Theories of Everything: Cosmic Controversies with Eric Weinstein, Sabine Hossenfelder, & Lee Smolin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2024
- #EricWeinstein #LeeSmolin #SabineHossenfelder
Experimental evidence for any current Theory of Everything is, at best, inconclusive. This is perhaps the greatest fundamental challenges facing physics. That lack of progress has opened up a sea of controversy. Welcome to the second in our two-event series about Theories of Everything!
Watch the first one: • PBS SpacetimeStudios “...
Please subscribe to my UA-cam Channel to watch one-on-one interviews with the guest speakers and more: www.youtube.co...
Please join my mailing list: briankeating.co... to receive "conference proceedings" and other goodies from these events.
From disagreements about the very necessity of TOEs, to questioning the cost/benefit of mega-billion dollar particle accelerators in search of them, to the emergence of competing TOEs from physicists outside of the academic community. In this 90 minute chat, we dive into the existential questions around TOEs.
Special thanks to Matt O'Dowd, Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Eric Weinstein for helping us create this great event.
Our Guests' Work:
Sabine Hossenfelder
UA-cam Channel: / sabinehossenf. .
Lost in Math: How Beauty Led Physics Astray: amzn.to/3kL9huy
Eric Weinstein
The Portal Podcast: ericweinstein....
The Portal Wiki: projects.thepo...
Lee Smolin
The Trouble With Physics: amzn.to/3agWJpH
Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: amzn.to/30LW7VV
Watch my most popular videos:
Stephen Wolfram & Eric Weinstein: The Nature of Mathematical Reality • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Eric Weinstein: • Eric Weinstein: Geomet...
Jim Simons: • Jim Simons: Life Lesso...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Sarah Scoles: • Sarah Scoles, Author o...
Stephen Wolfram: • Has Stephen Wolfram di...
🏄♂️ Find me on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔥 Find me on Instagram at / drbriankeating
📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
🔔 Subscribe for more great content www.youtube.co...
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.c...
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.co...
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
🎙️Please subscribe, rate, and review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: itunes.apple.c...
A production of imagination.ucs...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Once I see prof. Sabine, I watch the video.. simple... 😎😎
Check out my one on one interview with her on the channel ! Let me know if you want her back
Have her back she keeps things simple and for what I see tried to be objective
Once I see prof dumb dumb skip the video..
She’s wonderful and keeps it real
Indeed
Brian you need to change your interview style. You seem intent on asking a checklist of questions rather than letting a conversation happen. Listening to your interviews is like watching TV news, the guest has 60 seconds to answer a question then the anchor moves on to the next thing no matter how interesting it would be dive deeper into the answer. Throw away all your pre-prepared questions and just let the conversation flow.
This is brilliant advice.
When you have so many people, you have to moderate.
Actually I think there are too many clowns in the circus arena. A one on one moderation is far more interesting otherwise you get a clash for popular soundbites which Sabine wins. Eric for sure has the brightest mind, and all the others have failed for 4 decades now on our Expensenses. I would love to redo this with lee and Eric....
Bruh..if u had a podcast with impt ppl..whose knowledge exceed the course of an hour....YOU TRY TO STRUCTURE every second of interaction...i thought this was obvious
yes
Sabine: No one has any idea what you're talking about.
Eric: Let me explain... kjfw vdgiuwq bmpotralalv jjkplooim boiirtzxx
😂😂😂
Plus! He brought a couple toilet paper rolls this time. Got it 🤣
Hahaha! 😄👍👍
His explanation would nice fit into a Star Trek episode. eg Technobabble
His theory might look conclusive, but so did string theory, before being a dead end.
He can't do all the work alone to make predictions. Even if he is right, it's a tremendous amount of work.
He needs the science community. But he also won't trust it, because of his experience with the politics of publications.
He needs to jump over his shadow and find allies like Sabine.
