Neil Turok Reveals Shocking Truth: Theorists Are Mostly Wrong!
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 02. 2024
- Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com to win a meteorite 💥
Most of what theorists do is wrong. And most theories are wrong! But as Neil Turok beautifully illustrates in this clip, this realization ultimately brings us closer to the truth. Enjoy!
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #neilturok
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - Věda a technologie
Do we need more experimentalists or theorists (or both) to make progress in Physics?😅
Science died on 9/11 after a protracted illness. We live in a society where 'scientists' advocate for the butchering of children's genitalia. Personally, I will never trust a 'scientist' ever again. I would rather protect children than finance your evil. Sorry, not sorry.
Sir, first of all, we need more entrepreneurs and investors to spend their well-earned money on Physics. Then we can discuss if we have enough experimentalists and/or theorists. :)
@@arldoranbasic research isn't funded by entrepreneurs, nearly all of it is government funded. So we need orders of magnitude more investment into basic research.
@@feedcount you've just underlined what is needed/missing in Physics. Government won't/can't cover enough. We need private capital.
We need more Neil Turoks, to start with.
"To gain knowledge every day, add. To gain wisdom every day, subtract."
That's because most ideas of how to solve a problem are wrong. His willingness to be relentlessly self-critical AND seek public feedback is what makes Dr. Turok such a treasure.
If Turok is in search of FACT'S , he should first abandon mythical concepts of Newton's Gravity and Einstein's Space Bending, then apply Energy to everything.
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 He's a scientist. He's in search of explanations.
@DocAkins
That's not good enough !
A real scientist should be in search of FACT'S so as to deliver transparent explanations !
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 Gravity is not a myth.
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 Facts change. He's a theoretical, not an experimental physicist. As to what observations to consider that's where criticism comes in.
I agree. Richard Feynman said it best .“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
As for the multiverse.. though it is more scientific philosophy. A precursor to the scientific method. The fine tuning argument is the strongest case to the multiverse, especially in the various constance. But he is right. We must first rule out the physics we know before we introduce new physics. Though dark matter being a right handed neutrino is probably wrong. A neutrinos move close to the speed of light. That means we would find it everywhere and not just intergalactic space. Also neutrinos spin oscillates from left to right handed. It is its own anti particle.
The problem is, the Standard Model is verifiably incomplete, so we can only theorise at present as to what's missing, or what are *we* missing. It doesn't seem that the solution is simple. I admire Turok's respect and search for simplicity, but there's no reason IMHO to believe that the universe must intrinsically be simple.
People have said this in history many times. Then someone comes along and drastically simplifies it. They usually win a Nobel when they do.
@@NotSexualAtAll that's true, but it's the outcomes of the simplicity that are complex. A simple linear equation can produce immensely complex outcomes. It may be that our universe is like a fractal. We observe the massive complexity that surrounds us, unaware of the simple equation that spawned it. And there's no guarantee whatsoever that the universe will give up its essential nature to us.
@@NotSexualAtAll Which people? Name them, which shouldn't be too hard since they'll be Nobel Prize winners. And in twenty words or less give us the simplified version of the cosmos. You see, when you speak in generalities and no one holds your feet to the fire to provide evidence, you can get away with saying things like, "most of what theorists do is wrong." As a physicist friend of mine often says... "I'm going to need more information."
He means reductive. He doesn’t understand simple.
@@commodoor6549 They are not Nobel Prize winners but that is because their ideas were developed before the Nobel Prizes were around.
How about Aristarchus of Samos and Nicolaus Copernicus for the Heliocentric model of the Solar System? The Heliocentric model not only allowed a simpler model of the Solar System, but it was used to test Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity and the following rise of science ushered in the Age of Reason. That is worth more far than a Nobel Prize.
I'll leave you with... "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
I’m a software engineer, not a physicist. In my career I was frequently guilty of over engineering. Because the glory and joy of creating something complex! I
Thanks for sharing!
