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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
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*.
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.
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.
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.
He should change the order to: 1.Physics is invariant to global phase Φ choice. Replacing Φ+1instead of Φ has no effect. Interestingly it is also invariant to local phase choice Φ(x), not just Φ. This requires an additional field, the vector potentisl A in the equations to make the equations be invariant locally. They have to be invariant as that is what is observed. With the extra field they are invarint. 2.The local nature of the invariance is not sufficient since different paths of transport may give different solutions, much like on Earth, different order of steps to the same spot will lead to you pointing in a different direction even if you arrive at the same spot. To get the invariance to path as well, an extra 'curvature' term is needed to offset this, which is the electromagnetic field, producing an Escher like invariance to path. Rock maybe seems better than rock at first glance but it all works out when you add the extra curvature term to make it work. 3.The local invariance can be described with 'fiber bundles' which is the math of local areas (little circles or squares on a sphere or mobius strip) which behave like normal areas even though the global area is more complex. The above shows how gauge theory consyrains the existence of fields, also things like masses and spin and antipartciles, many other things are constrained to exist or not exist just via requiring gauge invariance.
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 video should be called "Eric Weinstein regurgitates information from an undergraduate textbook in particle physics without actually explaining anything."
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.
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.
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”
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! 😂
Reason for 720 degree turn of spinners is simpler than many are assuming. I know this because I discovered ground breaking formulas, one which unites all irrational numbers and universal constant in a single formula. There are two universes, the one governing dark matter is chaotic (reverse entropy) and is mapped differently, via iterations. The 720 degree spinner turn is a necessity when exposed to at least 3 dimensions under the iterative interpretation of e, which necessitates consciousness to dictate direction of interpretability. Euler’s e, behaviorally is identical to the golden ratio, but in a higher dimension. Suffice to say, many forms in the universe require an iterative cyclical process that goes both forwards and backwards in time, they can’t have two iterations going the same direction of time, otherwise information becomes incoherent without comparison, it’s also a means to use an inverse to normalize potentially asymptotic levels. That’s why spinners needs to make two turns, to cyclically cover both forwards and backwards time.
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.
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?
It would be interesting to have a theoretical physicist and a philosopher who specializes in logic, phenomenology or is an expert on Wittgenstein's and Goedel's school of thought come together and share ideas. I keep having an odd inkling that I know will rock the conservative foundation of some physicists but, it needs to be said, there seems to be a lot of overlap between the schools of thought. A cross-pollination of ideas between physicists and philosophers is probably happening in some places but it would be awesome to see such a discussion happen here on the JRE so nerds like me can witness the magic!
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.
Undoubtedly he's very intelligent and eloquent, but he's also full of shit; he often does the following: he introduces very specific, difficult to grasp ideas that require a lot of introduction, motivation and prior knowledge of other subjects (often mathematics, or theoretical physics) to laymen who don't know anything about it, followed by a very poor explanation of it, and leaves them utterly confused, thinking that they are not nearly as intelligent as him, which probably is what he wanted to accomplish. He's often described as the opposite of Richard Feynman, and you can quickly notice why...
@@Ruktiet well put He makes it complicated than it already is Sure it proves that he is a genius but if he wants to communicate science to people like us he has to bog it down a bit
@@Ruktiet nahh yall just not the smartest. Rewatch it like 5-6 times and you’ll get it, maybe more. But honestly I would rather have people explain it like Eric than people like Michio kaku who water it down too much and im left wondering what else is involved
@@epicenterbasshd9636 ideas in physics are very often quite easy to grasp concepts. Putting them on a rigorous mathematical foundation is what makes it a bit more tricky. So if Michiu Kaku or Richard Feynman explain it so that essentially a toddler can understand it, you know these people understand the essence of it very well themselves.
2.45 for imperial to metric for distance... 6.895 for imperial to metric for pressures, differential is inches of water to kpa or hydrostatic pressure vs gas pressure .249
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.
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.
Joe, the "Rock is better than Rock" thing makes more sense if you look at it like this. Let's say you get knocked out by Fighter A, then a week later you knock out Fighter B. If Fighter B knocks out Fighter A, then you're technically better than yourself, because you beat the guy who beat the guy who beat you. Get it?
So i watched a few videos on Gauge symmetry and read some definitions and analogies and....I must missunderstand it because it seems so incredibly simple to me. As far as I understand Gauge symmetry is nothing more than the realization that the way the world works (charges and attributes of particles and the laws by which they interact) is not affected or changed by how any given intelligent being defines them for themselves. In other words: Just because I say an orange is blue and you say it's pink, does not change the fact that the orange is orange because the very nature of the orange is to be orange and the way we think about it does not change that. This just seems too simple, do I misunderstand something here?
