The Problem with Theoretical Physics | Neil Turok

Support TOE:

Follow TOE:

Join this channel to get access to perks:

#physics #science

[samrowbotham]

“Every year new, short-lived elementary particles are discovered. Frequently their existence is predicted before their discovery. It has been seriously suggested that these particles are being produced, rather than discovered, by the sustained mental efforts of physicists around the world. Although we have been conditioned to accept naïve realism by our scientifically based education, such an idea cannot be dismissed out of hand.”
Professor A.J. Ellison circa 1973

[Mikeduffey_]

Neil is the man. Round table with Neil, Eric, and Roger.

[alexswash]

i think that when Neil was talking about strings having 6 extra dimensions of space and M-theory having 7 dimensions of space, he was talking about the additional compact dimensions we have on top of our familiar 1+3 dimensions! so not really a mistake :)

[paulhansen]

I sympathize with Neil's desire for simplicity, which is why I felt very attracted to the (rather new) Structured Atom Model (SAM) by Edo Kaal and his team -- and also because I like geometry and structure. According to SAM, physics took a wrong turn at the 7th Solvay Conference in 1933, where the neutron was declared to be a fundamental particle. Instead, the neutron is a "PEP" (proton-electron pair). The astounding conclusion is that every atomic nucleus has the same number of electrons as neutrons, and that same number of additional protons. More astounding is that the electrons can hold the nucleus together -- no need for the strong force, weak force, quarks, etc. Now that's simplification!

[johnbihlnielsen]

A mirror beginning and a never ending sea of photons. I tend to go with Roger Penrose’ cyclic cosmology (which Niel Turok did himself a few years ago). But unlike in CCC I have developed a physical theory for connecting the end of Eaons with the beginning of a new Eaons, Eternal Cosmic Cosmology.

[SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.

In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.

1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface

137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.

The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)

If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
.

[jimgraham]

Thanks guys, I am a great fan of Neil's thinking.

Personally, i think the nature and theory of solitons sheds a lot of light on the fundamental nature of matter. Some 'mysteries' like wave particle duality more or less go away when viewed in this manner.

[mykofreder]

Maybe there is a theory of why there are no high energy particles, like the periodic table having a limit on naturally occurring elements and the stability of the elements on the far edge.

[UFOgamers]

He is contradicting himself. If we want to only rely on observations, then we should throw dark energy and dark matter out of the equations. Not a single direct observation nor experiment showed they exist. Only duct tape to our old models so that they explain the expansion of the universe, and correct the galaxy rotation issues...
I believe the laws of physics are scale dependent. There is no global equation you can use to predict everything at every scale.

[Raging.Geekazoid]

The real problem is breaking out of the Bohr-Feynman "STFU and calculate" mentality and figuring out what "particles" really are. The entire 20th-century framework of quantum physics has to be replaced by something radically different, IMHO probably one where infinitely dense little point thingies and multidimensional string thingies and brane thingies don't even exist (as people have been saying recently, probably because space itself doesn't exist).

[PeterRice-xhcj]

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides.
So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.

[cybervigilante]

That's public physics. We have no idea what has been going on with DARPA physics, which was not constrained by String Theory Madness.

[sergiogiudici]

I like the "minimalism" euristic approach but what Is Dark matter? It Is an effective single number which "summarizes" others degrees of freedom

[jasonwilliams]

In all of your study’s, no one’s ever asked the right question!
Here I’ll phrase it for you “can experience stop?”
Now answer it from your perspective, based off the measurements (restrictions) of your form.

[sonnycorbi]

I remember when CERN got started - (paraphrasing); CERN ran its 1st test, give or take - they post in the “news” “WE HAVE EXCEEDED THE SPEED OF LIGHT” - To which I replied in my LOUDEST POSSIBLE VOICE: “NO YOU DID NOT” - The very next day CERN RETRACTED ITS COMENT, “WE ALMOST DID IT”, (again paraphrasing) -

I would like someone to PLEASE tell me that CERN does something besides bursting distilled-quantum cosmic pixels - and elaborate please, what are those other types of experiments -

[Boballoo]

Love your stuff, Curt! Make the Universe real!

[gregorysagegreene]

Bjorn Ekeberg's 'Jenga Tower'.

[mmmao]

Can you predict how gravity works at 10^19GeV? If you don’t then we do need ‘new’ ingredients

[WacKEDmaN]

the biggest problem with theoretical physics these days is over inflated EGOs.... majority of them (NDT being #1 on the list) make out they know everything and are above everyone else after writing one paper on some obscure topic that brings nothing new to the table...
...how many times was Hawking wrong?, how many times did he change his mind?.... how many years did he stagnate physics?....
...Neil Turok on the other hand...has the goods to back up the ideas...

[PeterRice-xhcj]

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to have a sense of being, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we don’t have a sense of being. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second).