It just sounds weird, but I've had it in my 3rd grade of high school and it's pretty simple and very useful math. You won't use it in everyday situations, but knowing about it changes how you perceive a lot of things both in math and in physics. Just what Weinstein says: "we lack language" AND what Rogan says "I lack tools" meaning really "I lack the instinct" are both true: it's hard to discuss certain things without differential calculus just using English, and I suppose it's more and more true in the realm of really advanced math and physics that you need to know some really tough things from modern math to get a grasp of anything, and you don't just get exposed to it by education system because of lack of time. Back to differential calculus, as you see there are countries that teach that in high schools (though not anymore in my country's case) and some don't. Somehow it's sad, as it's really nothing like some novelty, it was invented around 350 years ago. So... people like Weinstein and his colleagues are kind of blocked from spreading their knowledge - or suppositions even - to the broader public.
Another way to understand Gauge Symmetry is this. I have an electron here (call it A) and I say "I call my A electron negatively charged" You have and electron there (call it B) and you say "I call my B electron negatively charged" The problem arises when I measure the charge of your electron from my perspective and based on my definition I find it positively charged and you do the same for my electron and you too find my electron positively charged. So when I measure the charge of my electron is negative but when you measure the charge of my electron is positive! If there is a way for you to understand why you made that "false" measurement you can derive a function that explains your weird result, that function will be Gauge Symmetry, there is a symmetry between my local space and your local space that makes us disagree on our measuring results, but now that we know that function, we can apply it and "fix" our measurements. Same thing apply to General Relativity, where to different observers measure different times or different lengths of the same clock or the same object, Einstein's equations are that function that shows those 2 different observers how and why they disagree on these measurements, and the reason is Gauge Symmetry. Therefore we understand that charge, time and space are arbitrary and can have any value locally if some Gauge Symmetry allows it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another example is the photon. We know the Earth is round but a photon traveling at the speed of light will see the Earth perfectly flat, so what is the true shape of the Earth? Nothing, its arbitary or It's that visualisation that Eric Weinstein showed in the video, a 4 dimensional Earth that will look both round and flat based on our perspective and our speed.
When he's not tripping people out with confusing riddles.. He sits around watching 3 TV's each playing a different matrix movie in a 760 degrees rotating chair...
David King that would determine the derivative of the secondary electromagnetic linguistic curvature which simply equates to speed. The polyinclusive nature of the matrix is revealed in spinorial matter.
Shit is intense and the actual feeling of understanding is very real its like looking at different relative dimensions with different infinities 720° of infinities
StormyWeather hmmm I won’t judge the guy until I actually know the literature and physics, I’m fucking 17 and tired watching this shit, I doubt he meant to get that idea in my head, I think he just wanted to peek Rogan’s mind and just tell him that there are things that scientists have found that are beautiful and foundational to the universe but no one cares to seek them out
A bit too technical for Joe. I'm not saying he is dumb either. Its just Eric is talking about things that require very specific domain knowledge. If you don't know calculus or linear algebra he might as well be speaking gibberish, although Eric does an okay job conceptualizing it.
@@lachyt5247 That's what I mean. If he doesn't understand limits then he won't understand the idea of the derivative. There is a whole bunch of prior domain knowledge one needs, otherwise one won't really be able to understand it. If he doesn't know basic matrix operations he wont know that ab = c is not the same as c = ba. I think Eric explained it okay enough although a little needlessly complicated with the pay raise analogy. It's basically like if Joe was trying to explain technical martial arts to Eric. He would probably be just as lost.
@Regular Apistevist Basically same here. I study mostly linear algebra and calc on a regular basis but I find when I try to talk about it with people that don't understand it, they truly can't relate to what I am saying. Its literally like speaking in a different language. I just don't know if it was the greatest topic for Eric to discuss, although I found it interesting. Even then, I don't study physics so I'm only slightly more informed than Joe when it comes to what Eric is talking about lmao.
@@tear728 I do study both physics and math...and I didn't "get it" or...he wasn't quite there with it. That said, sometimes you can't simplify things to the extent the "general public" can easily "get it". Ask Einstein, Schrodinger...and so on. I do fusion work, and after simplifying it as far as possible for some media person - which might take 15 minutes, they then ask for one sentence containing words of one syllable or less, and sorry, you just cannot get there. Well, that's press-release science, they get there, but it's effectively telling lies via skipping all the important truths.
@Regular Apistevist lol jesus christ ... did you just call Eric a dickhead, accuse him of showing off, bullshitting people, and attacking other physicists? fail.
For real. Joe gets caught up on the weirdest shit thats usually not even significant. His ego is huge and he has to find any lane he can to impose his view. Even if it means being devils advocate about the dumbest fucking shit.
