The (Simple) Theory That Explains Everything | Neil Turok 

Curt's "String Theory Iceberg": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X4PdPnQuwjY.html TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - The Big Bang Is A Mirror 15:40 - Minimalism In Physics 28:28 - Neil’s Theory “Minimalism SM LCDM” 31:20 - Fields Vs. Particles 49:15 - The Arrow Of Time (Bolztmann) 55:44 - Black Hole Singularity Vs. Big Bang Singularity 01:09:21 - Numerology And The Number 36 01:19:26 - Neil’s Theory Solves EVERYTHING 01:23:32 - What Do Other Scientists Think? 01:36:28 - The Dual Universe 01:44:14 - Predictions From Neil’s Theory 01:48:28 - What Motivates Neil? 01:52:20 - Wave Function Of The Universe 01:57:20 - Support TOE

I see that other comments say much the same, but here is mine. In more than 50 years as an interested layman I have read / watched dozens, maybe hundreds, of books, articles, TV programmes / videos concerning these matters. Neil Turok, as exemplified here, is by far the best of the physicists who is able - without any teaching aids other than his voice - to explain not only his own work, but that of others. Wonderful. Thank you.

As a layperson, this was surprisingly accessible and understandable (up to a point of course). That's thanks to Turok's ability to explain it so clearly, with enthusiasm. I admire his minimalist approach! His description of the Big Bang does remind me of Penrose's CCC, although obviously reaching different conclusions.

This was a revelation. Neil Turok's incredible ability to explain such complex ideas in a way that is understandable to the layperson is a real gift both of his and to us. Curt, combined with your ability to ask Neil such focused and relevant questions is also a real gift. I couldn't pull myself away from this episode. THANKS SO MUCH!!!

I've been an avid listener of Neil's lectures for some time. His clarity, his willingness to swing for the fences in searching for a Theory of Everything, and especially his intuition that reality is fundamentally simple, makes him an unsurpassed thinker and theorist in my mind.

Neil is a pleasure to listen to,no arrogance at all in what he is conveying.I wish I had teachers like him!

Neil is a really great communicator. Even I am able to follow... sortof.

The best theoretical physics discussion I've seen on RU-vid in 10 years. I'm a fan of the Turok-Boyle minimalist theory approach. It's simplification eliminates most of the nonsense of various complicated "out there" theories of the last 30+ years.

the original Turok on the N64 was a great game

Always seems like such a genuine, humble guy. What a legend.

Amazing, fascinating and impressive. Turok's ability to present his theory, at the same time humble about its shortcomings and the admittance that it may be plain wrong, reveals the mind of a true scientist.

This discussion alone is worth the subscription!

Absolutely loved this one. Feel the same way about Neil as I do Jonathan Gorard. Both are energized and optimistic while so many other scientists seem like they could fall asleep at any moment. More scientists like Neil!

Neil Turok - AWESOME!!

What an incredible interview. Niel explained his concept in a way i could grasp the edges of, and my mind opened to the possibilities from this frame. WOW.

This clip is deserved to be viewed more than once to discover all its nuances.

Imagine our universe as just one 3D slice of an immense 4D world. The universe didn't merely expand from a point, but dimensionally-it evolved from a point (0D), into a line (1D), spread into a plane (2D), and unfolded into the three-dimensional space we experience. But here’s the twist: it likely continued into a fourth dimension, beyond our observation. This explains why we can't see where the universe is expanding from-it's occurring in a dimension we don't perceive. What's more, the probability that we live in the original 3D slice formed at the start of this expansion is infinitesimally small. We are likely just one of countless 3D slices in a 4D cosmos, each experiencing its own version of reality!

A must listen; Neil comes across as a charming and passionate individual, and so concise and accessible in his descriptions (must be that minimalist thing). Brilliant stuff, the 2 hours flew by! thanks for the cast ❤️

I like the idea that every black hole is a seed for a new universe, and looking/mapping our own growing universe, reveals a growing universe pulling energy via the "big bang" which is nothing more than a singularity point within another prior universe. Much like how a growing orange contains seeds for new orange trees, but asking what came before the orange, if you live within 1 trillionth of a random area within the growing orange, well... you'll have a very difficult time understanding trees and the seeds required to produce them.