That's the problem with how Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carroll describe gauge theory, it makes you think it's about how we chose to name things. It's related to that, but that's not physically what it is. The simplest example that makes it clear is the electron. The electron quantum field has a value at all points in space and acts as a wave medium. The phase of the wave is encoded by an angle on the unit circle in the complex plane ( exp(iθ) ). Harmonic waves are the simplest solutions you can imagine, but we know that in nature the electron quantum field isn't always harmonic, it has noise. So it's natural to assume that the physics should be invariant when we go changing the angle to add noise. If you compute the changes in the field (the time and space derivatives) to get a value for the instantaneous field action, you'll find that including arbitrary noise has an energy cost which can only be paid by a vector voltage, or more plainly, by a field identical to a photon quantum field. So basically, the derivative used to calculate the field action has to be altered in order to account for a "wave noise symmetry" by including a photon quantum field to set the level. Edit: I can't think of a simpler way to say this without losing accuracy, so I hope this sticks. If not, I recommend watching a few videos on complex numbers, complex waves, derivatives, Lagrangians and Lagragian densities, vector potentials, and the covariant derivative (which is really what this is about).
The 720° arm-spin has a parallel in music. Rather than ascending through a scale note by note to reach the octave (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1), you ascend through alternate notes (1 3 5 7 9 11 13 1). This takes two octaves to reach the octave - as in 720°.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
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.
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.
Although his explanation is imperfect, simply because he tried to oversimplify a really complex subject to the wrong audience, I have to say he is a really talented teacher. Also, he gave one of the most perfect answers I've ever seen to a repeated question: why does this matter or how is it applicable? You can literally ask this question about almost everything in math and physics, and the answer in most cases IMO is, that this stuff is fundamental, which means that we actually need to know this stuff before we can make any further deductions or any sort of applications. For example, group theory/topology/differential geometry are all fundamental math subjects, even if the average freshman wouldn't notice this at first.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
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
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
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??”
you're not being polite to Eric's fart stories in this video. At least Joey's stories are real lol
"Take another puff, my friend, because it's worth it."
I might pop a mushroom cap to see what's up.
Lol
Eric saying that was hysterical
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
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
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 😂
Greatest comment!
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
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
"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
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*.
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
Joe "i might pop a mushroom cap and see whats up" Rogan
Came to comments hoping for this. Bravo.
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
😂
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.
I lack the tools as well
Joe “but rock isn’t better than rock” Rogan
6:32 - 6:35 is every viewers face when looking at that model 😂😂😂😂😂
XD
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.
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
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.
11:00 I love Jamie, "It's like MMA math."
underrated comment
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.
😅
-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
the hyper inflation wage example is probably the best example i’ve ever heard
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 can see Eric's words literally flying over Joe's head, just bouncing off all that in-glorious baldness 🤣🤣🤣
Listening to this guy talk just makes me realize I was never ready for this plane of existence.
I bet Harvey Weinstein could explain spinners.
Fascinating explanation. Thank you very much.
15:00 here we go, we move from quantum physics to hand spinners
He should change the order to:
1.Physics is invariant to global phase Φ choice. Replacing Φ+1instead of Φ has no effect. Interestingly it is also invariant to local phase choice Φ(x), not just Φ. This requires an additional field, the vector potentisl A in the equations to make the equations be invariant locally. They have to be invariant as that is what is observed. With the extra field they are invarint.
2.The local nature of the invariance is not sufficient since different paths of transport may give different solutions, much like on Earth, different order of steps to the same spot will lead to you pointing in a different direction even if you arrive at the same spot. To get the invariance to path as well, an extra 'curvature' term is needed to offset this, which is the electromagnetic field, producing an Escher like invariance to path. Rock maybe seems better than rock at first glance but it all works out when you add the extra curvature term to make it work.
3.The local invariance can be described with 'fiber bundles' which is the math of local areas (little circles or squares on a sphere or mobius strip) which behave like normal areas even though the global area is more complex. The above shows how gauge theory consyrains the existence of fields, also things like masses and spin and antipartciles, many other things are constrained to exist or not exist just via requiring gauge invariance.
"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.
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 video should be called "Eric Weinstein regurgitates information from an undergraduate textbook in particle physics without actually explaining anything."
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.
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.
As an electrician I can confirm that with a “tic” tester we can confirm electrical currents through insulation.
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”
I literally just spilled my cup of water...thanks Eric
Ha! Jamie gets Joe.
"It's like MMA math."