Isn’t over engineering a standard safety factor?
@@tc4660safety for the developer to remain in the job forever 😅
So most theorists don't subscribe to deductive reasoning? Shades of Sherlock Holmes! 😂
I don't get it. I thought this was about publishing papers. How will we publish papers if we can't "theorize" new parameters that fit the evidence better? Why won't anyone think of the papers?
That's right, and god help you if you are so busy teaching, marking test and PhD papers and the like, but you won't retain respect from your peers and the community if you can't publish 'something'. You will need to get like the Asian child prodigy musicians who have to practice 40 hours a day, to get your papers out.
I'm the furthest thing from a theoretical physicist that exists. Yet, fascinated by so many dimensions of the topic. Word: I experienced more clarity, organizational thought, humble reasoning, astute explanation in listening to Mr. Turok for 7mins, than I have in listening to HOURS of Mr. Keating. "Just sayin' ". So thanks for that.
I agree with Neil Turok here.
The work necessary to unveil the whole real, natural and universal dynamic of the Universe is not done yet, and from what I see here it looks like Neil Turok is starting to have a glimpse of it correctly. /
Yes, Neil, there is one very powerful "principle" that explains everything taking place in the true dynamic of the Universe. It is only ONE, it is an absolutely real process, natural, simple and absolutely universal, taking place at any scale, micro and macro, ad infinitum.
We need more particles to make physics and theories great again.
Finally some common sense. Niel Turok is really scientific as opposed to all the imaginary crap from most others . Tired of the multi verse and many worlds bull presented and accepted by the rest of the club.
Well, the universe does not give much of a damn what anyone thinks, and if the evidence does lead towards a multiverse, then follow the evidence, not your ill-feelings. If not, and we are able to rule out multiverses, you can breathe a sigh of relief. That time has not yet come.
"The universe is under NO obligation to have your expected value of fields"
Napoleon Bonaparte
So no flat-Earth but flat-Universe? Physics is definitely lost…
(0:42)
Five Numbers: G, c, h, e.
What's the fifth number? Proton mass?
Fine structure constant
@@DrBrianKeating Ah yes, 'alpha', Thanks.
There is the Cosmological Constant Λ also.
@@DrBrianKeatingThe fine structure constant is defined by the others ( c, h, e...) , it's not independent.
The fifth independent constant is Λ, the Cosmological Constant.
When theorists started talking about the double slit experiment as some kind of evidence of a multiverse, i checked out. I wasted a lot of money on 'popular' books like that in the last 20 years.
Such refreshing clarity. The minimalist approach of Dr. Turok is long overdue.
All the things being talked about do have one positive aspect, they have provided numerous theoretical physicists, who have added no new knowledge, with very good incomes, usually at tax payer expense. String theory is a good example of this, four plus decades and no evidence. It has of course provided much entertainment to those people who keep busy concocting new imaginary geometries to try to justify their existence. The problem with this is the world has serious real existential problems which should be and are not being dealt with. The people involved are generally very smart, intelligent, and well trained, and their abilities are being wasted, while we have real problems which need to worked on and solved if we, as a species, are to continue to exist. This is a kind, to a person sitting in their house and contemplating what new color to paint their living room. while their house is on fire and burns down around them.
Not to mention they provide endless amounts of content for CZcams videos and podcasts so people can prattle on about the same subjects ad infinitum and never come to any conclusion.
I mean literally thousands of hours a week of hot air being recorded these days.
Best post, summed up what I was thinking. Hey, here's a broom...haha
I remember that Lori Gardi met him and took a picture with him. She said she was a fan. Lori Gardi has an idea of the Mandelbrot and a black hole. After I discovered ( something) I asked her if she wanted to collaborate . She declined. I was into watching the oddballs .. those out of the system, on the fringe… I mean if everyone is saying 10 different things then ( like sir Arthur Evans) they’re probably deliberately avoiding something or so stuck on a position for various reasons.