Hit it out of the park once again! Thanks for bringing us these conversations Curt, great work. Thank you Professor Turok for sharing this information. 💯

Can we PLEASE get Turok & Penrose in the same room for about 12 hours? These 2 can probably solve it all since they’re both on the same page

Incredible interview, easily one of my favorites! The mirror is such an elegant concept for explaining the arrow of time and the quantization of fields.

This is the convo i wanted to hear. I think he’s really onto a more accurate set of truths here.

Wow! This conversation is so fascinating, Curt. A lot for me to take in as a non physicist, but an absolute pleasure to watch nevertheless. Thank you, gentleman.

This was so fascinating, how promising! Especially appreciate Neil's commitment to predictive power in models, since we get definitive answers whether the model turns out correct or not. You are such a great interviewer Curt, it's really refreshing to hear someone asking questions and interpreting answers from an actually deep and knowledgable background.

Man! I am concern about the model of my posts on your videos, it is becoming a pattern. I seem to be repeating myself, but you just make it very hard to resist. I've learned so much about cosmology, particular physics and the way they correlate with each other in this video that it is making me giggle... Once again, such a great questioning, channeling through your curiosity that made possible to open up the knowledge chest that your guests possess. Neil Turok was extremely pleasant to listen to... Much obliged...

I didn't tune out! It held me to the end. Feel very privileged to have heard this conversation. Two great minds.

I think this is the least dumbed-down conversation I have seen on RU-vid. I can only follow as a layman but it's remarkable how he is able to explain abstract ideas with such clarity and enthusiasm - what a marvelous mind he has! I'd resigned to the idea that physics probably wouldn't make any great strides in what's left of my lifetime - it seemed to be at an impasse with so many complicated and completely unverifiable ideas. I feel optimistic now. I hope we get to see these small gravity wave detectors it sounds fascinating. I am scratching my head wondering what a negative probability could possibly mean. How can something be less likely than definitely not going to happen? Shout out to the interviewer for extremely intelligent contributions.

Absolutely delightful interview! Loved your insightful questions and so did Neil from his responses. Top notch!

As a layperson I LOVE this! Simplify simplify simplify! No 11 dimensions, no strings!

Curt, you are just so smart, you have such an excellent background, and you phrase your questions so wonderfully. I can’t believe you got Dr Turok!! I just now found this, and I just needed to tell you how thrilled I am that I get to listen and watch this conversation. I love to listen to Dr. Turok, and I’m just thrilled that you’re the one interviewing him. So excited and thank you

Professor Turok is one of the physicist that best explains his very complex ideas for the general public. It is a pleasure listen to him. And also Jaimungal lets his guess explain it with almost no interruptions, only when necessary. Great channel.

This is my new favorite, Curt, not just on TOE but in all I have yet encountered in the physics-cast universe. Just to give us a long-form chance to listen to Neil Turok talk about his theory with his characteristic clarity is already great, but beyond that, by means of your incisive questions based on a broad general understanding of the TOE field and your skillful timing, you have knitted together for us a heavenly garment for mind and soul. I had discontinued my patreon subscription due to a very tight budget, but I'm jumping back in. It would be unjust to fail to support this, the best "school" I know of, when education is in such a state of crisis. Thank you.

really appreciate the good questions u had for him!🎉

Thank you for the editor Notes, Kurt, and the links for further explanations! #LifelongLearner

Absolutely the clearest explanations I ever read or heard about the core issues of cosmology today.

This is the greatest video I’ve ever seen (I’ve watched at least a few hundred videos that try to be like this one), because this is the search for a confirmation of everything I find dubious about the “one free miracle” explanation of the Big Bang singularity and spatial inflation from some no-longer extant, ephemeral “expansive” energy rather than use all the expansive knowledge of particle physics and quantum mechanics that we have learned thus far. We haven’t found anything new in decades despite extensive searching, which leads at least myself to posit that we have the tools we need, we just need to utilize them correctly. This video makes me want to be able to do the gorgeous maths behind quantum mechanics, QCD, and GR so badly so I could contribute to understanding this theory. Thank you so much, Dr Turok, and thank you, Curt, for making this video!!!😅

So glad for this interview.

