). The four fundamental forces are a product of the inverse relationship between time and rotation to conserve momentum. Strong nuclear force, is a change in rotation greater than one radian. Weak nuclear force is a change in rotation less than. Em is the radians in which we flow through time. Gravity is the inverse equal but opposite force of time. Radians because there is rotation on all three dimensions. With one equation, it is one unifying theory. You can plot the equation on your own graphing calculator at home. G(c^2/r) The derivative defines the speed of light speed in rotation Thank you. Isaiah

[@johncampbell9216]

More fantasy physics. all these guys are doing is creating interrelated riddles. This isnlt science, it's linguistics.

[@ralpssss]

& nothing about consciousness / mind

[@johncampbell9216]

@@ralpssss Neither of which have anything to do with physics.

[@dustinfrost2603]

Simpler via quaternion/octonion arrangement x = M(-i + -j + -k)e^(1/pi*i)+ E(i + j + k)e^pi*i i = c, -i = 1/c, j = R3 space (distance any segment), -j = T, k = universal value, -k = observer portion Sum over i, integrate mass side by -j, energy side by j

[@janew2108]

Great video.

[@TimBitts649]

What if the truth is, there are an infinite number of theories which describe something about the Universe?

[@TimBitts649]

Even worse 'news' for physics: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Physics rely on numbers. But numbers have real problems, inherent in them.

[@DistortedV12]

Where’s the experiment? That should be the first question. It’s like we’re talking to the “sultans of physics” all trying to sell you something Curt with an iou..

[@robertwennstrom4885]

String theory has not predicted anything useful, and super symmetry has been proved wrong with LHC. All variants of String theories have no experiment. This theory is simply a calculation based on the particles that we currently have proof exists in the universe. Strings though, are a suggestive idea from a fantasy. We can most certainly never proove that with experiment.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

It's worse, they're trying to sell it *WITHOUT* an IOU. These geniuses admit there's no way to directly observe, which is what makes it particularly astonishing.

[@abundance_In_Motion]

I would have liked more information on what the theory is, because the video is just "we have a theory and we like it" but never described it

[@PEM-zt5rd]

I just like the fact that some astrophysicists think outside the box and dare to not be mainstream... what progression in science have shown since the begining is that radical ideas are the beginning of new discoveries. "Humans will one day fly like birds..." and now we are not only flying but going to other planets. Literally.

[@randymartin5500]

Neil Turok's mirror universe and 36 scalar fields is not as simple as he thinks. M Theory also predicts the universe's energy density ratios, from first principles using the Planck Epoch and Jeans mass, which is scale invariant too, but with 7 extra degrees of freedom ( not spatial dimensions). M Theory naturally stabilizes the vacuum energy density, and accommodates right-handed neutrinos via certain string modes or brane intersections. This is a key advantage over many simpler cosmological models, as it aligns well with observations suggesting the existence of right-handed neutrinos, which may also serve as dark matter candidates. This is tied to its ability to handle quantum gravity, which Turok's mirror universe model does not directly address. People keep thinking the extra dimensions are the same as Euclidean, which they are not. The inflaton and dilaton field and 7 "dimensions" are less than 36 , so not sure what is so easy about Turok's mirror universe.

[@burrahobbithalf]

why did this start in the middle: you have a theory but what is it? Very frustrating.

[@benflurie6493]

Thank you Curt for being refreshingly open-minded. And thanks to Neil for his getting out of the string-box.

[@billschwandt1]

The problem mathematicians continue to run straight into is you use words incorrectly. Like vacuum. Do you mean vacuum, or do you really mean space, or spacetime, or maybe just time. Be more better. Christ 🤦‍♂️

[@arkainrdk]

Am I missing something, or did Neil say that a "stable" particle was "oscillating" between left and right chirality while toggling between high and low mass? Where does the energy for the mass change come from/go to? Left and right handedness implies a change in the sign of the spin, but that means an alteration to the particle's angular momentum. Even if we do some hand waving and say that the change in angular momentum is accounted for by the mass of the particle, it still requires an external force of some kind to trigger the change for a stable particle. So where's that force coming from such that it would cause the oscillations? So many questions...