@@msmurk2011 I don't think this is an ego thing at all. Joe probably has an ego, but he checks it at the door to learn from his own guests since he's a very curious and open-minded individual. Sharing your own view and having a friendly discussion about it doesn't make you egotistical. This is a podcast not an interview.
His ego is fucking huge guys idk how you dont see it. He is extremely defensive of himself and is very adamant about aggressing his view when he thinks hes right. Im not saying hes not curious.. and he is non judgmental a lot of the time
I've been listening to Eric for awhile, and I've finally figured out, especially during technical discussions, he tends to switch reference frames a lot (e.g., talking about the subject and then suddenly talking about talking about the subject), and once I noticed that, it's been significantly easier for me to follow his speech. Still not *easy*.
"Okay Joe, this is the most important thing in the history of the universe, so listen closely: The spheroidial modial vortices represented above in Figure A renders the quantum fendium geodicic structure redundant on a macro scale. Think of it like this -- imagine you have a cup of coffee. Inside that cup of coffee exists the entire ordo-axiomatical nuon particulate substrate. Now throw that cup of coffee against the wall using only your mind. See? Akido masters may deny the dominance of the UFC, but their luboxial preturbations can't hide in the chunt field matrices. That shit Krause was spouting about squares on a chess board was fucking retarded. In two hours you could have a PhD in this shit."
I don't know many of those words but I think I understand the difficulty of trying to explain a graphic like that using examples or layman's terms. You can't even compare quantum to the macro level. They are not the same even if some of the words describing quantum phenomena are the same as "regular" physics. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED - Full Video - ua-cam.com/video/R3SaX73A8nc/v-deo.html Hi, and welcome back to another video from MMATALK! In this video Joe Rogan talks about weight cutting and brain damage in MMA/UFC. We use a clip from the Joe Rogan podcast - ‘The Joe Rogan experience, or JRE MMA Show - (full episode is The Joe Rogan Experience Eric Weinstein ). In this video, Joe Rogan and Eric Weinstein talk the dangers of MMA/UFC/Combat sports. Joe Rogan talk about fighters cutting weight and dehydrating themselves. Joe Rogan also compares it to CTE brain damage, and compares weight cutting to fighters with brain damage. For a long time, people have been saying the UFC should have more weight classes. People want to see a UFC 165, 175 and 225IB Division. Maybe Dana White (the UFC's president will implement it in the future) If you enjoyed this 'Joe Rogan on CTE brain damage and weight cutting', hit that like, comment and subscribe!
I could be wrong but I believe he only took intro physics. If you've been to college you know that an intro class doesn't make you an expert on the subject, although he might be knowledgable.
Love these guys! I've been trying to understand gauge theory from online sources but it was impossible until now. Eric says stuff as if we know his vocabulary, so, I take notes and then look up everything I don't understand. Then I understand about 5% more.
This video should be called "Eric Weinstein regurgitates information from an undergraduate textbook in particle physics without actually explaining anything."
Gauge symmetry is not really all that mysterious. Here it is in a nutshell. Suppose you're at point A and I'm very close by at point B. Each of us has a ruler for measuring objects. Now, there is no guarantee that the units on your ruler will be the same as the units on my ruler. Nature doesn't come with built-in units. We can choose them arbitrarily, and in the most general case, your units will be different from mine. Say you choose feet and I choose inches. So your ruler uses feet and mine uses inches. Now, suppose we have an object that moves from point A (you and your ruler) to point B (me and my ruler). We want to know if the object's length changed as it moved from A to B. (In calculus terms, we want to differentiate the object.) Now, if you and I were using rulers that were both in the same units, this would be simple to answer. We could just compare our numbers. If my number is bigger, the object got longer, etc. But as I said, in the most general case, you and I will be using different units. In that case we cannot just naively compare the numbers. We must also account for the fact that our units are different. In other words, there are two reasons why we might find a change in the number that describes the length of the object: 1) The object's length actually did change and/or 2) the object's length didn't change but we shifted from using one length unit to another. For example, if the object is 1 foot long and its length doesn't change between A and B, you will assign it a length of 1 and I will assign it a length of 12. Does that mean it actually did change, that it got 12 times bigger? No. We're just using different units. And if we don't account for the fact that our units are 12 times smaller at B, then we will "measure" a change that is not real. It's not real because it doesn't reflect what happened to the object's length (which is independent of the units we're using), it only reflects the units (coordinate system) we use to describe it. In physics, we want to write down laws in a way that is independent of what units we use, so that relationships true in one set of units will be true in all sets of units. Only in this way will the laws reflect Nature itself, rather than our arbitrary ways of describing it. Therefore we build into the mathematics a 'correction factor' which is really just an elaborate version of a unit conversion. So when you change units in going from A to B, this built-in correction factor does this conversion for you automatically, so that you now have parity between your units so that when you compare numbers, the difference (which you need to do a derivative) reflects a genuine change in the object's length. In technical math terms, this 'correction factor' is called a 'connection'. In physics, the connection ends up representing what are called 'gauge fields', which in turn represent the forces of nature. So in brief: gauge symmetry is a way of finding out if an object has really changed (i.e. differentiating the object) by accounting for the fact that the reference system (units) used to describe the object may be different at different points (in spacetime), for different observers, etc.