"If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
The full interview with Neil Turok (from about 6 months ago) is an absolute hit. Because there are not only new suggestions, but also a great overview of the current status. I immediately recommended that one of my children who is thinking about to choose physics. Which I very much support, as fascinating as I find this subject also.
In any case, I can only recommend everyone to watch it in its entirety. At least once. Because it's really outstanding (although the other videos are great too).
Thank you for your very good channel and all the best for it.
can you give a name of the video pls?
@@Andrius319 DE
"Why Neil Turok Believes Physics Is In Crisis". CZcams says it was from a year ago, but it was a circa six months ago.
CZcams probably classifies it that way (or the channel put it there again). No matter: you should be able to find it and it's really worth it.
I am just happy if the scholars are teaching actual physics and real math. I don't debate unverifiable propositions.
Neil Turok is the champion of “cyclic universes” that collapse and kickstart Big Bangs without leaving a trace of their past history. Of all unverifiable propositions, you cannot be more grandiose than that!
OR, maybe nature is “messy”¿ Like others have noted “lost in the search for simplicity or the beauty of simplicity & elegance”!!
A good step to review where is " the standard Model " stand . Higgs field is it's own limitations. A thought provoking potential with your freedom of free will to see the hats on nature.
The black and white objects diagram, around solution, not only thermodynamics an unique card out of 52.
Truth seeker in voice and deed.
Plane and void . THANK, THANK, THANK.
Reformulate every possible question that can be asked about a system. We constantly see natural systems pushing back on us drawing lines through them .
Up around 3 degrees the linear kicks back. Infinite degrees of freedom yet uniformity timelessness without linear direction but we want to complicate it with old world form and shape lines of thought which is how we have to experience and view it.
Well, Turok's assertion that the dark matter is made up of sterile neutrinos is also controversial, and it has not yet be proven to exist either.
“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”
-Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it. Kelvin was a devout Christian.
He was a bit of an idiot. He talked about 'the end of science' being nigh. God botherers usually have an agenda, and are suspect as neutral and non-partisan observers of nature.
The whole “multiverse” nonsense was a desperate attempt to explain away the insane fine tuning of the universe for life precisely like ours. Let’s be honest about that.
Now that it’s generally excepted to be a load of bunk (no evidence, string theory dead) what then ?
I believe (for what it’s worth) more progress can be made if the intelligent design suggestion is seriously considered.
Whether it’s the initial conditions, physical constants, or the functional, highly complex information in DNA, it cannot be denied.
The holy grail of Physics being a unified mathematical model which can do even better data-fitting, best leave things to the mathematicians.
The oddballs amongst us who are more interested in understanding the fundamental and the mechanism whereby all the apparent phenomena are produced, have had plenty of data from models and experiment.
Given the history of geocentric epicycles, we know that, when things start looking weird and unintuitive, our paradigm is most likely wrong.
Indeed, sound philosophical principles can clear this up, but not the misunderstandings inherited from Aristotle.
Experimental outcomes and modeling implications have forced physicists to admit the truth, but they treat it as a joke, instead of escaping the paradigm which forces the weirdness.
Physicsts, just listen to yourselves!
Space isnt empty, Matter is comprised of nothing and Time is illusory.
Now, constrain your explanation to something which respects this very basic metaphysical principle:
Existence is self-similar at many scales.
Meet that challenge, and understanding why QM, GR and offspring work becomes as trivial as understanding orbits, post Copernicus.
Consider it a beginner's exercise in the fundamentals of logical deduction ;)
Neil Turok should look at the life's work of Shuji Nakamura, who didn't think in simple terms of what we knew. He went with the more complex solutions and challenged the general consensus that the blue led was not going to happen and certainly not using gallium nitride. You have to be able to think outside the box because sometimes that is where the evidence leads. And yes, there will be wrong answers. But if you're afraid of being wrong, you're not likely to find what is possible.
