Do we need more experimentalists or theorists (or both) to make progress in Physics?😅

"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.

I agree. Richard Feynman said it best .“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”

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.

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

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?

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.

So most theorists don't subscribe to deductive reasoning? Shades of Sherlock Holmes! 😂

(0:42) Five Numbers: G, c, h, e. What's the fifth number? Proton mass?

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.

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.

OR, maybe nature is “messy”¿ Like others have noted “lost in the search for simplicity or the beauty of simplicity & elegance”!!

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.

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.

"The universe is under NO obligation to have your expected value of fields" Napoleon Bonaparte

I am just happy if the scholars are teaching actual physics and real math. I don't debate unverifiable propositions.

what are the 5 numbers?

Thank you for putting out highlight reels. They are very helpful and more accessible to layman like me.

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.

Turok is on track.

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.

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 ;)

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.

We need more particles to make physics and theories great again.

Nice, sharing with comments.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

This video couldn't have come at a better time! Everyone is feeling it!

one of my favorite takes for sanity's sake :D

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.

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.

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.

It must be simple. It’s so fast that’s just the general concept it’s fundamental to understanding our existence.

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?

Physics and most jobs are complicated for one reason… job security

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.

A Paradign shift is hard for scientists. Interpret as you want this affirmation.

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.

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.

I am waiting for a simplification. Just get the number down to 4 from 5, and we will find it easier to understand..

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.

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 .

So no flat-Earth but flat-Universe? Physics is definitely lost…

Neil is spot on Brian. Quantum theory defies Occam’s razor. Let alone the extra fields/dimensions/particles

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ can you please make the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis

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.

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.

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

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?

What Kind a Iron Meteorite, Stony-Iron, Chondrite, Achondrite etc? Carbonaceous Chondrites are my Favorite like CV3 or CI Types!.

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

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.

Incredible

"If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein

It’s all geometry, spin, rotation, and law of attraction

Please explain gravity if space is flat.

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...

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

Time doesn't exist it's a human construct

If gas is introduced into a 100 meter cylinder on the earth's surface, will the gas distribute itself uniformly?

So when the IPCC made major hypotheses 5 times where each failed…???

what a beam of sunshine

The big bang theory would explain a black hole if all was condensed

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

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?

Scientists' job is theory. Gives other scientists a job (like Professor Keating) to establish truth. Still think a lot to find out.

Well, all is missing now is his new… Theory. Can’t wait to study that.

I like this fella!

Such refreshing clarity. The minimalist approach of Dr. Turok is long overdue.

[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 🪙).

3:08 Apparently he still doesn’t get it, nature didn’t figure out anything. The universe is obviously a creation.

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.

I am a simple person, I like simple, simple is good, I can understand simple.

Hasn't everything that science has proven to be real or factual once started out as a theory?

Space isn't flat

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.

I think what Turok is hinting at is the limitations of humanity.

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... 😉

This must be Sabine Hossenfelder's best friend. :D

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.

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 !

_“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!

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"

Everything everyone does is "wrong" because our starting point is almost certainly not even actual reality. That's humbling and freeing and equalizing.

There are no black holes.

THE MAN NEIL TUROK!!! SO MUCH YEEEEESSS!!!!

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. 🎉

Can we now explore the intricacies of Gaia (Earth) and all the plant life that could fix health problems? Just curious 😂

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.

I found the theory of everything ten years ago.

Isnt that what Einstein said, it should be simply

I don't think Neil Turok is correct and his statements are a bit contradictory. He asserts that models should be simple (5 numbers) but at the same time, says we're missing something. Generally, when you model something and the system is complex, you need more many symbols, relations, and statements of truth to derive the complexities. The idea that you just need a more "general" but predictive and powerful model is a bit contradictory.

If the universe is flat then wouldn't that mean the earth is ...? Can we get some more guesses in here please.

This guy is sharp but I doubt they solved dark matter, with a neutrino?

Is a chili dog with some greasy fries gonna make me go to the bathroom?

Never trust a man who named himself after a dinosaur hunter.