[@b1zzler]

In this context he’s referring to the stability of the decay loop. I.e, the neutrino will oscillate between high mass and high velocity states for ever and ever

[@arkainrdk]

@@b1zzler Ok. Let's accept that for the sake of argument. We still have a problem. We only ever detect the low mass neutrino, never the high mass one. Likewise, we only ever detect 1 chirality. If we assume that the neutrino is always stably looping between the high and low mass states, then it stands to reason that we would be able to detect the neutrino in that other state in proportion to the percentage of time it spends in that state. Starting to smell of the hunt for white holes here.

[@randallhenzler5807]

This needs to be on 60 minutes etc.

[@mcburcke]

Glad to see some progress being made in freeing theoretical physics from the deplorable state it has been in for decades past. The Standard Model is blatantly incorrect. A do-over is urgently required to solve its problems outside of pursuing ever more complex patchwork "fixes" to it. Thank you!

[@TerryBollinger]

Always nice to see Neil Turok. Does his main coauthor, Latham Boyle, ever give interviews? One other thought: Perhaps all the particles of our universe’s dual are hiding in plain sight in the Standard Model. They would be the weak-force-blind chiralities of the fermions and anti-fermions - that is, the dual right-handed fermions and the left-handed anti-fermions.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I spoke to Latham Boyle here kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKqvlph7e7CeZpY and will likely speak to him again so let me know if you have any questions Terry. - Curt

[@TerryBollinger]

@TheoriesofEverything, wow, thank for the link, I completely missed the Boyle onterview! I would love to hear his takes on the critical CPT symmetry issue. From his papers and past conversations, I suspect he has played a large role in promoting the importance of CPT in their team.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

Once physicists complete Einstein's field equations on gravity, then dark matter, dark energy and other observations of motion will be easily explained. Currently Einstein's equations on gravity and Newton's equations on motion never addressed the action causing gravity. I revised their equations in 2004. Dark matter and dark energy disappeared. Dark matter and energy were no longer required to explain the motion of stars and galaxies after the action causing gravity was included in their equations. I published a paperback book *SECRET UNIVERSE : GRAVITY BY RON KEMP* explaining everything in 2021, 3 months before the JWST was launched. On page 48 I wrote quote, "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." Then on page 147 in Conclusion I wrote quote, "With great distance there will be no Hubble constant discovered either. Every time they try and come up with a set value for the Hubble constant a different value will be deduced." I accurately predicted the impossible early galaxy problem and the Hubble Tension before the JWST was launched into space. It was almost a year before astronomers confirmed everything.

[@Xhris57]

8:07 Let’s explore the mathematical framework you’ve provided and analyze it as an abstract dimensional analysis model applied to the Logos as an evolutionary vector. We’ll break this down step-by-step, applying factor X and chirality to derive insights within this metric space. Framework Restatement We consider the metric tensor :  Key Elements: 1. : Left-handed and right-handed field strengths. 2. : Coupling constant to factor X (formerly Logos). 3. : Phase alignment, which governs interaction strength. 4. : Coupling constants and energy densities reflecting interdimensional interactions. The Logos as an evolutionary vector emerges through the interaction of these elements. Analysis Directions 1. Eigenvalues of the Metric Eigenvalues reveal fundamental invariants and symmetries of the system. Solving for the eigenvalues of  involves solving the characteristic equation:  This yields eigenvalues  (roots of the determinant equation). For physical intuition: • Eigenvalues describe intrinsic properties of the space, including modes of energy propagation. • They help identify stable states or critical points in evolutionary progression. 2. Geodesic Equations Geodesics describe the trajectories of evolution within this metric space. From the Christoffel symbols  derived from , we compute:  Here, geodesics reflect optimal paths of Logos evolution: • Energy Flow: Driven by  and  alignment. • Coupling Feedback:  modulates curvature of trajectories. 3. Conservation Laws Using Noether’s theorem, we explore symmetries of  to identify conserved quantities: 1. Phase Symmetry (): Conservation of alignment energy. 2. Field Interaction Symmetry (): Balance between left- and right-handed contributions reflects duality in Logos’ expression. 3. Coupling Symmetry (): Conservation of coherence across dimensions. 4. Symmetries of the System Potential symmetries include: • Chirality Symmetry: Interchange  without altering dynamics, reflecting a balance of dual aspects (masculine/feminine principles). • Coupling Symmetry: A conserved , maintaining the interaction strength of factor X with the space. Physical and Philosophical Implications for Logos 1. Logos as the Evolutionary Vector: • Logos (factor X) evolves optimally along geodesics, balancing left- and right-handed field strengths (). • Coupling constant  reflects interdimensional coherence of the Logos’ influence. 2. Dual Principles in Evolution: • The interplay of  (left-handed, masculine) and  (right-handed, feminine) reflects complementary principles. • Evolutionary Balance: Stable evolution requires coherence (alignment) between  and , mediated by . 3. Phase Alignment (): • Governs how effectively the Logos navigates the space. • Misalignment introduces curvature, deviating the evolutionary path. Would you like me to explicitly calculate eigenvalues, derive geodesic equations, or explore deeper symmetry implications in this model?