Thank you for putting out highlight reels. They are very helpful and more accessible to layman like me.
Sir, you have to say "what most theorists of high energy physics do is wrong". Do not involve the many excellent theorists of condensed matter physics for example.
The big bang theory would explain a black hole if all was condensed
A Paradign shift is hard for scientists. Interpret as you want this affirmation.
True. If the Big Bang is disproven, or if the stellar model (including gravitational collapse) is refuted, you're going to see a lot of gnashing of teeth. Already, people are in a tizzy because we still don't have any proof of black holes. They might exist, they might not. But some people don't like it when you suggest that they might not!
what are the 5 numbers?
yeah that would be interesting to hear... fundamental constants i assume, but which ones, and why these ones?
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.. duh.
Weren't you paying attention he distinctly said it's all simple bare minimum bare neccessity economical.
@@emberscotthe did not say 1, 2, 3, 4,5 , you were dreaming, everyone else just heard economical and the universe needs 5 numbers.
velocity of light in vacuum (c);
the charge of the electron, the absolute value of which is the fundamental unit of electric charge (e);
the mass of the electron (me); Planck's constant (h);
the fine-structure constant alpha
Thanks. I would have thought G would be in there too. Maybe the other e, or i, or pi. Seems I was thinking of theoretical numbers rather than oberservational. @@paulensor9984
A new idea in physics? Stars in the sky might have patterns, or codes, in how they are arranged. Morse Code is a collection of dots and dashes that mean something, infer purpose and design. What if some alien civilization survived for a billion years? Maybe they learned to move stars around Maybe you can find the Periodic Table, in patterns of stars in the sky. If you did: Aliens arranged that.
Hello Neil (spock)Turok it's ALEX 79suited and I'm excited to hear this tiny bit. I disagree about dark matter, I believe it's just spent energy or information has to go somewhere. But I'm going to read up on some of your work just to see what you got. I doesn't need to be hard as I've been saying for a long time. Goodluck. Peace 😎 ✌️ from Canada, eh. Great short Brian
Turok is on track.
Physics and most jobs are complicated for one reason… job security
This video couldn't have come at a better time! Everyone is feeling it!
Neil is spot on Brian. Quantum theory defies Occam’s razor. Let alone the extra fields/dimensions/particles
Didn’t Robert Dicke say that the Redshift from long distance is to be expected as an artefact of general relativity? That would mean the universe does not need to be expanding.
No it's an effect of his Variable Speed of Light cosmology. Mass distribution affects the time and length scale of light between emission and receiver. He proposed that the universe is not expanding, it is the light that is losing energy or was redshifted from the dense distribution of matter earlier in the universe.
@@randymartin5500 This is super interesting. Never heard that before. So basically, redshift could be caused by either movement of the object, or the loss of energy (not totally sure what that means TBH).
Gas in a room will distribute itself evenly when it's the only gas theirin, and Atmospheric gas distribution reveals you're off the mark, with a million different gas fighting for position.
If gas is introduced into a 100 meter cylinder on the earth's surface, will the gas distribute itself uniformly?
Every horizon moves when the point of perception moves. Likewise, assumed fundamental forces and particles as well as rules of nature, constants and axioms change interdependently while we are observing them differently. This proves that none of them have ever actually been fundamental. There might be things that are, in fact, fundamental in a certain context. We could even test other fundamental categories like space-time, matter-energy and information-intelligence when we observe the discoverable reality - that we tend to consider to be “everything that exists”, but note that we can also consider data, instruction and order of execution to be fundamental inside a computer. What I’m trying to highlight is that, while working with computers, we must not try to emulate physical reality, with all its insane amount of irrelevant complexity, but we must rather find the fundamentals of a computer, and compare it with nature’s fundamentals to find the common nominator, something like the duality of information and intelligence - one of them cannot be pictured or defined without considering or using the other.
