BS: Simplicity

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Aug 18 - 07:34 AM

Turok is sort of saying the same thing in that each positron is the same particle as it is in its electron existence, it just goes through a quantum change between its two forms. I did not know this basic idea was that old.

Neutrinos change into 3 different 'flavors'. New evidence is due within a year or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 10:05 PM

Someone, IIRC, once called up R. P. Feynman and announced that he had figured out why all the electrons in the universe have the same charge & mass. It is because they are all the same electron! It keeps jiggling back & forth in time and thus appears in many places at a time. The backward parts of the track are of course the positrons.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 04:49 PM

After 150 years, "Simple Gifts" isn't so simple anymore.

The song composed in 1848 by Shaker Elder Joseph Brackett as an easy-to-learn tune for Shaker worship -- extolling the virtues of a simple life -- has become one of America's most popular all-purpose melodies.

In its sesquicentennial year, it's hard to escape the song, which is performed with or without its original lyrics by folk singers, school choruses, church choirs and symphony orchestras. Versions have shown up in weddings, funerals, two presidential inaugurations, television commercials -- and even the hit Irish dance revue "Lord of the Dance."
btw a Shaker rocking chair is better than a lazy boy recliner



"It's surprising how many places the song is used. Sometimes, people don't even realize what they're hearing," says Diana Van Kolken, author of a book about the Shakers and owner of Shaker Messenger, a shop that sells Shaker-style furniture


"People like this song today because they want to find simplicity," Van Kolken says. "We're surrounded all day by electronics and technology. The pace of our world is so fast. People just like to think about the words to this song: ' 'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free.' "

Randy Folger, who sings the song each weekday for visitors at historic Shaker Village in Pleasant Hill, Ky., says, "The man who wrote this claimed it came to him by divine inspiration, and I truly believe that might have been the case. This may be the perfect piece of music. I've sung it close to 15,000 times over the years, and I never get tired of it."

However, Folger and other historians are tired of confusion over the song's origin and meaning. They are using the sesquicentennial to dispel misinformation and tell the true story behind "Simple Gifts."

For example, the theme song for "Lord of the Dance" uses the "Simple Gifts" melody. "And, after seeing the show, I've had people argue that this is really an old English or Irish folk tune," Folger says. "But I've done a lot of research into this, and the Shaker tune definitely came first."

"Lord of the Dance" is a set of lyrics written for the Shaker melody in 1963 by composer Sydney Carter. Carter's hymn, which is sung in many churches, uses dance as a metaphor for Jesus' ministry on earth. But in recent years the hymn was borrowed by Irish dancer Michael Flatley, who kicked Jesus out of the song, then added a mysterious forest spirit and enough special effects for a rock concert.

That's just the most recent source of confusion. Two years ago, commercials for the Oldsmobile Aurora annoyed some Shaker purists. At the time, Olds was banking heavily on the new $32,000 luxury car and needed a catchy theme song.

Matthew Jones, a spokesman for Olds' Leo Burnett ad agency in Chicago, says, "We wanted music that spoke to the grandeur, elegance and luxury of the vehicle. And we wanted something that inspired patriotism, because this was an American car going head-to-head with foreign luxury cars."

The ads showed a driver floating through the galaxy while astronauts constructed his dream car to the strains of "Appalachian Spring," composer Aaron Copland's symphonic version of "Simple Gifts."

Folger's reaction to equating his beloved song with luxury: "Shakers are spinning in their graves."

Shaker aficionados don't even like to talk about the rock version of "Simple Gifts," which was used as the theme for the TV tabloid show "American Journal." They say they are relieved that the show was canceled.

Roger Hall, a Maine musicologist who wrote about the history of "Simple Gifts," dismisses the "American Journal" version of the song with one word: "raucous."

No sesquicentennial events are planned at Shaker historical sites such as Pleasant Hill. But Folger, Hall and other Shaker historians are doing what they can to rescue the song's origins from obscurity.

Folger tells the history of "Simple Gifts" to hundreds of visitors each week.

Hall is contacting music publishers and asking for corrections, because many of them print scores of the song without mentioning its composer.

When he wrote the song, Brackett was a 51-year-old Shaker leader in what is today Sabbathday Lake, Maine, which remains the home of the last seven members of the dwindling church. Not much else is known about Brackett, not even the date of composition.

"During the middle of the 19th century, the Shakers composed an incredible number of songs -- over 12,000," Hall says.

Shakers were as vigorous in their worship as they were in their work. They were Christians who believed that Jesus would return to judge the world, so they had better be ready. Men and women were separated in Shaker villages and agreed to lead celibate lives. They lived simply, with few personal possessions. Too bad....