"Oh, yeah!*
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
Reason for 720 degree turn of spinners is simpler than many are assuming. I know this because I discovered ground breaking formulas, one which unites all irrational numbers and universal constant in a single formula.
There are two universes, the one governing dark matter is chaotic (reverse entropy) and is mapped differently, via iterations. The 720 degree spinner turn is a necessity when exposed to at least 3 dimensions under the iterative interpretation of e, which necessitates consciousness to dictate direction of interpretability. Euler’s e, behaviorally is identical to the golden ratio, but in a higher dimension.
Suffice to say, many forms in the universe require an iterative cyclical process that goes both forwards and backwards in time, they can’t have two iterations going the same direction of time, otherwise information becomes incoherent without comparison, it’s also a means to use an inverse to normalize potentially asymptotic levels.
That’s why spinners needs to make two turns, to cyclically cover both forwards and backwards time.
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.
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.
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?
Echer's work is so trippy. Best art expo I've ever seen. Check him out on youtube, the guy was a pure genius.
What a brilliant man!
“We lack the time” never heard a better quote
This guy is great for insomnia
This whole conversation is dumb 😂
Eric is next level. I've been studying similar topics for 12 years and I couldn't keep up. Eric flew right over my head.
study more as he didn't go into Jack shit here actually he dumbed it all down as much as he could
@@nicholasrourke3836 I'll study more if you clean your fingernails.
also guy i work with soil every day 7 days a week 365 days a year so my hands are dirty prob 75 percent of the time so yeah but great try lol
@@nicholasrourke3836 geez, you care more than expected. I was just being silly. It's all good brotha.
yeah my bad bro I just had 4 trolls bugging me so was in defensive mode y are right tho. my bad
One mention of Lagrangians and the video bails. Just like me in college :3
Eric is top tier.
Just did a spinner... Now I'm invisible
Tim and Eric did a stupendously good parody of this kind of segment on their skit about the universe.
It would be interesting to have a theoretical physicist and a philosopher who specializes in logic, phenomenology or is an expert on Wittgenstein's and Goedel's school of thought come together and share ideas. I keep having an odd inkling that I know will rock the conservative foundation of some physicists but, it needs to be said, there seems to be a lot of overlap between the schools of thought. A cross-pollination of ideas between physicists and philosophers is probably happening in some places but it would be awesome to see such a discussion happen here on the JRE so nerds like me can witness the magic!
Love it when these 2 get to chatting. I'm gonna learn today
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.
“What does he do?!” - Tim Dillon on Eric Weinstein
Eric is so staggeringly intelligent, it's insane.
He is a genius
Undoubtedly he's very intelligent and eloquent, but he's also full of shit; he often does the following: he introduces very specific, difficult to grasp ideas that require a lot of introduction, motivation and prior knowledge of other subjects (often mathematics, or theoretical physics) to laymen who don't know anything about it, followed by a very poor explanation of it, and leaves them utterly confused, thinking that they are not nearly as intelligent as him, which probably is what he wanted to accomplish. He's often described as the opposite of Richard Feynman, and you can quickly notice why...
@@Ruktiet well put
He makes it complicated than it already is
Sure it proves that he is a genius but if he wants to communicate science to people like us he has to bog it down a bit
@@Ruktiet nahh yall just not the smartest. Rewatch it like 5-6 times and you’ll get it, maybe more. But honestly I would rather have people explain it like Eric than people like Michio kaku who water it down too much and im left wondering what else is involved
@@epicenterbasshd9636 ideas in physics are very often quite easy to grasp concepts. Putting them on a rigorous mathematical foundation is what makes it a bit more tricky. So if Michiu Kaku or Richard Feynman explain it so that essentially a toddler can understand it, you know these people understand the essence of it very well themselves.
720 degrees is the new 1.618. Spinners are mirror conical pulsars. Multiplying matrix arrays.
Eric Weinstein is the coolest guest i have ever seen on the show. Great booking
2.45 for imperial to metric for distance... 6.895 for imperial to metric for pressures, differential is inches of water to kpa or hydrostatic pressure vs gas pressure .249
I love your brilliant mind Eric. Please keep doing these types of fascination podcasts.
He's talking about spinors, not spinners (i.e. - Holly Hendrix.)
Me explaining math to my brother: 7:39
i'd like to plug myself into this video and fully understand it in 5 seconds like Neo hooked up and downloaded kung fu
Math & Economics are the greatest disciplines in the universe!!!!!
math and philosophy*
At 7:42 Joe looks like he's trying to choke the Physics into submission 😂
I don't think Eric's explanation was a lot better than Lawrence's but still cool
*Eric Weinstein tries to explain Gauge Theory by using the height of Mount Everest.