What is wrong with introducing charge. Just regular charge. Only if the charge distribution n cessation to explain current measurements are physically not possible, why assume there is no charge? How can we assume dark matter but assume there is no charge or charge currents?
It must be simple. It’s so fast that’s just the general concept it’s fundamental to understanding our existence.
In my humble opinion that "Nature has been smarter" is not the reason for not finding a particle other than the Higgs. The main reason is that everyone is focused solely on finding the Higgs and nothing else. If you want to find only the Higgs and look only for the Higgs, you will reject a whole universe of other particles. Which is most likely happening.
Nice, sharing with comments.
Thanks for sharing
I am waiting for a simplification. Just get the number down to 4 from 5, and we will find it easier to understand..
one of my favorite takes for sanity's sake :D
Well, all is missing now is his new… Theory. Can’t wait to study that.
So when the IPCC made major hypotheses 5 times where each failed…???
This must be Sabine Hossenfelder's best friend. :D
The bitchy theorists club.
Neil Turok, a gas spreads whenever it's the strongest in it's vicinity, it's the following of Universal Law, The stronger Energy Flow overrides the Weaker Energy Flow, which we experience on a daily basis happening with Earth Atmosphere .
Overriding… do you mean the streaming of mobile phone waves ?
@SMMore-bf4yi
Yes !
Energy in whole works with that principle.
The mobile Phone has a designated Channel, unlike scattered Particles fighting for positions to connect with the next strongest energy signal in it's vicinity.
Phone Signals do not have Wave's.
0:40 Observationally, we need only five numbers? I'm quite skeptical, unless advances in physics have passed me by. With G = hbar = c = 1, all masses are dimensionless so I count six quark masses and six lepton masses right off the bat. Then there's the fine-structure constant and a similar QCD quantity and possibly a similar weak quantity. With the electroweak force, do we need anything beyond the fine-structure constant, the W mass, and the Weinberg angle? (Is the weak coupling constant independent of those three?) Then there are mixing angles for both quarks and neutrinos, four each. What about a non-zero cosmological constant?
6:00 You seem to be telling us that the flat universe is a stable equilibrium. But the original reason behind "inflation" was that the flat universe is an unstable point in straight general relativity. Does Hawking radiation change this? Was there really enough time?
Lee Smolin makes a serious case for trouble in theoretical fundamental physics, in "The Trouble with Physics".
Physics is obviously beyond the Standard Model both because of gravity and because the Standard Model still has the seams and duct tape visible.
Time doesn't exist it's a human construct
Which is impossible to do because you’re only seeing a portion of the code of thermodynamics your concept of entropy is merely the observer, unable to manage the code
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ can you please make the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis
99qp8 • A 'hypothesis' is the newest idea.
A 'theory' is a multitude of old erroneous hypotheses that are all encased TEMPORARILY in cement.
@@mikel4879 ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ love your comment
I think what Turok is hinting at is the limitations of humanity.
Like Neil, he's a good egg. Respectfully disagree with his take on universal flatness, as it (spacetime) appears curved if not spherical from sub-atomic to JWST scales? It appears flat to observers contained therein as all things fermionic are apparently in free fall acceleration, and dark matter and energy and perhaps dark flow too are unaccounted for spacetime curvature, spacetime curvature radiation and regions of rotating helical spacetime vortices with permittivity and permeability properties?
Is the universe a simple evenly mixed coffee cup, seeing how matter and magnetism, if not very large scale electric currents too, are increasingly appearing to reside in helical rotating universal filaments with angular momentum and acceleration? The 2nd derivative of magnetic fields for example tends toward an increase in their filamental curvature over time? The universe's matter accumulations rather looks, via emitted and reflected bosons, similar to neural networks in grey matter rather than transparent dark matter? All matter to observers also, appears to fall and accelerate at the constant speed of light? Are these observations too simple as explanations?