If you build purely mathematical theories on top of purely mathematical theories, there is no limit to the layers of complexity you can reach in your search for simplicity.

I have just found this Curt. I recall listening to Neil Turok discuss his conversation about M Theory (on a train in London on their way to see a play) with Burt Ovrut. This was during a BBC Horizon documentary called Parallel Universes. So, I began listening to your discussion. WOW! I am thrilled by this content. How Neil describes his journey from String Theory through to today and his and your capacity to present and make the information so accessible is very special to me. I can’t wait to listen to more! Especially Donald Hoffman, another hero of mine. Thank you Curt.

This is one of the most gripping exiting exposes I have ever listened to. Thank you both

coming in hot! half way through and I have to pause to thank you both. this is a banger.

I LOVE YOU NEIL! 🙂 This is what I have been imagining without being able to describe. No beginning, no end. Thank you

Curt Jaimungal and Neil Turok, thank you for this excellent and informative interview. Neil Turok, your emphasis on photon scale indifference reminded me of another, more abrupt version of scale change: When a photon that presumably sees itself as invariant in scale - even when its wave function fills much of the universe - abruptly rescales to atomic dimensions. It’s not a collapse; it's a size renegotiation. Incidentally, the “observations” that cause such rescalings are nothing more than acceleration, which “locates” two items relative to each other: Good old Newtonian action-reaction. With that said, I’m naught but an information specialist, so I strongly recommend you ignore everything I just said!

Another amazing conversation. Great questions and such a clear and generous guest.

Watched it 3 times. I have watched all Prof Turoks talks on toob. I have never once thought hey that does not make sense, as I constantly do with the infinite multiple universes theories. But I am utterly unqualified, still to be able to experience such a brilliant mind is beyond description. Thank you. ps I am so grateful that you have not used that utterly dreadful toob music, again thank you.

Excellent discussion and topic.

Great interview. Also loved this one. Something clicked. And I am excited about Turok’s work.

Always felt fascinated with analytical functions and their applications in physics.

EXCELLENT INTERVIEW

Great interview! Thanks for sharing. It was smart to ask about Julian Barbour’s Janus point theory. A similar question you could have asked was about possible similarities with Cyr-Racine, Ge, and Knox’s dark-sector mirror theory of cosmology (see their 2022 article in Physical Review Letters). I take it that Neil Turok sees one universe with two sides making a minimal interpretation of the whole, rather than two separated universes (where it would be impossible to tell which side we lived on)?

well Neil Turok jumps to the head of the line of people I would like to have dinner with. What an inspirational and pleasant man

Neil Turok- what a great theory! It seems very clearly described and thought through: inside out, and outside in. This holistically accounted for the micro and the macro. Well done! Definitely my new favorite theory (as a mostly unqualified ignorant on-looker).

I just get the ' minimalist ' gist of what he's talking about ! But I love thinkers like this ! I like my art and music minimalist , so he's fine by me !

Brilliant.

Penrose was really onto something and am so happy to hear Turok hinting at it here.

Even though I am not a mathematician or a Cosmologist, I did follow the video very well. How about this thinking: Let us all agree that when we say "Nothing" we mean nothing, either virtual, or actual that can be measured in any way. Consider when your consciousness goes to sleep and you have a great dreamless night of sleep, and you wake up the next morning and start thinking again. Between those two states you will remember nothing. This, of course, is a human mind analogy. In that context, When I refer to "Nothing" I mean it is like tat between sleep and wake as I described here. When think of the big bang as a singular point, we notice that there is automatically another component - Time. The question then becomes, did Time ever exist by itself before there was "anything"? Put another way, does time exist if there is "Nothing"? I would argue "Yes". Reason: In order for Something to exist time must have existed for that "Something" to exist. If that is so, then all the "somethings' we can measure are unified by Time. An experiment would be to find a way to measure if "Time" can exist by itself. If that can be done, then Einsteins Theories, and Quantum theory automatically become combined.

