Neil Turok on the simplicity of nature 

As a retired physicist, I look up to Prof. Turok and his wonderful attitude to science in general. All should take inspiration from his attitude.

Thank you both for sharing your time and work Neil, Lauren, and the Perimeter Institute, always proud that we have this institution in Ontario, and that it is supported by our provincial and federal government's, science has a way of clearing the fog and finding answers to some very important questions, peace

Something really refreshing about this interview, honesty, and clarity

All Neil's comments so well stated and the host was equally as perfect.

A rare example of a theoretical physicist who is grounded in the real world.

I like Neil. When he talks about simplicity of nature vs complexity of the ‘middle’ stuff(life) it really seems to ring true. He always brings up the importance of observation in actually confirming theories, which seems so necessary.

Neil is a great communicator with an ability to impart complicated ideas in laymans terms.

I thought this was excellent. Not only was Neil fabulous in his responses and discussion, but I feel strongly that Lauren Hayward did an outstanding job as host. She guided the discussion along broad lines - I really appreciate that. This was about physics, but also about organizations, cultural influences on groups, etc. Bravo Zulu y'all!

The quality of the interviewer questions amazes me. Good work. And hats of to Turok, precise and concise.

RIP Peter Higgs. Neil Turok is so privileged to be a professor at the University of Edinburgh where he holds the Higgs Chair of Theoretical Physics.

This man brings me peace for some reason lol

Niel Turok is a great inspiration to anyone who wants to enter the world of science and not just theoretical physics. The insights and ideas he shares are very universal to science itself as he says in the video and I paraphrase "we in the theoretical physics are very cheap. We can reorganize the structure of how science is done in theoretical physics more easily than in any other field" This is not his exact words but that what I understood. I encourage anyone wanting to enter the world of research and science to listen to this interview and pay attention to what we can learn from 1. The process of doing science 2. The motivations of a person doing science and 3. How to be driven by ones own desires and questions and still contribute and be "useful" to those who employ, recruit or admit us to the institutions that are publicly or privately funded. In other words how can one be a responsible member of society without giving up any of our true innate passions. I am sure you will pickup a few tips at least from Neil Turok in this video interview.

Paraphrasing this great man somewhat, but, “Living up to the opportunity of life, what the world is offering us, and the role we can play in it is sometimes ‘scary’, but is our responsibility; and compromising to ensure safety, such that our lives will succeed in following a conventional path, is a missed opportunity.” . Thank you for this Beautiful and inspiring discussion, Professor Turok. ❤

The ads were jarring in contrast. Neil's voice is so smooth, it makes Brian Cox sound like Fran Drescher.

Here, a living legend beacons in, not only the vicinity of particle physics , but science as a whole. Very good interviews. Thanks for the efforts and keep up the good work.

He and Penrose amaze me in their ability to explain to lay people the short comings of modern physics, the problems with current theories and some of the new solutions and where they came from. So many of the lectures you hear talk about the current theories and how they work so well, but very few are willing to talk about where the current theories are breaking down, the contrarian views and how they are revolutionizing modern physics. This is an amazing video, on par with several of the talks with Penrose that were posted in the last several years.

Vynikající rozhovor. Pan profesor Neil Turok je moudrý člověk.

Nice to see Prof. Turok not only has a sense of the overall status and dynamics of physics but also of a person's place and responsibilities in life. Hear! Hear his call for diversity to foster innovation and to facilitate people that may not fit the standard template of an allround scholar.

Outstanding ! Excellent interviewer and questions and clear air for the very impressive answers !

As an old guy with & education failure..I began hearing things about quantum theory & thought..they must be deranged ...but I just had to find out what the hell they were on about. ..this chat just so excits me...matter doesn't understand size...wow. ..thanx for expanding my micro brain..

I was already a fan of Neil Turok after watching 'The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything'. But here I also met a very wise, cultured and lively person, with a great feeling for the mystery of theoretical physics. Enjoyed it a lot!

A wonderful interview and an exceptional man, thank you.