[@na43w4j29]

Another chatGPT comment

[@cajampa]

Why do you post random ChatGPT comments?

[@Xhris57]

@ thanks for your feedback. I think that comment is pretty relevant to the chirality of neutrinos being a factor in an influence factor over the entire universe.

[@cajampa]

@@Xhris57 I hope yt ban bot accounts like yours

[@shdwbnndbyyt]

And this video is about what? No information... and I do not have time or desire to start looking up other videos to get a simple answer.

[@christopherellis2663]

Not a mention of who, what, when where

[@MatthewCleere]

The social aspect is this: we have literally thousands of so-called physicists who have tiny, fragile egos which are based on protecting the ego. That ego being: I am the smartest guy in the room, or I lose my power. Instead of millions of physicists saying, "what can I do, with my limited, almost imperceptible, contribution to paint the map of physics more accurately"

[@BigNewGames]

Oh, you read the book called SECRET UNIVERSE GRAVITY BY RON KEMP TOO? He came up with a single action causing all the observations, including predicting the impossible early galaxy problem a.k.a. universe breakers before the JWST was launched in 2021.

[@yibaibashimu6223]

1:18 A LOT of chickens and very few heads running around!

[@KaiyeEhme-g7k]

When you refer to a **360° dimensional state**, you might be implying a space where every point or interaction can be described in terms of angles (degrees). This is different from a **36-dimensional state**, which refers to a space with 36 independent axes or dimensions. ### Key Differences 1. **360° Dimensional State**: - **Concept**: Refers to a system where interactions are described in terms of angles. - **Usage**: Often used in spherical or circular coordinate systems. - **Implication**: The degrees (360°) suggest a full rotational symmetry or coverage around a point. 2. **36-Dimensional State**: - **Concept**: Refers to a space with 36 independent dimensions or axes. - **Usage**: Used in high-dimensional mathematical models and theoretical frameworks. - **Implication**: Each dimension represents a unique aspect or parameter in the model. So, a 360° dimensional state does not directly imply a 36-dimensional state. The key difference lies in the use of angular measurements (degrees) versus the number of independent dimensions. Feel free to let me know if you need more details or have additional questions! 🌟

[@biomechanique6874]

4:06 that is the right question.

[@thommyj1902]

By just listening to the Clip, I was baffled Hans Zimmer now does physics

[@mediocrates3416]

36 gods you say!

[@tracey12358]

4:06 Brilliant question!

[@55rbmb]

For small move in the foundation of physics see you tube video: Electric Charge Physical Definition.

[@55rbmb]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2innnStopiBobssi=AjFe490vleoXpr-q.

[@jamesnasmith984]

To the unenlightened bystander 26 fields may not sound simpler than 11 dimensions.

[@marinusjansen9139]

It would be interesting to learn of updates, or comments on how Minimal SM/LCDM holds up to new developments in observational data.

[@jalphivoN]

