The (Simple) Theory That Explains Everything | Neil Turok

Curt's "String Theory Iceberg": https://youtu.be/X4PdPnQuwjY 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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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

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.

the original Turok on the N64 was a great game

The best theoretical physics discussion I've seen on Youtube 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.

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.

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

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!

This discussion alone is worth the subscription!

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 ❤️

What an incredible interview. The credit goes not only to Dr. Turok, but to the interviewer. He made all the questions I was coming up with as Turok spoke. His questions and challenges were bright and timely and respectful and insightful. I am only left with one high-level question: true, the person in the mirror does not exist, but the mirror does. The analogy was that in order to solve the Maxwell equations in the presence of a mirror, one can "pretend" that the image on the other side exists and solve the equations for a world in which only the mirror exists. However, the problem originated by the existence of the mirror in the first place. It's possible that the mirror analogy is only a first-approximation for explaining the obscure mathematics behind it, but it does feel to me that a formulation using the analog of the method of images would necessarily point to something physical that represents the "mirror". The method is also used to find the field generated by a charge in the presence of a conductive surface, and again while the mirror charge does not exist, the surface does.

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!

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. 💯

Neil Turok - AWESOME!!

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.