Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Perimeter Institute is a leading centre for scientific research, training, and educational outreach in foundational theoretical physics. Founded in 1999 in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, its mission is to advance our understanding of the universe at the most fundamental level, stimulating the breakthroughs that could transform our future. Perimeter also trains the next generation of physicists through innovative programs, and shares the excitement and wonder of science with students, teachers, and the general public.
www.perimeterinstitute.ca
@Perimeter
Пікірлер
No jokes about how you want to see Turok do some applied physics with his tech-bow?
"Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source" this new Law will solve of 99% mystry of the universe
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ this is first time for me viewing Turok…… He scares me he creeps me out. He seems like a master villain.
Alice's conclusion that Bob's coin toss turned out the opposite of her own is based on the presumption that both coins remain entangled with each other continuously throughout the period after they traveled apart. If so, then Alice's conclusion will turn out to be correct. Neither Alice nor Bob, however, can confirm whether that entanglement remained intact, and thus cannot confirm whether the outcome of Bob's coin toss was in fact determined by that presumed entanglement.
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
Cosmological physics offers a plethora of concepts to ponder. Currently, spacetime is a central focus within the field. Space is perceived as the vessel containing all mass, matter, and energy. Our observations derive from analyzing the movements, motions, and rotations of these entities across various scales. Einstein's theories of relativity, both general and special, demonstrate that spacetime warps and distorts in response to the presence of substantial masses, forming gravitational wells where matter coalesces, leading to the formation of stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies, as well as black holes. We measure the mass, matter, energy, and their dynamics. Physics confronts its limits when attempting to depict the state prior to the Big Bang and the conditions beyond the event horizon of black holes. Metrics of spacetime exhibit quantum fluctuations, where particle pairs are continuously created and annihilated, sometimes leaving behind particles that persist in the universe, a process known as Hawking Radiation emanating from black holes. The 'before' refers to the mass, matter, and energy hypothesized to have been injected into what became spacetime. A subset of this is the accumulation of mass, matter, and energy within the warped wells of spacetime, sufficient to close off the warp into a spherical boundary condition. This results in a black hole that consumes passing mass, matter, and energy, leading to a change in volume as the black hole accrues more within its boundaries. We also observe the rotation or lack thereof in black holes. Venturing beyond conventional thinking, we acknowledge the infinite array of possible wavelengths, with practical considerations and measurement precision influencing our observational capabilities and distinctions.
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.
The host is so cute!
What nonsense. Young people come up with moronic fantasy ideas, especially if they have been poisoned by progressive cult marxist parenting
No, the least understood field in science is quantum consciousness. You'll be chasing your own tail in this rabbit hole for an eternity, and loving it, once you get some good experience of Karma from enough incatnation perspectives
This poor guy is going to be just as shocked as Newton to find they didn't reach the Emerald City after all, but are still vexed by some very nasty wicked witches and flying monkeys always throwing wrenches into their perfect science projects.
There's even a heaven for dogmatic materialists, and this universe is it. For the rest of us, we just look at materialists and laugh at self-selected NPC characters
Dr. Alexander in the SHITTTTTT 🤟❤♥🧡💚💜💙
If electrons are knocked out of metal plate the metal plate should get positively charged. Electrons are not knocked out it is but more complex.
Amazing to me how lay people extrapolate from one interview this ridiculous idea that science is simple. Tell that to the molecular biologist or to the organic chemist or the ecologist. It is not simple. When a reporter asked Richard Feynman to explain how magnetism worked, Feynman famously said he couldn’t. It wasn’t that he didn’t understand it, he did. He just couldn’t explain it to the reporter, because it is not simple. Science is not simple.
One of the best lectures ever. I resolve to blunder far more henceforth, and encourage others to do so as well.
I for one welcome our true vaccum overlord.
I dont worry that the vaccum is gonna decay on me because the universe is 14 billion years old hast happened yet so I dont think its gonna happen anytime soon......,ha ha :::sweating ::: ha:::::nervous laughing::::😅
Where can I get a link for these slides?
Interesting, but I can't help but think: "huh?"
awesome. Touching.
Intro Much Too long!
10 years later and it's all so simple but he hasn't come up with sweet FA
For over 40 years theoretical physics has followed the idea of simplicity and a "last theory" and it lead - nowhere. Nothing. Nada. Failure. Nonsense. And then a retired theoretical physicist claims "the path has lead to nothing, lets follow it further". What a hybris. Prof. Turok you are wrong. Let us stop riding dead horses. Let us do something different. Stop trying to find last theories. Lets do PHYSICS again.