Joe Rogan: What's the highest mountain?
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.
My cat's breath smells like cat food!
Was a pretty decent explanation tbh. I got it right away.
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.
Joe, the "Rock is better than Rock" thing makes more sense if you look at it like this. Let's say you get knocked out by Fighter A, then a week later you knock out Fighter B. If Fighter B knocks out Fighter A, then you're technically better than yourself, because you beat the guy who beat the guy who beat you. Get it?
So i watched a few videos on Gauge symmetry and read some definitions and analogies and....I must missunderstand it because it seems so incredibly simple to me.
As far as I understand Gauge symmetry is nothing more than the realization that the way the world works (charges and attributes of particles and the laws by which they interact) is not affected or changed by how any given intelligent being defines them for themselves. In other words: Just because I say an orange is blue and you say it's pink, does not change the fact that the orange is orange because the very nature of the orange is to be orange and the way we think about it does not change that.
This just seems too simple, do I misunderstand something here?
Does this really just boil down to:
Reality does not change by what I name it?
That's the problem with how Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carroll describe gauge theory, it makes you think it's about how we chose to name things. It's related to that, but that's not physically what it is.
The simplest example that makes it clear is the electron. The electron quantum field has a value at all points in space and acts as a wave medium. The phase of the wave is encoded by an angle on the unit circle in the complex plane ( exp(iθ) ). Harmonic waves are the simplest solutions you can imagine, but we know that in nature the electron quantum field isn't always harmonic, it has noise. So it's natural to assume that the physics should be invariant when we go changing the angle to add noise.
If you compute the changes in the field (the time and space derivatives) to get a value for the instantaneous field action, you'll find that including arbitrary noise has an energy cost which can only be paid by a vector voltage, or more plainly, by a field identical to a photon quantum field.
So basically, the derivative used to calculate the field action has to be altered in order to account for a "wave noise symmetry" by including a photon quantum field to set the level.
Edit: I can't think of a simpler way to say this without losing accuracy, so I hope this sticks. If not, I recommend watching a few videos on complex numbers, complex waves, derivatives, Lagrangians and Lagragian densities, vector potentials, and the covariant derivative (which is really what this is about).
7:40 🤣🤣that cut to Joe’s face 😂😭
Eric is a legend in his own mind.
Just gonna talk shit about the inventor of gauge theory economics?
he didn't invent that analogy, some physicist came up with it in the late 90s
@@aftermath4096 Weinstein and his wife, came up with that "analogy" in 1996, as documented by her Ph.D. thesis at Harvard.
@@johnvonleibniz well it's possible that the name I've heard it attributed to was his wife and I didn't realize it.
I totally got this. After listening to it for 3 times.. But now it makes perfect sense
Where's the full 3 hour video Joe?
Joe’s face at 17:26 : viewing quantum mechanics of string theory in the 4th dimension, while translocating the Penrose steps on DMT
I’m here because Eric Weinstein made me realize I need to learn a ton
The 720° arm-spin has a parallel in music. Rather than ascending through a scale note by note to reach the octave (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1), you ascend through alternate notes (1 3 5 7 9 11 13 1). This takes two octaves to reach the octave - as in 720°.
... This gives a richer, more expansively musical result, although it is also already contained within the original 1-octave version.
Jamie and Joe should have swapped chairs for this segment
Jamie only knows basic Neutonian physics.
I always wondered what higher dimensional spheres looked like
Why wasn't there an Eric Weinstein in my life while I was in highschool?
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
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.
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.
3:05 "Dude, it's totally trippy" lmfao
Although his explanation is imperfect, simply because he tried to oversimplify a really complex subject to the wrong audience, I have to say he is a really talented teacher. Also, he gave one of the most perfect answers I've ever seen to a repeated question: why does this matter or how is it applicable? You can literally ask this question about almost everything in math and physics, and the answer in most cases IMO is, that this stuff is fundamental, which means that we actually need to know this stuff before we can make any further deductions or any sort of applications. For example, group theory/topology/differential geometry are all fundamental math subjects, even if the average freshman wouldn't notice this at first.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
I don't understand a word but I'm fascinated by it.
If I keep listening to this stuff in the background will I eventually be smart?
Asia and Caucasia i listen to this while I’m sleeping and now I’m a nuclear physicist.
yes
that is what i am hoping for ... :)
Sounds like most of my education.
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.
You can't say derivative 13 times without explaining what that means before you loose everybody
That's why we have the pause button and google.
"So, for example..." then he never gives a good example.