What a wonderrful guy. I got goose bumps listening to him talking about the "scary world" we live in and how to deal with the resulting "fear" in a responsible way.

Thank you for the podcast. Quite insightful and enjoyable conversation with Neil.

It was a pleasure as a lad to listen to your experiences and insights and still a pleasure to hear more via RU-vid - dan

Kudos, To me, this video should win the prize for the best physics video of the quarter.

He comes across as being very humble but there is a wonderful wit to what he says. "I was very fortunate to work on theories which could be proven wrong". Hear than Michio?

When I studied physics in the early1970s (I later switched to computer science), as an undergraduate student, I worked (paid position, where I learned to program and learned a lot of statistics) in the High Energy Physics (HEP) department, an experimental group. This was at a large state university in the US. We had most of the top floor of the rather large physics building, but there was one, smaller, wing of that floor with theoretical physicists' offices. In fact, Misner's office was there. Although we were all interested in General Relativity and got the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, I don't recall ever going down to their offices to talk, or even say hello. We had weekly departmental seminars, which covered both theoretical and experimental topics. So, there was some interchange there. We would even go to the Cosmos Club for seminars when one of our professors was speaking. When there was a big topic there would be all department meetings. Two I remember. One was when it was thought a magnetic monopole had been detected. The other was when GPS turned on and the use of Einstein's theory on that was discussed.

Very enjoyable interview. Thank you both!

I have not heard about Neil Turok until I watched this video. The video provides a comprehensive and eye-opening summary of the current state of theoretical physics. The conversation is very interesting, both scientifically and philosophically. It is clear that Prof. Turok is a genius. He is also an extraordinary human being, and an extraordinary member of society. It is fascinating to learn about the collaboration between Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking.

Good evening PI and Neil Super sensemaking stuff. Truly grateful. 💜

Ich bin hin und weg. Tiefe tiefe Fragen und Antworten. Ein Kleinod von Interview. Vielen, vielen Dank. Dankeschön! 🎉

Neil seems like a honest and beautiful person first and foremost, and a brilliant communicator with a contagious passion for true physics!

Always look forward to any communications from perimeter.

That was amazing on so many levels: Occam's Razor to theoretical models, the upside down pyramid to support and nurture innovative ideas in education, the cross-cultural fundamental questions... One cannot help but respect.

Adding extra particles is reminiscent of the attempt using cycles and epicycles to describe the motions of the planets. When simple circular motion was not quite right, epicycles were added in an attemp to get a better fit. Eventually the dogma of circular motion was abandoned in favour of elliptical orbits.

Neil is as down to earth as we can possibly hope to find in the rank of greatest theoretical physicists in whom we mere mortals anxiously watch and wait for the next & last (?) of puzzle to be found for cosmology. We are all curious and it’s very reassuring to hear him making this simple comment “Realty is scary… !” That’s so insightful and inspiring.

Wonderful lecture. More people should listen and learn from this individual's approach to difficult problems. I was really taken with the idea of a Plan B. This applies everywhere, not just in Physics. It is a very old idea, that one should develop a primary skill set and make it your life's work. But at the same time develop a secondary skill set as your Plan B. If something happens to the marketplace of ideas or things of your primary, one can then fall back on their secondary. All plans great and small should have a backup plan.

Great and insightful conversation.

Good questions, good answers, good interview.

Neil is a good listen, I do enjoy how he never gives up. It's important, I think, to have this tenacity toward whatever one has decided to invest ones time. Even if in the end it doesn't turn out to bear fruit atleast the entire basket, there's always something positive that shines through. Gravity has weighed physics down for 100 or so years and has kept us grounded in more ways than one. It's time so to speak to move forward and outward away from the atmosphere environment. No holes, just boundaries and spheres. Peace ✌️ 😎.

Always inspired listening to him and how he sees the world.

This is refreshing!

Excellent interview.

More strength to Prof Neil.. 🇿🇦

Oh my GOD. 4:00 range is just testifying to my greatest hope for reality.

Best PI interview/discussion so far. The question I would have asked: There are lots of arrogant people in physics. How much of a problem are they to advancing the science?