I had a not so simple experience of running through the woods lost with the strains of Aron Copland's Applachin Spring straeming out of speakers in the trees in a near magical music camp. The experience was so transformative that my wife and I were married to the lord of the dance music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1yzqsWxcBY

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 01:35 PM

As usual I'm probably wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 07:07 AM

'Always' is a human illusion. By way of example;
Senofou I never said "always".
As far as I know, in simplistic terms, Nothing is Always. Nothing stays the same.
Not time, not the volume of space, not even the life of a proton.

When I try to to imagine something that persists, it is a probability wave.
I am now seeing virtual particles that just pop into existence in a new light as the unlikly probabilty that "stuff' in a mirror universe racing backwards in time is piercing our space time.
Ah Oh, that almost sounds complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 03:10 AM

He sounds an absolute scream BobL! And as you say, one doesn't forget such things.

There's an item on Youtube where two blokes rattle through all the elements of the Periodic Table in a song. After hearing it a few times, it stays in the brain. I can recite all 118 elements now without hesitation.

Our lovely Latin teacher, Miss Baillie-Reynolds (frightfully posh) used to sing verb conjugations in a funny high voice, and adjective declensions in a sinister low voice, always to the same tunes. Our mouths fell open the first time she burst into song like that, but then we roared with laughter (and learned!) We all got our 'O' Level in two years flat thanks to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: BobL
Date: 07 Aug 18 - 02:20 AM

A much-loved teacher at my school taught French with the aid of an collection of "dotty ditties". After repeatedly singing, for example:
   "'Rester' does not mean to rest,
   'Se reposer' is the best"
several times to the tune of "Mulberry Bush", you do not forget!

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 03:24 AM

Thank you Bob! I do hope so.
I'm afraid I did like a good laugh with my class (although I was tough with the discipline)
I used to simplify things and add a bit of fun.

When teaching phonics, I tried to make it easier. For instance, the -ck words. I would write "Mick ate some chicken and was quickly sick." and drew a huge cartoon on the blackboard for them to copy, with the sentence underneath. They enjoyed drawing Mick spewing copiously into a bucket. They coloured in the sick very enthusiastically.

And I once ill-advisedly offered to do a dance in front of the class if anyone in my bottom maths group achieved full marks in a test. Unfortunately for me, their efforts redoubled, their marks were excellent and I had to be true to my word. I did a little hornpipe for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: BobL
Date: 06 Aug 18 - 01:46 AM

From an eight-year-old, that is a BIG compliment! Bet that whatever you taught them, stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 05:42 PM

Oh dear Rob, and I thought he was absolutely wonderful! I haven't read his books, just drooled over him on TV.
I do like his presentation style though; it's very simple and 'ordinary', not pompous or too posh. But serious inaccuracies are of course unacceptable.

Donuel, I'm glad you think I'm 'always a hoot'!

I remember once at the start of a new school year standing in front of a new class of eight year-olds. One little girl piped up, "My friend told me about you, Miss. She was in your class last year."
I said, "Oh indeed! And what did she say?" (expecting some comments about my brilliant teaching, firm discipline, interesting lessons or some such)
"She said you're the funniest teacher she's ever had!"
Hmmmm.....

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Aug 18 - 05:23 PM

If you converted the mass of a penny to energy I would hide at least a half mile away.
Chemical releases of energy or rapid oxidation are measured much differently.
jO77, RTim and Rob sound insightful,
Senofou is always a hoot. What is a hoot?

(you're a hoot-
Someone that does something funny, or does something out of the ordinary, and then is commented to or about with the entry. The results may be viewed as being anything from wierd to hilarious.
You're a hoot, you ought to be on Comedy Central.
#funny#comical#bodacious#off the chain#out of your mind#crazy#bugged#wacked#a trip.0

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 07:03 AM

Senoufou: Rob, as a schoolteacher all my working life, I can appreciate that when one simplifies a complex and difficult subject, one is presenting a dumbed-down version and inaccuracies may occur.


There are simplifications and inaccuracies which inevitably occur when trying to make a specialist subject accessible to a non-specialist audience. However, it should never be the case that the simplification actually introduces completely erroneous ideas.

The Cox book I'm thinking of that contained a number of howlers was "Why Does E=mc2?"

It has some interesting ways of looking at thing, but quite a lot of what he and his co-author say is just wrong physics. To take one example:

"As you relax by a crackling fire you are absorbing heat from the burning coals, and that heat takes energy away from the coal. In the morning, when the fire has died away, you could very carefully sweep up every last piece of ash and weigh it with scales of unfeasible accuracy. Even if you miraculously managed to get every atom of ash, you would find that it weighed less than the original coals weighed. The difference would be equal to the amount of energy liberated divided by the speed of light squared, as predicted by E = mc2, i.e., according to m = E/c2".