10:20 this analogy that he gave his absolutely horrible… I completely agree with Joe here which normally I don’t in these types of discussions but the guy didn’t awful job explaining why “rock is greater than rock”
Thank you so much, Joe! This was awesome. You are really cutting boundaries with your podcast. I study math and physics, and this has increased my respect for you immensely. Thank you for bridging gaps in culture that were disconnected before.
These second derivatives are done on transcendental functions: sine,cosine, e^x; because they all yield the original function times a constant. Now this should make sense as to why the derivative is taken twice.
This was actually a pretty good explanation. The only thing I don't understand is whether defining a custom reference is a mathematical convenience or a necessity. What exactly _is_ the point in doing this?
Maybe the point could have been made even more clearly by pointing out that the peak of mount Chimborazo in Equador is the point on the earth furthest from the center of the planet.
Eric Weinstein knows his stuff, I think we can all agree. However, he CANNOT communicate in a clear or consistent manner the subject matter. I grew up in and around physics and engineering environments and could not follow what he was saying. I still have no idea what that Planet Hopf video is, let alone what it is showing or why it's important. I would hate to have to take a class or a lecture from him.
William Gruesbeck Jr. exactly what I was thinking haha. Like I feel like he thinks he’s making sense but he absolutely is not. And it’s not like it’s jut cause he’s so intelligent or using difficult language. Just bad descriptions
He's intelligent enough to understand, but cannot teach. I know Einsteins quote of "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it'" probably doesn't apply here, but, I mean, Eric goes for the most abstract and, honestly, autistic approach here. It is not a simple subject, by any means, but a great orator could relate this to the every man in a way that they could grasp.
You may have a physics and engineering background, but do you have a background in quantum physics? It's a whole different world. You are missing a whole lot of ground on which to even begin to try and understand it. To understand this particular topic, you will need a 4D space conception. You will need to have a basic grounding on the quantum phraseology he is using.
@@mrgyani Yes, I do have a background with that and no I'm not missing "a whole lot of ground on which to even begin to try to understand it." Please stop making assumptions about me, my background, and other people. You're not good at it. Seriously, you should stop.
The hopf animation shows two maps of earth: One normal, and one inverted. Does the inverted one correspond to the halfway-point of the glass rotation trick?
Poi spinning has a lot of 720 degree rotations. You weave the two strands together one one side of your body, but you have to weave them an equal number on the other side an equal amount to untangle yourself and return to normal. All to give the illusion of continuous spinning on a flat plane.
I'd go to "guage pressure" as an explaination of guage theory. When you pump up a tire, it is measured in respect to the ambient pressure for convenience. You change the reference point depending on elevation! That is absolute pressure is meaningless but relative pressure (as in a pressure difference) is physical. We could measure in respect to vacuum, but then we'd have huge numbers. Also, a pumped tire (as in it is hard) at one elevation will require a different pressure for the same hardness at another elevation. This is why when you go down a mountain your relative pressure "decreases". The reference point is at a higher pressure, so that pressure difference is less. If we had a fixed reference, it'd always measure the same value. Again, our guage transform is a map which changes the reference point of pressure according to the ambient pressure. *Note: you can change the reference pressure, but the pressure difference will allways be the same.
The highest mountain on the planet is Mt. McKinley in Alaska. Also called Denali. This is measured from the base of the mountain "0" to the top "20,310 ft" and does not take into consideration the base height of the land upon which it sits. This means Denali is actually a higher mountain, base to top, than Mt. Everest. Technically, Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain on the earth measured from base to peak, but most of it is underwater so that's a factor that needs to be considered with any "highest mountain base to peak" discussion. Unless the Pacific Ocean gets drained, Mauna Kea is tallest only in a technical sense.
Damn his explanation of the 720 degree rotation move with the coffee cup and Cmdr Frazer’s explanation of making a u turn in a fighter is very similar.
Duudeeee I was just randomly watching this again for the nostalgia but wtf I even get what he's trying to say now! I UNDERSTAND THE DUDE ABOUT THE FIBER NOW!
Also a flat plank nailed to the floor will visually appear as an incline step...did you need to lift any higher to step over half inch thick plank? Would you have tripped on it if you could not see it? Obstacle is optical...pebble or mountain?
As a surveyor who is also someone just now taking an extreme interest in physics, the LAST thing i expected him to bring up was geoids to explain this theory. Amazing.