Because he's an outsider nobody should give him the benefit of the doubt - so he needs to give some actual predictions and solve problems. That is what Sabine is saying.
I wish him the best!
i cannot like this comment enough
Sabine: I dont think anyone has any clue what your talking about, Eric.
Eric: Sabina, thats not true. *continutes to talk in a mysterious language*
that language is called mathematics. he's a mathematician. that's how mathematicians talk about complex geometry.
@@shaunhumphreys6714 Stephen Wolfram is arguably the better mathematician and he also laughs at Eric's mumbo jumbo.
@@jesperburns Wolfram kind of laughs at everything though. He's not a humble man.
@@billlyons7024 Very true but I was responding to a thinly veiled argument from authority, with someone who has authority on this subject.
Sabine Hossenfelder also scoffs at Weinstein, if you like her better.
😂😂 Brilliant!
I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder's comment to Eric Weinstein regarding communication. Now that he is sharing strong opinions on various scientific efforts from career researchers and institutions, he should fully engage the science world regarding his Geometric unity theory and commit to communicate about it in as many ways as possible.
Yeah I'm not sure why he isn't publishing his work in an open and public forum. Put it on github.
He is a conman
@@Shelmerdine745, if that is true, I want to Physics community to get to whatever the truth is. If they do not, then Sabine's criticisms of the Physics community are not strong enough and then everyone loses.
9999tech
The good physicists are not debating on UA-cam, they are researching and writing papers.
Weinstein is just spreading conspiracy theories not matter what you ask him, totally paranoid narcissist. Runs in the family, unfortunately.
@@Shelmerdine745, no, I was in no way referring to UA-cam, but the science world, papers, conferences, etc.
Sabine has a problem with "good physicists" and their decades long lack of real progress and spending 10's of billion on the next collider, which is wasteful since it will not reach the necessary eV levels to see new things which will be useful. Her points are valid.
Sabine does not have a problem with Eric, since she spends no time focused on him.
I remember I was once tackling a mathematical conjecture and I created a simplified structure that was so beautiful and perfect that I actually worked on it for months before realizing the original idea of the problem had lost itself and the structure became just tangentially interesting
Ya sure you did
@@vitorschroederdosanjos6539 you just described 90% of my side projects 🤣
BEST EPISODE BY FAR ! Well done for having Eric and Matt and Sabine together, been hoping to see this for a long time
Eric Weinstein reminds me of Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics.
Why 10. Think about it.
As a generic unsolicited advice : Don't wind up your guests into an argument just to intervene to wrap up and ask the lamest question that no young scientist ever wonders.
also, cuts of video, in scientific discussions, even when they would not lead to loss of information, are extreamely annoying.
This totally. Super awkward man
"We're gonna have to leave it there."
Smolin and Hossenfelder have many decades of peer-reviewed papers and highly influential books and lectures. But Eric has “provocative quotes” he’s devised. So, equal.
Lol yeah. I hope he at least makes an effort release a review on his theory. Start from the basics, and make the tools available, then explain the theory. The way he formulates his Unity theory is so confusing. There are better ways.
Let's not forget the ptolemaic astronomers, who spent decades fine-tuning those epicycles. Sometimes the echo-chamber needs to be shattered by fresh ideas.
If Smolin isn't getting along with Eric then that's a major red flag. Smolin hates string theory and wants a beautiful and logical grand unified theory. He went out of his way to support and develop Garrett Lisi's multi-dimensional E8 theory and should be the exact type of person that would help Eric.
@Sean What you just said is an argument from authority and an invitation to group thinking, which is what Hossenfelder is cautioning everyone about, so she wouldn't agree with you.
I agree that Eric could do a better job of explaining his theory to someone who doesn't yet have a physics phd, but having many decades of peer reviewed papers is merely community approval of previous activity. It doesn't guarantee that their approaches to current problems are correct.