It is a good thing this isn't true, or you would have been completely incinerated by the fire, along with your house and the whole town that you lived in!!! I can't actually believe he wrote that, the physics is so wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: j0_77
Date: 03 Aug 18 - 03:15 AM

This is a fascinating topic. I once poked about in Physics where I became fascinated by the idea of Time.

The experiment then is to find out what time consists of.

So a pendulum clock is a mechanism with a dial on the front marked in equal divisions, and inside the engine that causes it to make the 'tick-tock' sound. I could have used a SunDial but that would have required me to bring in all sorts of astronomy stuff that I don't get. Anyway, the bits in the clock that rotate are governed by the pendulum which waves from side to side having been egged on by the effect of the weights which keep the thing going.

Now that I think I know what is going on inside the Clock I wish to assert, Time is not a thing of any essence like a piece of wood. It is in fact just a controlled change of spacial things which we have elevated.

In a way Time is just regulated spacial change, nothing more.

So when we state that velocity is change of distance over time, D/T, we are really just asserting one change of location per unit of a regulated change of location.

Now the idea that Time can go in another direction is an abstraction from our understanding of regulated spacial change, IOW we are asserting that SOME spacial change does not go the way we perceive it. Indeed that is what happens in some experiments where the observer is reported to cause a change in the data simply by observing it.

Nevertheless it is not the case that Time has its own essence, only that it borrows its nature from a spacial regulated change of which it is made.

Off topic, there is a lovely story about Albert Einstein conducting a mental experiment. In it he has a man on a train to go East to West passed a man on a station platform. As the train passes two lights are caused to glow at the same moment - in platform time that is. However on the train the man sees the first light as brighter than the second because of the way light waves behave, And so relative to the man on the train the physical events are NOT the same, while to the man on the platform they are identical. Those considerations led Albert into complex mathematics where he works out some of his theories.

Perhaps Donuel's example is the start of yet another amazing revelation about change in our universe?

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Aug 18 - 09:13 AM

A simple way to describe a flat universe is to say all the energy/ dirt you shovel out of hole equals the energy/space inside the hole dug.

If you envision the Turok model even a flat universe can recycle itself when 'stuff' rushes toward itself from two different time directions.

COX does a lot of scientist panel shpws/lectures today. I thought he did a great job describing how time simulataneously is moving in the past future and now in his 'slice of a loaf of time'.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: RTim
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 03:10 PM

Auguste Rodin wrote:
" What makes a masterpiece a masterpiece, I know and how delighted I am to know! It is exactly what makes a noble spirit a noble spirit.
It is attaining what is indispensible in the expression of their thoughts and feelings that man and the artist worthily fulfil themselves.
A Masterpiece is, of necessity something very simple which comprises only, and I repeat this, ONLY the essential.
All masterpieces would be quiet naturally accessible to the common man, if he had not lost his feeling for Simplicity."

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 05:57 AM

Rob, as a schoolteacher all my working life, I can appreciate that when one simplifies a complex and difficult subject, one is presenting a dumbed-down version and inaccuracies may occur.

It's a real gift to be able to elucidate accurately and accessibly to folk who have no background in the subject (My degree, in the sixties, was in French and Linguistics - I only have O levels in Maths, Biology, Chemistry and Physics, so rather dim when it comes to advanced Science!)

I also think that Science presenters have to consider their audience. Lecturing to a group of students who have obviously shown an ability and interest in the subject is different to presenting, say, a TV documentary, where the viewers may have had quite a limited education in such things.

I had a friend at Edinburgh Uni who lectured in Molecular Biology, but as far as I could tell, he was a boring old fart!

Brian Cox attracts me because he gauges his audience skilfully and tries to make Science exciting and accessible.

Also, he's extremely...er... well... (swoons)

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 05:51 AM

About twenty years ago my science-minded son and I enjoyed John Gribbin's books.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 05:49 AM

We went to the Plymouth gin distillery a good few years ago and we asked what tonic they recommended. I don't think Fever Tree had been invented yet. They told us it should either be Schweppes or Waitrose's own brand, and DEFINITELY never anything slimline! I love Plymouth gin but I stopped buying it a few years ago when the price suddenly shot up by five or six quid. I'm not into this latest gin craze. I can't see me paying thirty quid for something I'm probably wanting to be sloshing tonic into. I have Gordon's on standby but I must admit that my favourite aperitif tipple is a glass of white wine. We do consume prosecco a fair bit on these summer nights. Our cheapie favourites are I Heart Prosecco and the Taste the Difference Sainsbury's one, though the Cantine Maschio one is also very nice. I won't ever pay the proper price, but watch me swoop when it's 25% off six. We've recently taken to Aperol Spritzes too. Prosecco-Aperol-soda, 3-2-1, with ice and a slice of orange. Once you've had one of those each, then polished off the rest of the prosecco, you're well mellowed!