I don't know how many times I've watched this segment, but I do know that I understand a couple of parts of it now... And others, Weinstein could have recited in ancient Mongolian and I would be just as lost as when I first heard it.
This dude is my favorite person to watch on Joe's podcasts. Guy has knowledge on a whole other level than average humans. He has the ability to explain things in a way that most people can't do and won't bother trying to do, for normals like me! 😂
My issue with the coffee cup example is that it’s not the object’s fault you are uncomfortable when rotating it a full 360 degrees. You instead choose/need to rotate it twice only to make it possible for your arm’s ability of motion all while the cup has returned to its original position twice now.
It has been 2 months since you wrote down this comment, don't know if have figured that by now. But the point is not the constitution of the arm, but the fact that is possible to show case how a 720 degrees turn look like in the most simple way.
I love how he talks to Jamie like its his Jamie
Joe has temporarily giving up ownership for this show. Haha
I need to get me a Jamie
Jamie is as jamie does.. Mrs Blue.
Nigga u gay
I think the only person other than Joe to master the "Jaime pull up the video of the X doing Y" is Neil Degrasse Tyson
"Take another puff, my friend, because it's worth it."
I might pop a mushroom cap to see what's up.
Lol
I like how his ‘simple’ explanation starts of with “so when you’re doing differential calculus...”
It just sounds weird, but I've had it in my 3rd grade of high school and it's pretty simple and very useful math. You won't use it in everyday situations, but knowing about it changes how you perceive a lot of things both in math and in physics.
Just what Weinstein says: "we lack language" AND what Rogan says "I lack tools" meaning really "I lack the instinct" are both true: it's hard to discuss certain things without differential calculus just using English, and I suppose it's more and more true in the realm of really advanced math and physics that you need to know some really tough things from modern math to get a grasp of anything, and you don't just get exposed to it by education system because of lack of time.
Back to differential calculus, as you see there are countries that teach that in high schools (though not anymore in my country's case) and some don't. Somehow it's sad, as it's really nothing like some novelty, it was invented around 350 years ago. So... people like Weinstein and his colleagues are kind of blocked from spreading their knowledge - or suppositions even - to the broader public.
You're right, it's adorable that he thinks Joe Rogan has ever taken calculus.
Differential calculus is a joke
thank you for making me laugh out loud :) Feels good!
I mean on the scale of complexity we're talking about here differential calculus really is as simple as 1+1=2
now back to Joey Diaz fart stories
Lol
"Listen dawg... I let out a fart one time back in 1988"
"Let me explain this to you cuz you need to understand. THE SMOG MONSTER!"
Christian James “do ya undastand me cawksucka??”
Another way to understand Gauge Symmetry is this.
I have an electron here (call it A) and I say "I call my A electron negatively charged"
You have and electron there (call it B) and you say "I call my B electron negatively charged"
The problem arises when I measure the charge of your electron from my perspective and based on my definition I find it positively charged and you do the same for my electron and you too find my electron positively charged.
So when I measure the charge of my electron is negative but when you measure the charge of my electron is positive! If there is a way for you to understand why you made that "false" measurement you can derive a function that explains your weird result, that function will be Gauge Symmetry, there is a symmetry between my local space and your local space that makes us disagree on our measuring results, but now that we know that function, we can apply it and "fix" our measurements.
Same thing apply to General Relativity, where to different observers measure different times or different lengths of the same clock or the same object, Einstein's equations are that function that shows those 2 different observers how and why they disagree on these measurements, and the reason is Gauge Symmetry.
Therefore we understand that charge, time and space are arbitrary and can have any value locally if some Gauge Symmetry allows it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example is the photon.
We know the Earth is round but a photon traveling at the speed of light will see the Earth perfectly flat, so what is the true shape of the Earth? Nothing, its arbitary or It's that visualisation that Eric Weinstein showed in the video, a 4 dimensional Earth that will look both round and flat based on our perspective and our speed.
Thank you! This is the first explanation I have read where the 'lightbulb flash' moment happened. Thank you so much. Brilliant explanation.
Thank you
Bravo, I've been trying to understand that for a while now and that was a great simplification.
I think I understood a little better now
Smart man
When he's not tripping people out with confusing riddles.. He sits around watching 3 TV's each playing a different matrix movie in a 760 degrees rotating chair...
David King that would determine the derivative of the secondary electromagnetic linguistic curvature which simply equates to speed. The polyinclusive nature of the matrix is revealed in spinorial matter.
@@alonzokincaid1362 😂
I completely understood every word. Please don’t ask me any questions, I have nothing further to add.