Gosh Neil, you have a great idea then immediately fall over the primary mis understanding, which is that the Higgs Particle is not a functional particle at all. It is simply what happens when you super saturate a portion of the Higgs Field with so much energy that it momentarily becomes particle like. Consider what has to happen to create that particle like substance. You’ve directed two protons directly towards each another with a closing speed of twice the speed of light. As the mass of those two particles gets ever closer the Higgs Field energy meniscus which can only resolve at the speed of light is pushed out of the way probably in a donut like ring to then snap into a spherical particle form before dissipating.
I implore you to consider this from another perspective, in reverse. The mass of any atom is observed at the electron shell and proportional to the number of Protons and Neutrons, as too is its gravitational “attraction” parameter. Quantum field theory suggests that energy intensity in the tiny/huge space between the mean of the electron shell and the boundary of the Neucleus is flat.
I put it to you that the energy intensity of the Higgs Field in this space is exponential from the particle mass intensity at the mean of the electron shell to Higgs Particle intensity in the energy turbulent zone encompassing the Quarks. The Higgs field at its greatest intensity is an energy containment shell/field (the Strong Nuclear Force). What is the Higgs Field made from? I suggest closed loop strings which are energized by the open string energy of quarks, similar to the magnetic charge of a transformer coil. Locally the atom is in balance with the field but in open space the Higgs Field has an energy intensity gradient, determined by the amount of matter in any one placeattoms will move towards the highest Higgs Field intensity level as determined by the by the gradient, and this is what is experienced as Gravity. Gravity is produced by the energy of atom nuclei fighting against the Higgs Field. The Higgs Field pushes matter together on the one hand, and pushes large masses of matter apart, this is what we observe as Dark Energy. Dark Matter is also a property of the Higgs Field but by a different property of it. That property being that as the field is closed loop energy, once it is energized by open loop energy as in the case of a proton Nucleus, if that nucleus suddenly vanishes the charge containment field stays energised as if the nucleus was still there as the field being closed loops cannot discharge its energy readily. So if a large body of matter vanishes, then there is a area of space that appears to have matter (and so also gravity) and can bend light in the same way a gravitational body does.
How does a large body of matter disappear? In a Neutron Star collapse. The field energy required to maintain a highly dense neutron star is far greater than is required to contain the collapsed matter. The Higgs Field pulls back from being enmeshed with the neutron nuclei to form a containment boundary similar to what happens when you slam 2 protons together at the speed of light, on ly that is an outside in reaction where the neutron star collapse is an inside out reaction.
Simple.
And as you say, Nature is very economical in tis structure. Just 2 primary components. Static Closed Loop Energy (the Higgs Field), and Dynamic Open Loop String Energy (Matter).
I see the Universe as an Energy Emulsion guided by the observed Quantum Properties and Nature of Energy.
Scientists' job is theory. Gives other scientists a job (like Professor Keating) to establish truth. Still think a lot to find out.
It would seem to me that Alpha, 1/137 is a ratio of size attributable to a ratio of scale of the bounds of the universe to its center. Meaning that the ratio Alpha from atomic to solar system
is the same as center of the sphere to outer bounds of the universal sphere. Maybe there is a shell of frozen hydrogen at the outer boundary, as a hermetic seal for the vacuum pressure.
Never trust a man who named himself after a dinosaur hunter.
There would’ve been any amount of cleaver ppl over time not influenced by mainstream theories, worked out correct math, geometry , compartmenting….
And being this cleaver do you really think they going to be silly enough to say hey over here, heads chopped off… being too cleaver doesn’t work for most, even today, imagine bruised egos & institutions …
And those being cleaver then employment not an issue….
Obviously DaVinci kept within the boundaries, just enough on paper but imagine that in his head !
I am a simple person, I like simple, simple is good, I can understand simple.