I have reverse engineered the physics involved in the electronic gold metal detector and the modern light weight ball bearing dowsing rod that precisely gauges everything being dowsed by pitting the energy of gravity against the energizing of the pure one tenth ounce dowsing rod, which free spins on ball bearings. I wrote a book for explaining the dowsing physics along with how to build the modern light weight ball bearing dowsing rod for practicing the book's dowsing lessons that will help turn anyone into a professional dowser. Read the book: The Art of Dowsing - separating Science from Superstition ($14.95), by Michael Fercik. We are starting a new dowsing training KZread channel: Tracy & Michael's Dowsing Adventure, we will explain the physics involved in dowsing while giving dowsing demonstration on everything from buried water lines to precious metal placer and lode deposits to dowsing for any sought element.
I didn't know the lhc had found no new particles other than verifying the Higgs until Neil said so.
"Socrates said I know nothing more than I need to to get where no one knows where he is going.😂"
Thank you Neil for such a nice and elegant explanation of the current state of physics, and thank you Perimeter Institute for putting this on KZread. I myself am an electronic engineer, didn't have time nor financial possibilities to do a PhD in physics, but I "managed" to write five books on a topic, which cover all science and technology from light to optics, sensors, compressions, communications and all that a modern system designer should know. The point of my comment was to whole heartedly agree with Neil about modern physics complicating the reality more than what Nature has really made it to be. This actually tells me that we have some fundamental errors in our perception of atoms, electrons, photons, gravity. Many question that were posed over 100 years ago - are fundamentally still not answered correctly. Yes, I admire Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger but that doesn't mean they have answered these fundamental questions correctly if we are still asking them 100 years later. This lead me to do my own research, and found some amazing physicist who have been completely and unjustly ignored and silenced by the "academia" . His name is Dewey B. Larson. After reading all his main works, starting from "Nothing but Motion" - I can't escape the feeling that Larson has already answered all the big questions fifty years ago - yet he is completely ignored. I would like to know if Neil (and/or the PI) know of Larson's work, and if you do - why is this not taken more seriously? If a person can derive theory of gravity as well a complete Periodic table of element from his basic postulates of motion - surely he has some value that needs to be looked at and acknowledge.
Theoretical Physics isn't "interesting;" it's obsolete. It has been obsolesced by Electric Universe Theory.
漢武帝的故事可以教導台灣政府以下幾個重要的教訓，在中美兩強競爭的時候： 1. 加強國防：漢武帝對匈奴的戰役教我們，強化國防是保護國家安全的必要措施。台灣政府可以加強軍事現代化、提高國防能力，以應對中美兩強的競爭和挑戰。 2. 外交多元化：漢武帝派張騫開拓西域，教我們外交多元化的重要性。台灣政府可以加強與其他國家的外交關係，多元化貿易和投資夥伴，避免對單一國家的依賴。 3. 經濟自主：漢武帝的經濟政策教我們，經濟自主是國家發展的重要保障。台灣政府可以加強經濟多元化、提高產業競爭力，避免對單一 industry 的依賴。（如TSMC). 4. 文化軟實力：漢武帝的文化政策教我們，文化軟實力是國家發展的重要資產。台灣政府可以加強文化交流、推廣台灣文化，提高國家的軟實力和國際影響力。 5. 領導智慧：漢武帝的領導教我們，領導智慧是國家發展的重要保障。台灣政府可以加強領導團隊的建設、提高領導智慧和決策能力，以應對中美兩強的競爭和挑戰。 總之，漢武帝的故事可以提供許多教訓，適用於台灣政府在中美兩強競爭的時候。台灣政府可以從中獲得啟發，提高國家的競爭力和國際影響力。 如Quantum entanglement 量子科技。 Best Regards, Peter Wu 吳復嵩敬上 Dallas, Texas (建言獻策）
Fuck movies, this is more thrilling than anything fictional I've seen. If everyone were scientifically educated, we'd have lectures like these being attended by the boatloads like concerts or playing in the theatres and coming out on DVDs.
Nuestro universo es solo el reverso de una galaxia en otro universo a una escala inimaginable para nosotros ( el tamaño no es importante). El agujero en el centro de ésa galaxia generó nuestro universo y aún ahora influye sobre el. Los objetos masivos en esa galaxia generan una expansión en nuestro espacio creando valles. Mil años en nuestro universo es como un segundo en esa galaxia. El tiempo no es más que la luz atravesado un cuánto de espacio. El vacío es un campo cuántico y un cuánto de espacio en nuestro universo es cientos de órdenes de magnitud a un cuánto de espacio de ése universo donde se encuentra está galaxia. Los cuantos de espacio se mueven hacia donde hay más densidad de ellos (gravedad)y pueden ocupar el mismo estado( el mismo lugar)pero hay un límite. Cuando se llega a ése límite los cuantos se fragmentan en cuántos más pequeños creando un nuevo universo en expansión con una línea de tiempo moviéndose en dirección opuesta. El espacio del nuevo universo se expande moldeado por la forma de la galaxia que lo genera.