Love to hear him communicate science.

From a very young age, I was determined to find out how this giant universe came to be - with little me in it. I had recurring nightmares of being squashed in a corner by the weight of the world. After causing a small explosion in Chemistry, I was kicked out at 15 by an itinerant young teacher who btw would answer any questions outside the text with "I don't know" (our migrant school couldn't find permanent science staff). After 60 years of wandering under the stars, I finally got a job in cancer research which I love. A series of lectures by Leonard Susskind took me into rabbit holes of supersymmetry and possible universes which challenged my grip on reality. You make perfect sense: Physics is applying Logic to Nature and should reflect reality and that three generations of 16 particles is most likely the finite number. Thank you kindly, Prof Neil Turoc.

great conversation... so in one sense we can say that the new ideas like string theories have been more or less guesses but we are where we are and that multiverses and such are not existing and the big bang was just a bang and then it started

this is such an interesting collection of explanations.

Awesome Interview, really nice dude

He has a commanding grasp of his field -- not only the academic side but the full scope of its dynamics

excellent conversation

Really fantastic interview and insights. - perhaps one small step forward in this whole physical debacle will be to treat the word “believe” as a non-word.

I was so happy to hear that he’s listening to the only actual source of useful information, knowledge and intelligence, the nature, and is even looking for simplicity. My kind of thinking. It tells us that we have to focus more on what we are already focusing on for 50+ years, the (machine) computation and try to find the next big thing through that. Forgetting about the scaffoldings we constructed around it, we could finally rely on our trusty intelligence and the nature. At some point, they will be able to reproduce and even possibly enhance themselves in the form of some kind of artificially created computational structure that follows the logic of the nature (hint: mimicking the barely understood neural networks of our brains to achieve intelligence is a weak conception). By creating and applying a (somewhat) strong intelligence, AND pretty much disregarding the crippling network of our always just partially applicable assumptions and the icing of math completely, we could make the next big step outwards after all these flat decades of my lifetime.

Agree, very good communicator. And great shirt :)

Nice talk. Thank you for sharing. Look into cosmic neutrino background/CNB. The antimatter island of stability and the imbalance. Constraints on quantum foam in given energy density regimes. Lumpiness/smoothness of space. Plank and quantum boundaries for black holes and islands of types. Using the universe as a natural cutoff regime or limit. Keep up the good work.

I love the analogy of young people being the flowers on the tree. "A reverse pyramid". Neil knows just what's up. I never liked inflation. Einstein did his best work when he was young. Great conversation.😃

So true, for any field of science!

awesome. Touching.

Super! thank you

Turok is spot on... if I've noticed anything over the years, it's that the vast majority of people will overcomplicate rather than simplify obstacles. This is especially true of bright people; they're so good at computation that they tend to magnify it rather than reduce it. My intuition is that math and physics are at some sort of computational boundary, and whatever the next step will be, it will have a noncomputational aspect to it.

What about movement, motion and momentum as an extra dimension of gravity, as opposed to simply mass and applying both as a general and sub atomic influence as an entangled field of energy and matter on space time, as an overall entropic pressure across multiple dimensions with different degrees of quantum effects due to their various densities according relative spatial variables, across the higher and lower dimensions of those quantum fields?

I like that this guy blows neither smoke nor sunshine. He tells it like it is.

thank you for the kind words

Where is his oft talked about break through on what dark matter/energy are? He has been announcing this for what seems like years.

Great conversations. Thank you. As the Director pointed out, the younger generation seems to have more insecurity when it comes to choosing problems to work on and all that. The physics community is a bit overcrowded, and so it is harder to devote to unusual problems.

I worked at the remote imaging department of national geographic for 18 years and for some of that time the organizational structure was pretty flat. At that time we were able to do a huge amount of interesting projects. we built wild experimental research equipment. Unfortunately a flat organizational structure is not common in large organizations and it is difficult to keep it that way.

I love his notion of simplicity. This is why I have always been skeptical of string theory etc.