@1:15:00 to understand why the 36-dim zero scalar (Bogoliubov fields) negative norm states (and the Ostrogradsky instabilities) are not a problem for CPT-Symm U, you need to understand a comment Neil made earlier but did not fully elaborate, whihc is that the "fields" are not physical. They are descriptions we have to use for non-local correlations in any quantum theory. Feynman would have said that's an accounting tool for taking into account off-shell propagators (propagation outside light cones) which is exactly what occurs in tunneling (also something Neil mentioned but did not fully connect up with). The Bogoliubov fields are not particles you see, they are more like degrees of freedom of the vacuum and arise from pure gravity. To be particles they'd have to be topologically non-trivial, which is not going to be the case for a scalar. Moreover, quantum theory promotes fields to particles by imposing local gauge invariance. This shows you the fields were not particles in the first place, they had to be topological in nature. Entanglement is what makes the actual particles appear to behave like fields --- they can acquire non-local influences, as Feynman noted. That's the whole reason Feynman gave for the reality of antiparticles. To see why, it helps to study gravity not from (1) Einstein or even (2) Cartan (including rotation gauge covariance or torsion), but from both Einstein-Cartan principles of covariance PLUS scale covariance or Weyl covariance (conformal gauge covariance). So neither 1) from general covariance alone, nor from 2) position + rotation gauge covariance, but from all three of: Position + Rotation + Conformal invariance. By demanding a local conformal invariance that is "minimally coupled" should enable Turok to figure out the physical geometric reason why his 36 Bogoliubov fields exist. This way he'll see it is not reliant upon numerology. As he said, the negative norms are irrelevant if the field cannot produce particles. This is how it is in Einstein-Cartan gravity: the position-gauge field and the rotation gauge field do not produce particles in GR. Neither should a global conformal symmetry. But as in GR, you need the position and rotation gauge fields (PGI and RGI fields) to describe spacetime curvature and torsion, so similarly if you include conformal invariance you need a gauge field for this too, but it cannot produce particles, just as the Einstein-Cartan PGI and RGI fields do not produce particles, because they are fictional accounting tools for describing the symmetry. To get particles a gravity theory has to include non-trivial topology, which means (if you desire a pure gravity theory) introducing new "internal" fields to account for the "internal" topological symmetries (the generalized "rotations" between the fermions and their couplings to the bosons). But just as in GR the fields are accounting tools, they are not *_the_* particles. The "internal" space is not an extra spacetime dimension necessarily, it could simply be gnarly topology (wormhole structure on the Planck scale). As this crazy bastard describes: t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/ --- quite a bit of fun stuff there, but totally mad.

This 2 hours breezed by. I think Neil Turok is on the right track. He adheres to the Occam's razor principle with his physics. I have never thought string theory was anything but fancy math. I also loved his answer on the measurement problem.... "Time" will tell IMO

So much far beyond me, yet utterly fascinating. Thank you both.

Amazing podcast!

Great interview!

Believing that we know everything leads me to the optimistic view that we are about to be blindsided by a major revolution of physics. Around 1900 physicists were comfortable with knowing everything, then were hit by X-rays, radioactivity, Einstein, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, quantum mechanics...

I found a point to substantiate my thoughts. Thanks for the Pod cast

Awesome guest!!

Nothin' better than watching honest-to-God shop talk - great interview.

The most honest and sweet scientist !

This was a terrific, fascinating interview. Thank you so much, Curt and Professor Turok.

Him vs Stephen wolfram. I'd pay to hear that convo.

Having a graduate math degree definitely helpd with this convo lol

Fascinating theory from one of the greatest minds in cosmology today!! I am a big bouncer myself, so I loved the book he did with Steinhardt about the cyclical cosmological theory!!!! Great stuff!!!