😆😆😆
Shit is intense and the actual feeling of understanding is very real its like looking at different relative dimensions with different infinities 720° of infinities
when does the English version come out?
in about 720 degree and 2 flat globes forever turning into each other
StormyWeather hmmm I won’t judge the guy until I actually know the literature and physics, I’m fucking 17 and tired watching this shit, I doubt he meant to get that idea in my head, I think he just wanted to peek Rogan’s mind and just tell him that there are things that scientists have found that are beautiful and foundational to the universe but no one cares to seek them out
I studied physics in college and to be honest I started getting lost haha.
Noah Overholt j
@@gbalfour9618 Did you get an A?
This guy’s haircut looks like that Planet Hopf graphic
Lmao
Damn
Dude's got rockstar hair
Sexy Jewish hair.
LOOL
A bit too technical for Joe. I'm not saying he is dumb either. Its just Eric is talking about things that require very specific domain knowledge. If you don't know calculus or linear algebra he might as well be speaking gibberish, although Eric does an okay job conceptualizing it.
@@lachyt5247 That's what I mean. If he doesn't understand limits then he won't understand the idea of the derivative. There is a whole bunch of prior domain knowledge one needs, otherwise one won't really be able to understand it. If he doesn't know basic matrix operations he wont know that ab = c is not the same as c = ba. I think Eric explained it okay enough although a little needlessly complicated with the pay raise analogy.
It's basically like if Joe was trying to explain technical martial arts to Eric. He would probably be just as lost.
@Regular Apistevist Basically same here. I study mostly linear algebra and calc on a regular basis but I find when I try to talk about it with people that don't understand it, they truly can't relate to what I am saying. Its literally like speaking in a different language. I just don't know if it was the greatest topic for Eric to discuss, although I found it interesting. Even then, I don't study physics so I'm only slightly more informed than Joe when it comes to what Eric is talking about lmao.
@@tear728 I do study both physics and math...and I didn't "get it" or...he wasn't quite there with it. That said, sometimes you can't simplify things to the extent the "general public" can easily "get it". Ask Einstein, Schrodinger...and so on. I do fusion work, and after simplifying it as far as possible for some media person - which might take 15 minutes, they then ask for one sentence containing words of one syllable or less, and sorry, you just cannot get there. Well, that's press-release science, they get there, but it's effectively telling lies via skipping all the important truths.
@Regular Apistevist lol jesus christ ... did you just call Eric a dickhead, accuse him of showing off, bullshitting people, and attacking other physicists?
fail.
@@seren3797 his name is Eric. Bret is his brother
Joe "i might pop a mushroom cap and see whats up" Rogan
Came to comments hoping for this. Bravo.
Joe getting the one chance to learn something incredible and gets distracted by the highest mountain
For real. Joe gets caught up on the weirdest shit thats usually not even significant. His ego is huge and he has to find any lane he can to impose his view. Even if it means being devils advocate about the dumbest fucking shit.
de marques you escalated that quickly
@@msmurk2011 Who pooped in your cereal bowl? Joe is far more curious and non-judgmental than the vast majority of people.
@@msmurk2011 I don't think this is an ego thing at all. Joe probably has an ego, but he checks it at the door to learn from his own guests since he's a very curious and open-minded individual. Sharing your own view and having a friendly discussion about it doesn't make you egotistical. This is a podcast not an interview.
His ego is fucking huge guys idk how you dont see it. He is extremely defensive of himself and is very adamant about aggressing his view when he thinks hes right. Im not saying hes not curious.. and he is non judgmental a lot of the time
Oh. I thought gauge symmetry was how nicely your dashboard is laid out.
Funniest thing I’ve read in a while
Gay
this wasn’t funny but i still laughed. it was a 720 degree joke
😂
I've been listening to Eric for awhile, and I've finally figured out, especially during technical discussions, he tends to switch reference frames a lot (e.g., talking about the subject and then suddenly talking about talking about the subject), and once I noticed that, it's been significantly easier for me to follow his speech. Still not *easy*.
"Okay Joe, this is the most important thing in the history of the universe, so listen closely: The spheroidial modial vortices represented above in Figure A renders the quantum fendium geodicic structure redundant on a macro scale. Think of it like this -- imagine you have a cup of coffee. Inside that cup of coffee exists the entire ordo-axiomatical nuon particulate substrate. Now throw that cup of coffee against the wall using only your mind. See? Akido masters may deny the dominance of the UFC, but their luboxial preturbations can't hide in the chunt field matrices. That shit Krause was spouting about squares on a chess board was fucking retarded. In two hours you could have a PhD in this shit."
Lmao
now it all makes sense
JoeGamer81 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I don't know many of those words but I think I understand the difficulty of trying to explain a graphic like that using examples or layman's terms. You can't even compare quantum to the macro level. They are not the same even if some of the words describing quantum phenomena are the same as "regular" physics.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
This is too good
Joe: “Is Everest the highest?”
Me: No Joe, YOU’RE the highest.