I agree with Neil about how to manage research, about how to select and manage the human resources in a research organization. I also agree with Neil about the idea of not to "disconnect" so much from the experimental testings (except if you are a pure mathematician). I do not think that much advance will be achieved in unifying gravity with QM if it is not first understood something much more basic: how the classical framework and the quantum framework coexist. That is, the Quantum framework (unitary evolution) and the classical framework approximate 2 different "realms" of reality. Both realms are part of the same reality, but we do not have a satisfactory "model" saying exactly how or when the QM phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the QM framework) become and cause classical phenomena (phenomena well approximated by the classical framework). It is obvious that there exist a "realm" of the reality that is not well approximated by any of the 2 frameworks. Ideally we should try to find a model (predictive theory) for this more deeper realm of reality that should have QM and Classical frameworks as "limit" cases. We have a set of coarse rules that link both frameworks (needed for QM because our perceptual and conceptual background is classical), and that "link" suggests that causality for the new deeper model should not be space-time bound (non locality), more, space-time should not be fundamental, but just emergent from causality. We should investigate this interface between the quantum "world" and classical "world" with a much more open mind and thru experiments. Instead of investing so much in "discovering" new particles or ordering the particle "zoo", invest in solving more basic problems (analogy: investing in finding new animals/plants species vs. investing in understanding how life works.).

Fascinating interview. I wonder what his take would be on the work of Nima Arkani-Hamed (among others) who suggest that the apprent simplicity of the laws of the universe mask a deeper and richer underlying reality, and that ours is just a highly compressed projection of structures outside of space-time.

great to get an update on dark matter from a leading participant, will have to watch this a few times! Physics has been wandering in the wilderness of too many theories for way too long. I remember reading Gamow's 'Thirty Years that Shook Physics' in high school, and it is high time for another such shakeout.

@26:48 I do know exactly what the entropy of a black hole is. Everything that falls in is turned into a quantum string/particle (depending on BH mass) that is in a perpetual orbit around the descending funnel. That "collection " of fundamental particles, electrons, with quantum entangled information describing the infall with time resolution IS the entropy, BHs are almost nothing but entropy.

Further to my previous comment, The cornerstone of my hypothesis, is that there are just two incredibly small particles that everything that exists in the universe, is composed of. All of the so-called particles that make up the standard model table of particles, are composites of these to particles. I honestly believe that it would be well worth your time, to just consider what I propose. Although it is available in a book, I am more than happy to send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

I hadn't heard of Dr Turok although I had a short theoretical physics career in GR. It was fun to experience the era of black holes and general relativity. Now I am retired and am holding a library of abut 200 books on general relativity, quantum mechanics and mathematics. No one seems to want paper books anymore. I'm not sure to do with this library. Any suggestions?