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 05:29 AM

Sen,

My good friend Ben Gilliland (who I do many of my "mud runs" and outdoors training with) is also a pretty good science communicator:

Ben Gilliland

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 05:25 AM

Senoufou,

I find Lawrence Krauss interesting to listen to, too (and I have all of his books as well). I prefer him to Brian Cox (but I can see why Brian Cox is so popular). My first degree was in Astrophysics (but back in 1977) specialising in Cosmology, and I find Krauss a more informative populariser of science than Cox....I've found several really bad mistakes in one of Cox's books. Not simple errors but illustrations of whole concepts in layman's terms where the illustration is basically flawed, to a degree where it's misleading.

Staying current at the "technical" level is impossible for me due to other commitments (and my maths has atrophied badly too) so following people like Krauss is a useful way for me to update myself without having to wade through reams of equations. He's a very accessible communicator for a broad spectrum of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: BobL
Date: 31 Jul 18 - 02:25 AM

Steve, I thought you'd be a Fever Tree fan.

Martini Spritzer: 1 part gin (pref. Plymouth or Sipsmith), 1 part Bianco, 2 parts tonic, ice&slice. Simple!

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 12:18 PM

Goodness Rob, that chap Lawrence Krauss is a fascinating lecturer isn't he? I have no background at all in Cosmology (although I do rather fancy Brian Cox - ahem) yet I more or less understood what he was saying. I actually find it all frightening, but can't explain why exactly.
All that dark matter, and the fact scientists can measure the mass of the entire universe (and call it 'omega'- very biblical, "I am alpha and omega").
We visited the 'Our Dynamic Earth' exhibition in Edinburgh, and watched the superb film 'We Are All Astronomers' in the dome-shaped cinema. We both quaked with fear and awe as the Universe was demonstrated and explained.
Far from 'simple', I'd say it was 'mind-blowing'!

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 11:42 AM

I never have to ask a bottle of gin where it's going. It's going toward my hi-ball glass for a rendezvous with the Schweppes, the ice and a slice.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 11:34 AM

Senoufou: I've always wondered if everything in the Universe will implode then there'll be another Big Bang and it all starts again, and has done for eternity.)

Current thinking is that the universe probably won't implode/ re-collapse. There is a fair bit of evidence for that. Here's a clip worth spending 15 minutes over:

Lawrence Krauss - Why The Universe Is Probably Flat

(By "flat" he doesn't mean two dimensional, BTW! It's an indication of the net total energy of the universe being zero).

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 09:27 AM

I didn't believe what I will the next time.

Oh! Which direction are you goin gin?

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 05:45 AM

When I went to school, we did Dalton's atomic theory - third year chemistry.

Atoms were represented by red billiard balls with holes in. The compounds were achieved by putting metal rods in the holes.

WE knew that clever people had split the atom. Hiroshima put that beyond doubt.

We knew there covalent compounds where atoms shared electrons.

But Avogadro, Charles Law. Boyles Law, Equivalent Weight - the mainsprings of our understanding. We thought of billiard balls.

That was over fifty years ago when I sat in those science classes.

But really the sub atomic world has drifted further away from the understanding of ordinary folk.

As the advert for the Royal Navy hints. If you clean your bike, you can fire a polaris nucleat missile. We live with the consequences of clever peoples understanding, but most people don't get it.

Simple or not...

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: BobL
Date: 30 Jul 18 - 02:12 AM

I was never a one for a simple solution if a more elaborate one offered itself.

Sometimes this was because the simple one had a flaw, but usually the complex one was more interesting, and I could learn more from pursuing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: keberoxu
Date: 29 Jul 18 - 02:22 PM

Sometimes the most convenient option at hand
entails a lot of complication.
Like fast food dining.
It's super convenient for the consumer,
who does not have to deal with
the complications of
shopping for the ingredients,
paying for each separately,
preparing all the food,
washing up and putting out the garbage afterwards ...

no, those complications are mostly delegated elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 18 - 12:21 PM

how so?













/how

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: keberoxu
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 03:08 PM

I sometimes see simplicity as inconvenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 10:56 AM

Someone might see this theory implies a more deterministic universe/ a universe of fate, save for a quantum variation. Whatduyathink?