You can probaly chew hard enough to break your teeth if you wanted to
6:32 - 6:35 is every viewers face when looking at that model 😂😂😂😂😂
XD
When your girl trying to argue with you but you hit her with the "not so fast, I know Guage theory" 8:00
You hth to the maxx ima tell my girl that, un-ironically
11:00 I love Jamie, "It's like MMA math."
underrated comment
I lack the tools as well
NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED - Full Video - ua-cam.com/video/R3SaX73A8nc/v-deo.html
Hi, and welcome back to another video from MMATALK!
In this video Joe Rogan talks about weight cutting and brain damage in MMA/UFC. We use a clip from the Joe Rogan podcast - ‘The Joe Rogan experience, or JRE MMA Show - (full episode is The Joe Rogan Experience Eric Weinstein ). In this video, Joe Rogan and Eric Weinstein talk the dangers of MMA/UFC/Combat sports. Joe Rogan talk about fighters cutting weight and dehydrating themselves. Joe Rogan also compares it to CTE brain damage, and compares weight cutting to fighters with brain damage.
For a long time, people have been saying the UFC should have more weight classes. People want to see a UFC 165, 175 and 225IB Division. Maybe Dana White (the UFC's president will implement it in the future)
If you enjoyed this 'Joe Rogan on CTE brain damage and weight cutting', hit that like, comment and subscribe!
Joe "is Everest the highest?" Rogan
Joe's a dumbass.
Imagine being over 50 years old and not knowing highest mountain in the world. American education at work here.
Martti Hänninen imagine getting mad over nothing.
Joe “but rock isn’t better than rock” Rogan
Jamie got an A in physics but when the topic comes up he never says anything.
Because he's all about doing his job and not blowing up his own spot. Jamie a lowkey badass
Gauge symmetry is a mathematical theory based on quantum physics, physics is separate from this idea; I believe.
I'd say because there's a big difference in getting an A in a class and being an expert.
@@Thatotter223 you believe correctly.
I could be wrong but I believe he only took intro physics. If you've been to college you know that an intro class doesn't make you an expert on the subject, although he might be knowledgable.
I bet Harvey Weinstein could explain spinners.
Love these guys! I've been trying to understand gauge theory from online sources but it was impossible until now. Eric says stuff as if we know his vocabulary,
so, I take notes and then look up everything I don't understand. Then I understand about 5% more.
😅
I can see Eric's words literally flying over Joe's head, just bouncing off all that in-glorious baldness 🤣🤣🤣
the hyper inflation wage example is probably the best example i’ve ever heard
15:00 here we go, we move from quantum physics to hand spinners
Just did a spinner... Now I'm invisible
This video should be called "Eric Weinstein regurgitates information from an undergraduate textbook in particle physics without actually explaining anything."
Gauge symmetry is not really all that mysterious. Here it is in a nutshell. Suppose you're at point A and I'm very close by at point B. Each of us has a ruler for measuring objects. Now, there is no guarantee that the units on your ruler will be the same as the units on my ruler. Nature doesn't come with built-in units. We can choose them arbitrarily, and in the most general case, your units will be different from mine. Say you choose feet and I choose inches. So your ruler uses feet and mine uses inches. Now, suppose we have an object that moves from point A (you and your ruler) to point B (me and my ruler). We want to know if the object's length changed as it moved from A to B. (In calculus terms, we want to differentiate the object.) Now, if you and I were using rulers that were both in the same units, this would be simple to answer. We could just compare our numbers. If my number is bigger, the object got longer, etc. But as I said, in the most general case, you and I will be using different units. In that case we cannot just naively compare the numbers. We must also account for the fact that our units are different. In other words, there are two reasons why we might find a change in the number that describes the length of the object: 1) The object's length actually did change and/or 2) the object's length didn't change but we shifted from using one length unit to another. For example, if the object is 1 foot long and its length doesn't change between A and B, you will assign it a length of 1 and I will assign it a length of 12. Does that mean it actually did change, that it got 12 times bigger? No. We're just using different units. And if we don't account for the fact that our units are 12 times smaller at B, then we will "measure" a change that is not real. It's not real because it doesn't reflect what happened to the object's length (which is independent of the units we're using), it only reflects the units (coordinate system) we use to describe it. In physics, we want to write down laws in a way that is independent of what units we use, so that relationships true in one set of units will be true in all sets of units. Only in this way will the laws reflect Nature itself, rather than our arbitrary ways of describing it. Therefore we build into the mathematics a 'correction factor' which is really just an elaborate version of a unit conversion. So when you change units in going from A to B, this built-in correction factor does this conversion for you automatically, so that you now have parity between your units so that when you compare numbers, the difference (which you need to do a derivative) reflects a genuine change in the object's length. In technical math terms, this 'correction factor' is called a 'connection'. In physics, the connection ends up representing what are called 'gauge fields', which in turn represent the forces of nature. So in brief: gauge symmetry is a way of finding out if an object has really changed (i.e. differentiating the object) by accounting for the fact that the reference system (units) used to describe the object may be different at different points (in spacetime), for different observers, etc.