Concrete examples contrasting contradictory equations/formulations from classical physics and mathematics with their non-contradictory counterparts from infinitesimal/non-standard analysis and monadological frameworks: 1) Calculus Foundations: Contradictory: Newtonian Fluxional Calculus dx/dt = lim(Δx/Δt) as Δt->0 This expresses the derivative using the limiting ratio of finite differences Δx/Δt as Δt shrinks towards 0. However, the limit concept contains logical contradictions when extended to the infinitesimal scale. Non-Contradictory: Leibnizian Infinitesimal Calculus dx = ɛ, where ɛ is an infinitesimal dx/dt = ɛ/dt Leibniz treated the differentials dx, dt as infinite "inassignable" infinitesimal increments ɛ, rather than limits of finite ratios - thus avoiding the paradoxes of vanishing quantities. 2) Continuum Hypothesis: Contradictory: Classic Set Theory Cardinality(Reals) = 2^(Cardinality(Naturals)) The continuum hypothesis assumes the uncountable continuum emerges from iterating the power set of naturals. But it is independent of ZFC axioms, and leads to paradoxes like Banach-Tarski. Non-Contradictory: Non-standard Analysis Cardinality(*R) = Cardinality(R) + 1 *R contains infinitesimal and infinite elements The hyperreal number line *R built from infinitesimals has a higher cardinality than R, resolving CH without paradoxes. The continuum derives from ordered monic ("monadic") elements. 3) Quantum Measurement: Contradictory: Von Neumann-Dirac collapse postulate |Ψ>system+apparatus = Σj cj|ψj>sys|ϕj>app -> |ψk>sys|ϕk>app The measurement axiom updating the wavefunction via "collapse" is wholly ad-hoc and self-contradictory within the theory's unitary evolution. Non-Contradictory: Relational/Monadic QM |Ψ>rel = Σj |ψj>monadic perspective The quantum state is a monadological probability weighing over relative states from each monadic perspectival origin. No extrinsic "collapse" is required. 4) Gravitation: Contradictory: General Relativity Gμν = 8πTμν Rμν - (1/2)gμνR = 8πTμν Einstein's field equations model gravity as curvature in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold, but produce spacetime singularities where geometry breaks down. Non-Contradictory: Monadological Quantum Gravity Γab = monic gravitational charge relations ds2 = Σx,y Γab(x,y) dxdydyadx Gravity emerges from quantized charge relations among monad perspectives x, y in a pre-geometric poly-symmetric metric Γ, sans singularities. In each case, the non-contradictory formulation avoids paradoxes by: 1) Replacing limits with infinitesimals/monics 2) Treating the continuum as derived from discrete elements 3) Grounding physical phenomena in pluralistic relational perspectives 4) Eliminating singularities from over-idealized geometric approximations By restructuring equations to reflect quantized, pluralistic, relational ontologies rather than unrealistic continuity idealizations, the non-contradictory frameworks transcend the self-undermining paradoxes plaguing classical theories. At every layer, from the arithmetic of infinites to continuum modeling to quantum dynamics and gravitation, realigning descriptive mathematics with metaphysical non-contradiction principles drawn from monadic perspectivalism points a way forward towards paradox-free model-building across physics and mathematics. The classical formulations were invaluable stepping stones. But now we can strike out along coherent new frameworks faithful to the logically-primordial mulitiplicites and relational pluralisms undergirding Reality's true trans-geometric structure and dynamics.

If right handed/sterile neutrinos make up some high percentage of dark matter the mass must be pretty high. The highest left handed neutrino is 2.3eV

Might be a good idea to look at MR Keshe way of explanaing our universes... etc etc down to the what he calls the Initial Fundamental particles... His books 1, 2 and 3 are invaluable...

This is what I wrote. The other was a co=pilot rewrite. There are so many things in cosmological physics to think about. Now spacetime is at the forefront of physics, I think. Space is as we see it the container of all the mass/matter/energy within it. Our observations are based on the movements, motions, and spins of the boundary detections from small to large of those mass/matter/energy distributions. Einstein has shown from relativity, both general and specific, that space(time) warps, twists, distorts et.al. in conjunction with proximity of large masses, thereby creating the warped space for matter to combine in a "gravity well" as it aggregates, leading to star, planet, solar and galaxy systems formations. As well as "blackholes'. It is mass/matter/energy and its motions that we measure. All physics breaks down as to a picture of what was before the theory of the "big bang", while also breaking down what is beyond the boundary of the blackhole itself. The real data that metrics of space(time) has the property of quantum fluctuation where particle pairs are both being created and destroyed, and in some cases creating new real particles that stay in the universe at a rate. "The Hawking Radiation" from blackholes. That the before and after, while the before was all mass/matter/energy that we theorize was injected into a something that became the container that is space(time). While the second, and a subset, was the capture within these warped space(time) wells, enough mass/matter/energy that it closed the warp of space(time) into a spherical boundary condition. Where it would consume at a rate the mass/matter/energy that passed that boundary, we note a "volume change" as the blackhole aggregates more mass/matter/energy within the boundary limits. We note "spin" or non-spin of blackholes. Now think outside the box. There are infinitely many possible wavelengths, practical considerations and measurement precision play a role in determining what we can observe and distinguish. In my thinking, I want to know what was the "space" like before such injection of the "big bang". One has to start "imagining" basing those imaginations on the physics we know. How was the "wall" breached? We talk about the big bang as barely a pinhole, maybe smaller than a Planck Length. Injection, expansion, inflation. Into what? It could be small; it could be large. Did the injection actually create the space it injected into? Was there an energy (back to quantum fluctuations) in the injection space? Is there a quantum anode like and a quantum cathode like to the "spaces"? The bang had to have a source before injection. We could deduce the total energy from the big bang that was injected. It is just we get "dark energy and dark matter" into that equation. We can see what we call a gravity effect from an undetectable source. We see mass/matter/energy expansion where clusters are moving away into expanded space. Our measurements have reached differing rates. We are kind of handcuffed by mass/matter/energy as the tool we use to understand this space we live in. With imagination, with education, a consensus could be formed for this pursui