It’s all geometry, spin, rotation, and law of attraction
Neil seems sympathetic and one can easily enjoy his limited mea culpa hangout of 40 years (rather 100 years) of physics failure. But it is not about ‘adding only limited new stuff to what we already know’ as per his closing words of this snippit. It is not even about the 5 constants of nature he mentioned. How does that EXPLAIN anything? They merely describe what we think we see. Nor are they a constants. G is anything but a constant. It is an average of measures periodically undertaken. C is not a constant either. It varied significantly especially around the 40’ s last century. We cheated by artificially making C a constant by redefining the meter in terms of speed of light. No Sir. Of Neil wants to find simplicity he should not worship what THINK we know, but question what simple principle must underlie all of our descriptive theories. Thats what Newton was obsessed with and did not quite figured out correctly. What is the ultimate symmetry and balance ? Take another look at Einsteins SR Neil. Its incomplete. Motion is the key to everything.
Neil Turok remains inside the box he is looking for more economic ways to describe the box content... He refuses to consider that our box could be a tiny part of a way more grandiose assembly and his rational is that if we have difficulty to understand just our box it is pointless to try to comprehend a way more complex a higher empires... It's a reasonable rational BUT just a different insight to the problem from a higher levels of hierarchy without its detailed comprehension may allow dramatically simplify the models... Hipparchia, Ptolemaic Epicycles is one of such very illustrative example...
Does the theory precede the discovery? I think they should work in tandem. You play discover rebuild your theory and discover more. That’s the cycle right? I like his approach. It seems sensible to me.
Everything everyone does is "wrong" because our starting point is almost certainly not even actual reality.
That's humbling and freeing and equalizing.
No. Everything you do is actual reality. Actual reality is the only thing that exists.
@@autopilot3176 so the way our brains process is our reality?
Are you serious?
@@jaredcrenshaw7665 You're asking me "if I'm serious" for something YOU JUST SAID, before I even saw it? Something is wrong with your brain, I think your brain works in shuffle mode. Of course it's actual reality, all people see the same thing with their eyes, hear the same with their ears. Evolution doesn't work by adapting to imaginary scenarios, otherwise we would all be dead, billion years ago. Our senses work with specific ranges of EM spectrum. These are basic things, read about it, it's not that hard.
@@jaredcrenshaw7665 All people see the same with their eyes, hear the same with their ears and so on. Evolution doesn't work by adapting to imaginary scenarios, otherwise we would all be dead, billion years ago. Our senses work with specific ranges of EM spectrum.
@@jaredcrenshaw7665 Of course it's actual reality, all people see the same thing with their eyes, hear the same with their ears. Evolution doesn't work by adapting to imaginary scenarios, otherwise we would all be dead, billion years ago. Our senses work with specific ranges of EM spectrum, but all objects are real and present, regardless of missing details along the rest of the spectrum.
Is a chili dog with some greasy fries gonna make me go to the bathroom?
We heard all about being relentlessly objective and basing theory only the few known facts. Then there was a brief mention of minimum assumptions; isn't he supposed to be clear eyed about everything?
Hasn't everything that science has proven to be real or factual once started out as a theory?
Funny how I see this video right after arguing with someone about how "string theory" as a term just muddies the water when you try to politely explain to someone that "theory" in scientific method doesn't mean "well maybe it werks like this"
If spacetime locally can be 'not flat', would lead to in also being 'globally not flat' either.
Now is the issue, 'what specifically do you mean by flat?'
And granted, I'm inferring the 'universe' as a spacetime definition, maybe incorrectly so in your context.
Thank you Gentlemen
What Kind a Iron Meteorite, Stony-Iron, Chondrite, Achondrite etc? Carbonaceous Chondrites are my Favorite like CV3 or CI Types!.
He had me up until he mentioned dark matter and dark energy....both of which are unproveable. One overcomes gravity and the other only acts gravitationally...seems to me we should spend more time studying gravity than trying to solve a decades old mathematical problem, rather than trying to come up with more particles and energies to explain things... 😉
Macro scale quantum coupling effect postulated by Wolfgang Pauli. (Exclusion principle) Effect was instantaneous and very painful. Dragster fast thru the wall circuitry. 14 feet in 1 possibly 2 seconds That was a 120 volt circuit. If the mass I was attached to was the size of a electron I should have traveled 120 meters to 240 meters in that time frame. Go figure
3:08 Apparently he still doesn’t get it, nature didn’t figure out anything. The universe is obviously a creation.