10:20 this analogy that he gave his absolutely horrible… I completely agree with Joe here which normally I don’t in these types of discussions but the guy didn’t awful job explaining why “rock is greater than rock”
Love it when these 2 get to chatting. I'm gonna learn today
Listening to this guy talk just makes me realize I was never ready for this plane of existence.
Thank you so much, Joe! This was awesome. You are really cutting boundaries with your podcast. I study math and physics, and this has increased my respect for you immensely. Thank you for bridging gaps in culture that were disconnected before.
I love your brilliant mind Eric. Please keep doing these types of fascination podcasts.
These second derivatives are done on transcendental functions: sine,cosine, e^x; because they all yield the original function times a constant. Now this should make sense as to why the derivative is taken twice.
-come home high
-eat
-go on UA-cam
-see this video
-start to question if I’m to high or I’m learning this shit and it’s actually blowing my mind
Ha! Jamie gets Joe.
"It's like MMA math."
"Oh, yeah!*
I literally just spilled my cup of water...thanks Eric
"Take another puff my friend, because it's worth it." Eric Weinstein 2018
"lay off the weed" - also Eric Weinstein 2018
@@JJSMJ lol balance is key
@@tchrisou812 True I smoke immediately after work and not a second early
@@JJSMJ that works
Joe needs to puff some dmt, then Eric needs to talk fast, before the high ends. Then Joe will understand.
Fascinating explanation. Thank you very much.
One mention of Lagrangians and the video bails. Just like me in college :3
Echer's work is so trippy. Best art expo I've ever seen. Check him out on youtube, the guy was a pure genius.
why are all of the full videos gone?
As an electrician I can confirm that with a “tic” tester we can confirm electrical currents through insulation.
Where's the full 3 hour video Joe?
My cat's breath smells like cat food!
Tim and Eric did a stupendously good parody of this kind of segment on their skit about the universe.
At 7:42 Joe looks like he's trying to choke the Physics into submission 😂
“We lack the time” never heard a better quote
Where's the full pod cast!
I actually enjoyed this bit of convo
3:05 "Dude, it's totally trippy" lmfao
7:40 🤣🤣that cut to Joe’s face 😂😭
This was actually a pretty good explanation. The only thing I don't understand is whether defining a custom reference is a mathematical convenience or a necessity. What exactly _is_ the point in doing this?
Maybe the point could have been made even more clearly by pointing out that the peak of mount Chimborazo in Equador is the point on the earth furthest from the center of the planet.
This guy is great for insomnia
This whole conversation is dumb 😂
My brain melted when he said that rock beats rock because rock beats something that beats something that beats rock.
That's because "beating something" is a transitive as it is a ordering-relation, just like < on the real numbers.
Eric Weinstein knows his stuff, I think we can all agree. However, he CANNOT communicate in a clear or consistent manner the subject matter. I grew up in and around physics and engineering environments and could not follow what he was saying. I still have no idea what that Planet Hopf video is, let alone what it is showing or why it's important. I would hate to have to take a class or a lecture from him.
William Gruesbeck Jr. exactly what I was thinking haha. Like I feel like he thinks he’s making sense but he absolutely is not. And it’s not like it’s jut cause he’s so intelligent or using difficult language. Just bad descriptions
He's intelligent enough to understand, but cannot teach. I know Einsteins quote of "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it'" probably doesn't apply here, but, I mean, Eric goes for the most abstract and, honestly, autistic approach here. It is not a simple subject, by any means, but a great orator could relate this to the every man in a way that they could grasp.
He's got 160 iq, of course he's going to be very specific
You may have a physics and engineering background, but do you have a background in quantum physics? It's a whole different world.
You are missing a whole lot of ground on which to even begin to try and understand it.
To understand this particular topic, you will need a 4D space conception. You will need to have a basic grounding on the quantum phraseology he is using.
@@mrgyani Yes, I do have a background with that and no I'm not missing "a whole lot of ground on which to even begin to try to understand it."
Please stop making assumptions about me, my background, and other people. You're not good at it. Seriously, you should stop.
The hopf animation shows two maps of earth: One normal, and one inverted. Does the inverted one correspond to the halfway-point of the glass rotation trick?
Poi spinning has a lot of 720 degree rotations. You weave the two strands together one one side of your body, but you have to weave them an equal number on the other side an equal amount to untangle yourself and return to normal. All to give the illusion of continuous spinning on a flat plane.