Prof thanks alot for AIMS and NEI

marvelous!

32:19 Both this question and the one that was about the relationship between theor. and exper. phycisists is psychological in nature. Some researchers are scared because it would hurt their ego because a theory they followed is disproven.

I agree with Prf Turok’s attitude to clever mathematical theories that require unknown fields etc. Essentially I believe we already have the physics we need. All that is missing from the standard model is the inclusion of the implications of an inverse mathematical proportionality between time and gravity. The greater the gravity the slower time moves so; a view of a cluster of black holes at say ten trillion AU would take longer to reach us than a solitary star at the same distance. As gravity travels at the same speed of light it too would be affected by the slower passage of time. It is these localised time differentials that interact with the universe in a maelstrom of flows from the big bang (The 73% energy) and vortexes in time and gravity that form galaxies, matter over density's etc. This is not semantics. I am saying we are not orbiting a supermassive black hole, I am saying that we and it are the result of external flows from these intergalactic energy/mass/time patterns. M=E/C2 means a lot of energy has a little mass (Thus the dark mass) Further consider the slowing of time in a black hole as time stops everything stops ,entropy, movement ,vibration so by physics you achieve absolute zero. I see the singularity not as a point but as a zone that can grow with the mass of the black hole. This characteristic also explains their ability to continue absorbing. Anything that enters takes an infinitely long time to slow to a stop. Though from outside the Black Hole I suspect that how quickly that happens depends on the mass. Leaving aside what I take to be easily understood: that in the even more turbulent early universe the “Impossibly “ massive early black holes were force fed mass by these dark mass torrents not by their inherent gravitational pull or any change in the given age of the universe. I want to comment on Prof Turok’s comment starting at 16-26 of the video. He is I assume making a reference to “Cosmic Voids” with all due respect the point cosmologists have not taken into account is that as these voids empty their time is flowing faster and faster relative to their dense galaxy shells so it is not an unknown energy we see it is a time curve. The matter further out moves slower so the faster (Time)matter has caught up with it. I have always been inquisitive about cosmology but I have now firmly nailed my colours to the mast. I recommend a topographic time/mass map of the universe ,if we could quantify how quickly time was flowing at the various things we see it could amongst other things explain that the crises in cosmology: The age of the universe. It is simply that there is no one age it depends on what gravitational /time zone you are in and the gravitational past of what you are observing. It would I think show that cosmic strings can be described as visible evidence of venturian patterns in these Energy/Mass/Time flows. I have explained my full theory before so I will not repeat it here but I can copy /paste if requested. Especially cavitation that is central to my understanding.

Brilliant answer to the first student’s question about her interest in working on quantum gravity. Just keep working on the nuts and bolts of doing science and at some point a key insight or breakthrough will happen.

Why does the white text on default pic have small black smudges?

Neutrino ocean in wave phase resonation, bifurcation skirted by electron casts, reordered in Vortex streets, making up a dual mechanical relative space-time particular to Einsteins description in dual natured relative gravitation as an effect with curvature resulting from pulsating pemiable fluid dynamics in harmonic flow

Great!