You raise an excellent point about the potential inconsistencies between classical models of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian) that assume locality and realism, versus the non-local and non-realistic nature implied by quantum mechanics. This tension does suggest we may need to revise some of our foundational mathematical frameworks. The core of your argument seems to be: 1) Quantum experiments have empirically demonstrated that the universe violates local realism at a fundamental level through phenomena like entanglement. 2) Classical physics models from Newton and Einstein are based on assumptions of locality (no instantaneous action-at-a-distance) and realism (objective reality exists independently of observation). 3) Leibniz's model viewed the universe as "contingent and less real", which aligns better with quantum theory's implications. 4) Therefore, we should revisit using Leibnizian mathematical frameworks like his version of calculus and geometry over the Newtonian ones that assume locality and realism. I think this is a valid line of reasoning that is worth deeply exploring. Philosophers and physicists have indeed grappled with whether quantum theory forces us to abandon or modify certain classical mathematical and metaphysical assumptions. Leibniz's relational concept of space-time as an abstraction rather than an absolute manifold does resonate with quantum field theories. And his infinitesimal calculus could arguably better accommodate quantum uncertainties. That said, shifting away from differential/integral calculus or traditional geometric models would be a huge undertaking with massive technical challenges given how deeply embedded they are. An interim approach could be to explore modifications like non-Archimedean geometry, non-standard analysis, or other frameworks that aim to incorporate some core quantum phenomenology at a foundational level. Ultimately, the physical reality revealed by experiments should guide which mathematical tools we use to best model it, even if that means revising long-held assumptions. Your call to at least re-examine classical frameworks through the lens of quantum empiricism is well-grounded.

This was great!

Best RU-vid video I’ve watched this year (and I’ve watched *a lot* 😅)

A legendary scientist with a clear sense of direction. Such a rare sight to be seen!

We moved on before understanding the profound basics, using virtual photons to explain magnetic fields seems insane & infinitely counter productive for instance. 😉 Love the show, Kurt 🙏❤ The world needs you ✨️

If you call the aether the static electric field people get it immediately. Great podcast. Ya'll kept me glued the whole time. Keep going. Science is gonna get there. ❤️

Brilliant man.

This is a really cool theory! So many new concepts for me to research.

This... Was amazing. So many jumping off points to novel ideas came from this exchange. I ran out of places to write and draw new concepts.

Curt! You are quite literally producing history. Great conversation. I would love to chat with you about this poorly named, conceptually simplifying, explanation-unifying, awe-inspiring theory

Neil!!! Hero!!!

Curt was on point in this interview.

Curt you ask such great questions thank you!

Nice.

I think the idea we can move back and forth in space is false. I doubt we ever occupy the same space twice.

That was fantastic. Thanks to both of you!

Fabulous. Loved every minute. Thoroughly understandable and exciting.

Thank you for providing this great interview.

Curt really does a great job in this interview, keeping us in mind. I have no doubt that he knows about the method of images, dilation (scale) invariance of electromagnetism and so-called affine coordinates at a singularity and other coordinate signularities on Earth and at an event horizon, CPT symmetry, Boltzmann's arrow of time argument w/ the gas in a corner, and probably the wave function of the universe...you just can't get a PhD and not know this stuff, but he asks earnest questions that help us follow along, though I'm certain he kinda knows the answer anyway. And since he's a mathematical physicists, he also knows all about analytic functions, unique extrapolations, getting rid of singularities, and different types of them (that's 19th C stuff)...but he doesn't show off at all, and this is just the best physics interview I've seen in a long time.

Amazing! Thank you so much!