I totally got this. After listening to it for 3 times.. But now it makes perfect sense
I'd go to "guage pressure" as an explaination of guage theory. When you pump up a tire, it is measured in respect to the ambient pressure for convenience. You change the reference point depending on elevation! That is absolute pressure is meaningless but relative pressure (as in a pressure difference) is physical.
We could measure in respect to vacuum, but then we'd have huge numbers. Also, a pumped tire (as in it is hard) at one elevation will require a different pressure for the same hardness at another elevation. This is why when you go down a mountain your relative pressure "decreases". The reference point is at a higher pressure, so that pressure difference is less. If we had a fixed reference, it'd always measure the same value. Again, our guage transform is a map which changes the reference point of pressure according to the ambient pressure.
*Note: you can change the reference pressure, but the pressure difference will allways be the same.
The Universe is Electric. JRE should get the TheThunderbolts folks on the show.
electric in 4th dimension
I concur.
I always wondered what higher dimensional spheres looked like
He's talking about spinors, not spinners (i.e. - Holly Hendrix.)
It's call the tea cup drill. Great for shoulder mobility. Surprised Joe never seen this
I liked this epi. really cool to get some new insights into how the universe works -free! -Is some of this show missing?
find the full podcast on joes channel... its like 4 hrs long
Do the things that require 720° rotation interfere/impact those that only require 360°?
Why can't I find the whole episode?
The highest mountain on the planet is Mt. McKinley in Alaska. Also called Denali. This is measured from the base of the mountain "0" to the top "20,310 ft" and does not take into consideration the base height of the land upon which it sits. This means Denali is actually a higher mountain, base to top, than Mt. Everest.
Technically, Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain on the earth measured from base to peak, but most of it is underwater so that's a factor that needs to be considered with any "highest mountain base to peak" discussion. Unless the Pacific Ocean gets drained, Mauna Kea is tallest only in a technical sense.
That cup trick is my new party trick fo sho...
Being able to ask all these great minds any question you want whether the camera is running or not is truly one of the great jealousies of my life
Damn his explanation of the 720 degree rotation move with the coffee cup and Cmdr Frazer’s explanation of making a u turn in a fighter is very similar.
Why wasn't there an Eric Weinstein in my life while I was in highschool?
Duudeeee I was just randomly watching this again for the nostalgia but wtf I even get what he's trying to say now! I UNDERSTAND THE DUDE ABOUT THE FIBER NOW!
Haha me too. What do you study?
“What does he do?!” - Tim Dillon on Eric Weinstein
So its the circular equivalent of a tesseract?
i like the narrative about finding out the "why, how and by whom" reasons of why we're here.
i'd like to plug myself into this video and fully understand it in 5 seconds like Neo hooked up and downloaded kung fu
A mathematician explaining physics concepts is a PITA. Joe should invite a physicist to explain the same exact ideas so people can see the difference.
I wanna hear the Spinors play that one song. I can't remember the name, but it was a universal cover.
Also a flat plank nailed to the floor will visually appear as an incline step...did you need to lift any higher to step over half inch thick plank? Would you have tripped on it if you could not see it? Obstacle is optical...pebble or mountain?
I don't think Eric's explanation was a lot better than Lawrence's but still cool
Anybody know the spinor animation link?
E8 Lattice
As a surveyor who is also someone just now taking an extreme interest in physics, the LAST thing i expected him to bring up was geoids to explain this theory. Amazing.
I don't know how many times I've watched this segment, but I do know that I understand a couple of parts of it now... And others, Weinstein could have recited in ancient Mongolian and I would be just as lost as when I first heard it.
This makes me think about the expansion of the universe and if it curves
Me explaining math to my brother: 7:39
I think Buster Keaton did that cup trick back in the movie School or College or something...
This dude is my favorite person to watch on Joe's podcasts. Guy has knowledge on a whole other level than average humans. He has the ability to explain things in a way that most people can't do and won't bother trying to do, for normals like me! 😂
Ya he's different for sure
“Dude it’s totally trippy.”
So think of the moire effect, gauge theory applies to the temporal image created as two manifold slide past each other.
Particles behave as wave. But what is the medium they are waving in? The medium is a spinor.
The scientific definition of gauge symmetry seems to be the numerical measurement of a active formation of the flower of life. Does that make sense?
I need to look into this properly :!
I need some academic reading on this
My issue with the coffee cup example is that it’s not the object’s fault you are uncomfortable when rotating it a full 360 degrees. You instead choose/need to rotate it twice only to make it possible for your arm’s ability of motion all while the cup has returned to its original position twice now.
It has been 2 months since you wrote down this comment, don't know if have figured that by now. But the point is not the constitution of the arm, but the fact that is possible to show case how a 720 degrees turn look like in the most simple way.
Look at the object as the arm + cup with the shoulder as a reference point fixed in space