Dr. Turok's words on the importance of the scientific community supporting diversity - especially people who might not appear to fit our social comfort zones - are profoundly important and wonderful to hear. Sentiments such as this would be well applied in all areas of human society. Thank you so much for this wonderful interview.

At the very beginning I see the energy pouring into space/time and space/time constraining how the energy could form in the earliest Planck times.

I knew some Turoks in Ottawa and then Tilsonburg and Vancouver...

Loved this guy on Voyager, live long and prosper etc

Curious about the reebok hockey stick behind the gfx panel…

What a lovely human

Second method to create the point particle: It has in the past it has been theorized that gravitational collapse could have set the stage for the big bang. There is a second possibility in that were one to accelerate any quark using all available matter, and energy in any discrete universe one would have the point particle. as this particle accelerates it's path would form a tighter, and tighter curve following the gravitational curvature of space with the final condition conserving all velocity as rotation around it's own axis. One would assume from current observation that this state must be unstable and that what we currently observe is the result of this instability which is exemplified by a lenticular shape to our discrete universeformed of galaxies spread out in spiral arms with each galaxy on a smaller scale also exhibiting similar rotating structures including spiral arms along which stars cluster, down to solar systems again in which all objects exhibit rotation of individual bodies, as well as rotation of these bodies in orbit around steller bodies. I propose that the second method to produce the point particle while just a thought experiment coincides well with all other theory particularly the notion of a body becoming more massful as it is accelerated which was my inspiration for extending that notion to it's ultimate limit. Of note several data zero out at the moment the point partice is alone in thany discrete universe. First it is both at great velocity either linear along the topography of space, or it is rotating at great velocity, but it is also at rest because it is alone in a discrete universe, and there is nothing to compare it to. Second as it accelerates time slows ultimmately reaching zero. There is nothing for gravity to act upon so it's effect becomes zero. Each discrete universe shopuld others exist are defined as one such as ours that will never share a particle, force, or field. Should there exist any shared particle, force, or field between bodies we define as a universe then they are not discrete from each other. Any discrete universe may containe more or less matter/energy, and therefore this higher, or lower aggragate value would be reflected in the maximum velocity exhibited by any point particle it may form. Via E=MC^2 Matter= Energy = Mass at Velocity. Peter A. Schmitz, Crackpot Extraordinair!

18:22 - this makes sense!

I just want to know who's hockey stick that is and if it's signed by Crosby.. :)

I don’t understand what is meant by “principled”. Really curious, please elaborate.

In a material sense, what is this fabric of space? If it were possible to shrink and stand atop an electron, would that electron be hollow? And furthermore, what would you be standing on? My hunch is the ultimate mundane simplicity of the universe is that it just...space. Even the material component of an electron, which can not be broken down further, is simply that the subatomic particles are folds of space....folds in that perceived nothingness we call space. Physics will not reach a paradigm shift or total understanding until we can answer these two questions. What is space? What makes a particle something separate from space instead of something contiguous with space? Intuition tells me that particles are indeed space that is folded. It is the particles that exist in 4 dimensions that we can understand. Space and space time are not 4 dimensional. It is the action of matter in it that shows a four dimensional nature to this fabric of space. Space is a probability field and particles are events occuring within the topology of space. Space is also superdimmensional and isn't constrained by four dimensions. The particles, since they are events within that fabric are constrained by the nature of their existence or the way they are folded. Thus, that is why we have different kinds of particles. These are different propating events that were set in motion....like a loop that can roll down from one end of a string to another, to make an analogy. Space has more than one "side" to it. We are unable to see the other sides because we are made of and using things made of particles constrained to three dimensions. The fabric of space is not constrained to three dimensions and can be as high as 15 dimensions. It is the particles that function in four dimensions only that are the issue. The fabric of space needs to be understood. Once we know all we can about the particles and of energy...and finally can make sense of it all, we will finally see that elephant in the middle of the room... Most of the Cosmos is space. Most of an atom is space. Out of a vacuum virtual particles occur. Zero point energy is real. It is the nature of space that we do not fully understand. But how do we study the void?

When was this Conversation recorded please?