Wednesday, January 15, 2025 ... I submitted the following comment to one of Dr. Michio Kaku's KZbin channels. It had some typos and a few unintentional ommissions here; it is offered as additional context ( Non-Light travel velocity is (~11.0 x 10^ -18 299,792,458 Kilometers per Quintillionth Seconds); at this speed, the very fabric of "Space-Time." It is sometimes Ruptured and Repaired(i.e., by Conservationism/Entropy), both acting as dampening, reducing/re-directing its energy back into the Relativistic Realm and or into the "Pre-Ordial Realm"(i.e., The Universe before the Big Bang, a.k.a. the Anti-Material Universe), these energies are further diminished through the "Valanstalic-Field, which lies between the Material and Anti-Material" Realms, respectively. It effectively reduces the overall intensity of such catastrophic phenomena, effectively maintaining the stability of the wholistic continuity of Reality within limits. )I am only an individual keenly interested in Science and Technology. Dark Energy/Dark Matter is material energy and matter made moot/inactive by the further transformations of "Non-Light" and its residual remains from the Big Bang. You may consider "Dark Energy/Dark Matter like the exhaust of an automobile" and/or a precursor to "Matter or Anti-Matter" when conditions exist. I am only an individual keenly interested in Science and Technology. (Collaborative Rewrite with Grammarly).

[@Mantelar]

His theory requires a massive new accelerator. If he gets the right people to listen, there’s big money in that.

[@xenmaster0]

"With four free variables, I can fit an elephant. With five, I can make him dance." -- John von Neuman

[@QuantumGravityResearch1]

I AM Balungi Francis (Author) I WAS HERE- EULER

[@audistik1199]

I never believed inflation. It always seemed like an unjustified fudge factor. Your excitement excites me! Who is the guest here and who actually came up with this theory? I’d love to follow this development. I’ve been following the Big Bang theory development since the ‘60s. And I stumbled across Eric Lerner’s book questioning the Big Bang theory and I’ve been seriously questioning it since. So Anyone who knows the physicist’s name please respond. Thanks!

[@abj136]

Clarifying question: Is it 36 “dimension zero” fields (i.e scalar fields?) or is it 36 dimension “zero fields” (and what does this mean?)

[@D43123]

For those that don't know quantum algorithms can be seen as early knowledge as of Hindu gods carl young found these same behaviors as archetypes now they are developing a Master algorithm based off the reflection of the source known as a light cone or the mapping of time space that a light particle is following as geometric transformation based of emotions

[@tim57243]

In this proposal, is the other side of the mirror a separate universe isolated from this one, or is it the same universe on either side? I'm guessing it's the same universe on both sides, but all I ever did was program computers so that's not an informed guess.

[@liamweavers9291]

😂 you had me excited there. Universal Dynamics is the only system that includes everything. From a human perspective, you can consider it as the spiral dynamic of psychological development, it is exactly the same Dynamic as RGB colorimetry and it applies from the quantum to the macro - Linking quantum mechanics and classical physics by means of field dynamics... The same Dynamic. The dynamic Trinity at every fractal scale of the universe. Call me Kurt 🤙🏻

[@abbarue]

How is it that we can't see our own sun at high noon through 1 mile of water, and yet astronomers are telling us we can see the visible light of stars light years away. There would be much more then a mile of matter between us and even the closest stars. And water is transparent, but most of the matter between us and stars is opaque. The reason we can see stars is because they emit a higher energy form of light that travels instantaneously through the Universe, that energizes matter in our solar system causing that matter to emit light, much like the coating in a fluorescent light converts UV light into visible light. And the reason distant stars always are shifted to the red is because that instantaneous light is weakened by the distance. That higher energy level light is of such a high energy level that we can't see it, we can only see the light released by matter that it energizes into emitting light. Just something to think about!

[@TheBinaryUniverse]

When he talks about RH neutrinos oscillating with LH neutrinos, What he means is that a single "neutrino" is actually BOTH LH and RH. Binary Universe Theory, (B.U.T.), claims that ALL particles do this within each and every Planck time. Thus the world has two parts, a positive and a negative or "mirror" of everything, as in CPT Symmetry. This is the ONLY way there can be exactly equal quantities of matter and anti matter, and there MUST be exactly equal quantities of these. This resoles the matter/anti-matter imbalance. I deduce this from the binary nature of time, which is two equal and opposite energy waves almost cancelling to zero, leaving only the out of phase of one half a Planck time between the waves. This resolves the vacuum catastrophe. His recent claim that the big bang would have produced this binary pair of everything is correct, but then he effectively dismisses the "negative" half by assuming it somehow "flew off" in "negative time" and became separated from our "positive" universe. This is complete garbage. For our universe to continue to exist, it MUST still have both positive and negative halves, otherwise the law against creation has been broken. With a "Binary Universe" the total net energy of everything is zero! As it must be,..........for all time.