Fascinating! Im no physicist or mathematician but i could relate to what Neil was speaking about...which is saying something about his way of telling complex stories and theories! 🤩

Very good interview, thank you for this. The credit goes to both the interviewed and the interviewer

It is good to see so much enthusiasm in physics as Neil demonstrates (should be nice to talk or work with him). It is good to see someone that do not fear to depart from the "standard" way of thinking in the field. But anyway, I think the "integration" of GR and QM will need to solve the "integration" of the classical framework with the quantum framework. That is, the link between frameworks that we have is: we have a quantum system, that system interacts with another system that we assume as classical (described in the classical framework), the effect of the quantum system over the classical is predicted only in probability, we "jump" from one framework to the other and do not know how to describe the intermediate states or when exactly the description becomes classic (some people "invent" different things, but never an empirically falsifiable fact). That is a very "weak", very "coarse" relationship between the frameworks. With this so "crude" link between frameworks I think we will not be able to integrate quantum fields with the gravitational field. What we would ideally need is a new "framework" that have the Quantum and the Classical frameworks as limit cases. Apart from that, even without finding a new framework, QFT is "flawed" at its roots. QFT is constructed over the idea that there should exist a minimum non-zero energy corresponding to each frequency, that idea comes from a mistaken deduction from the incertitude principle. Then a mistaken way of calculating the possible frequencies in a small region (say a cube): they assume only certain discrete frequencies possible without a reason (if the spectrum is continuous, we will have infinities even if you limit the minimum possible frequencies) and then make that cube go to infinite and take the limit (again for no reason: our universe is not an infinite "static" cube, and anyway there would be no time for the interference that supposedly eliminates all except a discrete spectrum of frequencies to occur). So QFT is "flawed" from the inception, but it still sort of works with renormalization when the differences of energies is the only thing that counts (and not their absolute values). The Casimir effect seemed to give an experimental basis for all this nonsense, but, since at least 2005 it was demonstrated (many papers) that it is caused by relativistic Van der Waals forces and that it is theoretically impossible to attribute them to zero point forces. Motivation: nobody knows why (in ultimate reasons) they do what they do, but, (almost) nobody would admits that (even to themselves), so, when asked, they elaborate something (but that is just pure imagination). Why so little support for your opinions: an opinion is like an ass, everybody has one and is OK with it, but they don't like other people's opinions.

Amazing! and thank you Curt. Neil is the best spokesman in all of physics, he expresses himself and the subject in the most coherent manner that anyone in theoretical physics ever has. Have been a fan for years, but near worship seems to be called for. But he doubts the anti universe and calls it unreal when it is in fact a real thing in an imaginary sense, compared to ours, as it always is. He needs to throw the whole of LCDM in the garbage can where it belongs. It is a stain on HIS perfect work. LCDM is a set of equations that describes cosmology, but Dark matter is what is not real. It is an emergent effect of the functioning of spacetime. The perspective of particle dark matter has stymied theoretical physics for about 30 years and is responsible for our present confusion and unwillingness to accept the truth of the janus cosmological model. Curt, your Nobel prize should be for the journalism on this show and channel, if nothing else.

Brilliant explanation both of you are brilliant. Thank you so much

Absolutely amazing ❤

From the perspective of an outside observer, an object falling into a black hole would have it's time slow... to infinity. Time would never actually "stop" for it, but it would slow along an exponential curve so it would therefor effectively stop... just not quite. The point being, that the object would effectively be on the precipice of crossing the event horizon forever... eventually, enough time would pass that it would just quantum tunnel to some other random part of the universe. i.e. It takes infinity to cross the event horizon... therefor, however unlikely it is that the entire mass of the blackhole would quantum teleport away... given infinite time, it eventually will. Therefor, there should be a calculable value for the rate at which the blackhole would lose mass via this method and as a result a required amount of infalling matter to support the size of the blackhole. Once the universe is either large enough (and therefor diffuse enough) that there's no longer enough matter to support blackholes within causal distance from one other (i.e. within each others observable universe) you'll have a big-bang style singularity that no-longer has any outside observer... and so... bang...

I made it to 1:54 before getting a bit tired and losing focus thanks to the brilliant explanations punctuated by unbounded enthusiasm. I'll have to come back for the last 5 minutes.

Absolutely love this! Finally a complete theory that makes sense, has realistic scope and boundaries, and is scientifically provable or disprovable once technology catches up and experiments complete. Does it make sense that 100% of the negative probabilities may be actually accurate and predict what cannot be possible in our universe? (And are accurate)