Good, I couldn’t swallow the inflaton.
Someone tell the poor guy to shave his head... it looks horrendous
Excellent video, Katie and great explanation of the photoelectric effect. I liked Damian's contribution as well, but I must say it was not Einstein who 1st thought of photons not just as waves but as physical packets. If I remember correctly it was Newton. First, Newton = light is made of small particles. 2nd: Thomas Young (1801) = light is a wave. 3rd. Einstein = light is quantized, but it's both a particle and a wave. Thank you for a great vide Katie and I wished you would do one on gravity not a force and the whole business of "...it's not pulling you down, rather the earth is rising." Love to hear your explanation of this phenomenon.
Man has an amazing mind AND an amazing name.
Perry Meter Instatoot
The more i learn about quantum mechanics the clear it is that it is only an approximation. You cannot have a probalistic wave function result in deterministic behaviour without some form of mechnism to convert the two, probailoty is useful as a tool to describe things with unknown mechnisms, this feela like the case with quantum mechnics.
The "deterministic behavior" is only displayed by the ensemble average. Since an ensemble has an infinite number of members, it can not exist in reality. The problem that you are imagining does therefor not even exist. Sometimes "idealizations" (like the real numbers) have very nice properties that the underlying actually realized objects (like fractions) do not have. If you want a trivial probabilistic example for this: the average outcome of dice is 3.5. Dice do not have a side that shows 3.5. Does that invalidate dice and/or probability theory? Of course not.
@lepidoptera9337 I think your missing the point. I'm nit saying wave functions are "wrong" so much as it is not actually representing what is happening. You dice analogy is actually the point I'm making. There is no dice roll of 3.5 but using probabalilty gives us that number, it can still be predicative, just not representing of the actual reality of the event. The wave function is a probabilistic "estimation" of the net events experianced by the particle. It is still useful, but the particles in question is not 1/5 here or 2/77th there. It has a definite position in space, the issues we run into with quantum mechnivs are at least partially the result of probability trying to be applied to individual objects, resulting in nonsensical numbers that in agrigate appear to show reality.
@@davidhobbs5679 Wave functions are representing what is happening on average. The outcome of a single quantum measurement is not predictable. The wave function is therefor NOT a physical property of the single system. It's an abstract description of an abstract ensemble. If your point is that this is frequently misrepresented in the literate and in the way we teach quantum mechanics, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. I would, however, suggest that you re-think that whole "particle with position" line of thought. There are no particles in nature. A measurement in quantum mechanics is the irreversible transfer of a small amount of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges between a free quantum field and a system we call "the detector". Because of spacetime symmetries these properties are locally conserved, so they might look like they are somehow attached to a material carrier we call "particle" but that's as much a mirage as the phlogiston was as a carrier of heat energy. Humans have a tendency to objectify conserved properties. We don't just do it in physics, we do it in every day life with things like "money". Money is an exchange function, it's NOT the bank notes and coins in our pockets. In the same way energy, momentum etc. are just exchanged properties. They are NOT incarnated in some mythological little objects that nobody has ever seen. There are no particles and for that reason alone particles can not possibly carry a quantum state. Not even a single copy of a quantum system carries a state. Only the ensemble of infinite copies of that system carries something like an identifiable state. This follows more or less trivially from the structure of the theory, we just don't teach this properly.
Turok is a great Vulcan star-trek character name 👍
To your question why are scientists scared to be proven wrong, I offer a text book example: "I am science" Anthony Fauci, curruption on $Billions of dollars
I would love to see reality with his eyes, and brain.
❤
Gravity dropped out of string theory, wasn't built into the theory, was just found in there, so technically it's a prediction that panned out .
It's a privilege given conversations! A little child "i" longing to LEARN! From?
Students what is I AM? Students what is thy shared "i" AM?
Who will say, remember all THY shared "i" AM!
Beloved say SHARE COME HERE IN FRONT OF WHO?
Many have the habit of thinking to steal! Students shared "i" AM will say need not to steal! Why?
If you have hired people to solve a fundamental problem, and for decades they have had little success, *the problem is the people you have hired* If the Perimeter Institute (for example) provided a means for mining ideas from non scientists, (the public) you can be sure the golden nuggets of insights they would exopse would enrich science forever. To the instinctive objections of professional scientists I submit: Many such people have higher IQs and more creativity than you or any of your cohorts. Get over yourselves!
It is so magnanimous of Neil to address the lowly layman. He obviously lacks the nerve to come out and say it is all bollox, perhaps his shirt gave the game away from the get-go.