[Sincere attempt to frame "the problem" in Religion vs Science]:
*It is impossible for a contradictory thing to be true.*
A non-contradictory thing could be true or false, depending on context, but at least has the *possibility* of being true.
❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good; Functions; limit built into every operation)❌️:
1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character.
2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus).
3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics).
✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good from Evil; Relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️:
1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters.
2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).
3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).
[🐴Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍
[🐶Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:
The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers.
Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago!
(Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧
[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:
locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")
not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")
[Closing arguments]:
The Materialism/Empiricism package brings with it all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level?
If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (which hasn't been true for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (which has been true for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[infinity and zero, God, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]:
0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.
0D monad (Creator event horizon)
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions
1D line
2D width
3D height
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions
4D length
5D breadth
6D depth
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions
7D continuous
8D emission
9D absorption
10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)
It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.
The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.
The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.
Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator).
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real or "more real")
The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Elohim; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Elohim; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who constantly messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️).
Blind fool Yah Tsebaoth (Yaldabaoth) is chief of the false Elohim. "the LORD of the gods", or "smartest dummy".
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter
THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME
And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?”
And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them.
The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought.
And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all.
Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them.
For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me.
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
I'm still waiting for any feedback/comment on my two papers I have 'published' in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations over the last year. One on quantum and the fractal-how the fractal too has quantum-like problems, including the measurement, wave-particle etc; and the other, using the same geometry, on cosmological observations and fractal. I come to this from the outside; I am just calling out the coincidence.
_“Most of what theorists do is wrong”._ Well, tell me ONE thing that Neil Turok ever proposed that is predictive rather than an explanation _ex post_ (and without _ad hoc_ unobservable elements, such as “mirror universes” or “cyclic universes”). Not even wrong!
Please explain gravity if space is flat.
what a beam of sunshine
Push down the Elders.
They are too arrogant.
They are keep mismatching our younger generations.
And try to disrupt into hallucinated world now.
They are not real humans.
Scientists have no response for this observation. The speed of light C isn’t constant since the measures of time and distance aren’t constant over larger distances. It’s like changing from 60 kilometers an hour to 60 miles an hour increases your speed. Then if you go from 60 miles an hour to 60 miles a minute it increases your speed even more. This what is happening in general relativity when less gravity increases the measure of distance and speeds up the rate of time over large distances. It also means that the earth is younger than what they claim. The universe doesn’t care about how young the earth is.
Actually the changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is.
This eliminates the need for dark matter because it makes everything move faster the less gravity there is. Dark energy isn’t needed it’s accumulation of the pull of gravity on the light that causes the redshift.
Er.. bollocks.
Space isn't flat
I like this fella!
Me too
Incredible
Can we now explore the intricacies of Gaia (Earth) and all the plant life that could fix health problems?
Just curious 😂
Geometry doesn’t lie mathematics does
Gravity isn't physics it's chemistry
Liquids gasses and solids all interacting taking their place amongst each other in a closed system.
Space is an open system and under a different set of laws.
🎉
Isnt that what Einstein said, it should be simply
I found the theory of everything ten years ago.
There are no black holes.
This guy is sharp but I doubt they solved dark matter, with a neutrino?
THE MAN NEIL TUROK!!! SO MUCH YEEEEESSS!!!!
Watching soon, based on first few words, sure far under 1% of hypotheses will pan out to advance science and those with the greatest potential are likely outside the current consensus box. So don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. In Pearlman YeC at ResearchGate we found to advance in science means learning and applying maximum available context that includes Torah testimony.