Does freedom = a probability change? Do you see fate at work in your life. Or is everything a serendipitous chaotic coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 09:05 AM

Like the universe causing itself I may have caused myself to only create suspicions combined with being a hypnotist to endure numerous investigations by many agencies into my future.

My advice therefore is if you think you know what is going to happen, shut up about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 08:33 AM

Pete was a ultimate compassionate genius then.



Cyclic in a static way [paradox] allowing for quantum variation between each inevitable cataclysmic recreation.
'We' recently learned that neutrinos go through 3 phases and have a finite mass. It was followed by a Nobel. Each phase was named a flavor.
Things flying backwards in time are hard to find.


We may be near the cusp of knowing what dark energy [mysterious expanding space energy] is. Turok says that being unable to see the far flung unobserable universe is an indication [near proof] that leaves 'room' for his theory of a mirror universe traveling backwards in time.


Imagine some people being slightly aware of the mirror universe that broadcast things that already happened there and are only about to happen here. I will avoid using the p word, but why else would I have walked into the FBI office in Buffalo NY and tell them a hijacking will change the world and there are means to prevent this future event?
I even painted a 16 sq. foot painting of 9-11 7 years before it happened. Obviously I did not stop it. Only a quantum variable in probability could do that. Quantum math is only a probability in which all outcoms must add up to 1.

I better end theree with that simplicity

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 05:24 AM

Any fool can get complicated, it takes a genius to achieve simplicity, Pete Seeger.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Simplicity
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 04:43 AM

So it's rather like a mirror version of us, going in the opposite direction? Is it cyclical Donuel? (I've always wondered if everything in the Universe will implode then there'll be another Big Bang and it all starts again, and has done for eternity.)

A right-handed neutrino eh? Why do you reckon nobody has discovered that yet? Lack of technology? It should be discoverable with mathematics, as you say, once people are aware that it could be 'out there'.

Most interesting Donuel. Thank you for posting that - made me think outside my usual comfort zone.

Subject: BS: Simplicity
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jul 18 - 03:23 AM

In a complex society simplicity is a saving grace. "its fun to be simple, its fun to be free"
When faced with big questions even science has a tendancy to become overly complex.

This is where Turok, who formerly taught at Princeton and Cambridge and now directs the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, enters the discussion with an intriguing new theory. Physicists have known for decades that antimatter particles are mathematically identical to their particle pairs if they were going backward in time. The wave function for a positron, for instance, is identical to what we would expect to observe in an electron if the arrow of time were reversed. Is this just a fun (and sometimes helpful) mathematical trick, or does it tell us something significant about our universe?

For Turok, the answer is clear. In his own words:

“So we’ve developed a mathematical model, in which, as the universe in which we reside was pulled into existence, an anti-universe was also pulled into existence. It precisely parallels the creation of an electron-positron pair.”

Properly put, whether we find ourselves in the universe or in the anti-universe is simply semantics. But this is where things get exciting. Turok proposes that the same dark energy that pulled our universe into being simultaneously pulled an anti-universe into being—but those universes headed in opposite directions in time. This anti-universe is not a second universe. Turok’s is not a multiverse theory. But it does not overlap with our own space-time because it moves (from our perspective) “backwards” in time.

The universe is the chicken and the egg this way. THE UNIVERSE CAUSES ITSELF. Finally, if we were to follow our own “time” direction, from the end to the beginning of the anti-universe, then it would appear to “cause” our own universe. Similarly, if we were to follow the time arrow of a hypothetical anti-human in the anti-universe, from the end of our universe to the beginning, then our universe could appear to cause the anti-universe. (See the image above in this article.) As Turok stated:

It’s very paradoxical but very simple. In this model, actually, the anti-matter universe goes backward to the big bang, and it causes the big bang. In the mirror image, our side, if we followed it backwards in time, would cause the other side. So, the universe causes itself.

There’s a lot I find fascinating, and even elegant and appealing, about Turok’s model. It does require the existence of a particle that has not yet been observed—a right-handed neutrino, which many people believe must exist—but otherwise it’s comprehensible under the Standard Model of particle physics. The Grand Unified Theories, supersymmetry, string theory, much of the theoretical work of decent decades, would become unnecessary. “What we already know,” as Turok said, “would be enough to explain everything in the universe.”

It will fall to other theorists to test the mathematics of Turok’s proposal, and to masters of experimentation like Michael Doser to devise creative ways to test its implications and predictions. We have countless questions we look forward to asking Turok in an interview to come.

For now, however, Turok’s theory is another fascinating attempt to solve one of the most basic, enduring, and consequential questions ever asked. Wherethefugawe?