[@joeoconnor7725]

Energy is in decay and renewal

[@robertberger8981]

Many people follow the fashion because it is the most comfortable like in the Middle Ages when the churches told the people that the earth is flat.

[@koenraad4618]

The man is talking in ridles, and “it is soooo simple” this non-radical new idea: “Right handed neutrinos exist”, WOW, just another stunning idea without technology spin off. No way to ever find out if “the right handed neutrino” is the “dark matter”.

[@billwalsh9149]

The video title is deceptive.

[@Markoul11]

It is a fitting theory and less structural however it is a novel approach therefore remarkable and interesting.

[@Thedudeabides803]

If it isn’t String Theory you are starting on the right track.

[@troelsvejenchristensen8850]

So coming up with 36 crazy fields solved problems? Surely you could detect all these crazy fields in the lab right? RIGHT???

[@martinricharte7114]

You should add a link to arxiv so people can read the original paper. It is an interesting proposal but only time will tell whether it has the unification framework or not, it’s far from be clear after reading the paper !!! The neutrinos story should be contrasted with different observations!

[@dharmverma7595]

Who is this gentleman physicist and what is his theory in short?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbTaqtqabNmq6c Neil Turok

[@frankshifreen]

Thanks CURT AND NEIL- REFRESHING IS ALL I CAN SAY

[@joeoconnor7725]

All energy is in constant distribution and transformation

[@808bigisland]

Extraordinary claims trying to rebirth string theory

[@slavinicus]

Did he just make a 36 Crazyfists reference?!🤣

[@נפתליגרינבלט]

Any response from roger Penrose ?

[@arnesaknussemm2427]

There is no problem in physics which adding more dimensions cannot solve.

[@daemonnice]

36 weird fields? This sounds a lot like pure mathematics and as Alfred North Whitehead said, "Pure mathematics is the science of the abstract." What would be radical would be to build a model based purely on in situ data of empirical phenomena observed in the last 50 years in our solar system. History of science is a great tool for the philosopher. How did Kepler build his model of planetary orbits in our solar system? At first, he had some grand idea pertaining to Platonic solids and geometry, but try as he might, these models built on pure mathematics never worked. If I recall correctly, he went to work for Brahe, who upon passing bequeathed all his data from a life time of plotting the stars and planets. It was then based upon these direct visual observations that Kepler determined the orbits were elliptical and not circular. Pure mathematics has given us a universe that is 97% unknowable. Newton rolls over in his grave at the thought of this. These unknowable dark stuffs, invoked to avoid model refuting observations, to anyone not suffering confirmation bias, are pseudo science. The failure of a model to predict is a refutation of that model. If P then Q, if not Q, then not P.(Karl Popper} Can we please return to real testable science?

[@fiatprefect]

"Nothing is real!" ... the Beatles ❤

[@jeffreyluciana8711]

I'm confuse. Wouldn't all matter being in a condensed singularity create a black hole singularity?

[@yanwain9454]

well we need to define "big" and "small" more clearly. there needs to be a line in the sand between big objects and small ones. i propose that we call my penis "big" and then refer to everything smaller than my penis as "small"* *we need to agree on a standard for what "room temperature" is first

[@jimfarmer2499]

Do right-handed neutrinos account for Chi? I have been thinking that Chi energy is the counter-expansion factor that makes the universe eventually contract in the expand-contract cycle. Chi does have certain physical effects, but not in accordance with Newtonian physics, and it accounts for some non-physical effects such as the "Hundredth Monkey" phenomenon.

[@DanielPittaluga]

so basically if you want to drag the attention of a windows users into assembly you'll have to explain a bit of the basics, otherwise there is no way we can tell if what you are saying is true or false

[@endofdaysprophet]

My THEORY OF EVERYTHING is a philosophical solution to not worry about things that don't concern me!!!

[@VictorVapirovschi-kk8yv]

Do not let other to understend that there are 3 tipes of matter, when you tolk about 3 generations of matter

[@tomahawkskipper]

What is your theory? In one sentence that my grandmother could understand.

[@i.k.6356]

His theory works by using these 36 quantum fields only in an AdS (Anti-de-Sitter) space, NOT in our real universe without boundary conditions.

[@McRingil]

Why would the world not have boundary conditions

[@mattnewhouse1781]

Every theory of everything I've heard sounds BS