@@cosminstanescu1469 Not an argument from authority. That *might* be something that was in play if Weinstein actually had any argument, whatsoever, to present, after years of stringing his marks along with the pretense that he does. He’s just buzzwords and fairy tales, all the way down. Every nut on a street corner has a “theory” about how the universe works, and if it gives your life meaning to pretend that their specific views on PHYSICS are equally valid to people who have actually spent their lives doing the work, and, yes, acquiring hard-earned credibility from their peers, then good luck hiring some random goof next time you need your plumbing fixed.
WHOA, why was I not recommended this 3 months ago???
The A L G O R I T H M!!!
I wish Eric would give Penrose credit for the Escher hand drawing a hand idea. Road to Reality is a great book.
Weinstein would be onto a winner if there was a Nobel Prize for word salad lmao
Mmm salad sounds good.
Or old lady haircuts
Aww, you’re just saying that…because he’s so, so much smarter than you. There, there.
Truly
Or weird moles
I certainly can't claim to understand much of this conversation, but it was unparalleled as an exposition of the current state of fundamental physics. Thanks, Spacetime!
Eric , keep researching and trying to understand. I spent the past 10 years trying to understand, im still researching every day.
From an outside perspective (I'm but a humble engineer) it appears as though there's a culture of enforced orthodox thinking within science. The fact that you're facilitating the passage of great external minds like weinstein, wolfram and many more into this realm is incredibly important to the entire project of science. Thankyou Dr Keating.
Thanks very much ! Please join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php to stay in touch!!
I also think the more those involved that are at the 'tip of the spear' of break through knowledge can engage their ideas in a more open forum (like Dr Keating's show ) the better they will be at informing the world on what they're up to and also there is a greater chance of injecting others ideas and perspectives into their own work.
As eric said, there is a joint russian/chinese attack on academia, this explains the enforced othodoxic culture not just in math and physics, but everywhere within academia. Our nation, and the west at large, is being subverted in order to stall progress.
It doesn’t seem to me that Weinstein is a great man at all. Nothing he says makes an atom of sense. It’s just word salads that impress people who have no clue because it sounds deep and intelligent.
I have no problem with outsiders and heterodoxy, but this guy is a joke.
@@funkmonsterjones4753 what? that sounds really conspiracy, there is no russian or chinesse "attack" on academia, I've only see politicians attack academia like when some republicans deny climate change. if there is such attack i would like to see a reputable source. there might be certain currents in academia but those come from anywhere many have been born in US, other in Europe.
Dr. Sabine isn't being tongue in cheek. She's in your face and calling you out.
@viralshield that’s the problem. With Sabine and her fans. There’s nothing in the world that’s wrong with genuine skepticism, but you can’t just become a preacher fo the orthodoxy either. Sabine needs to remember science and the nature of our understanding is always changing.
@viralshield you are treating science as a religion and Sabine as your preacher .
That's tongue in cheek for her lol
Eric, 1M views on youtube likely come from Rogan and other podcast listeners who have no idea what you are talking about, like myself. Publish a paper on the arxiv, it's not that hard, and it won't turn you into all the things you hate.
I think he should publish it on github.
But then he actually have to be held accountable for what he says
You can read his thesis, you just have to ask the university for a copy, which is what I think he wants.
he is in the process of doing the arxiv paper.
Tentatively April 1 2021 as announced by Eric on the Lex Fridman's Podcast of February 23rd.
As a so-called “lay person” I’ve nevertheless have had an enormous love for Physics etc. , which has afforded me - I believe - a relatively significant understanding , enough so that I can generally follow various conversations / lectures etc. on the subject(s) … I never understand what Eric Weinstein is saying and I don’t think I’m alone in that regard . I can’t help feeling that he’s rather passive -aggressively arrogant and condescending?
I'm not like a genius or anything but I have an MS in applied math and I'm doing a second MS in computer science. During my math years I took physics courses all the way up to Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics.
I have no fucking idea what Eric is saying. Which is really amazing because the only reason this guy is famous is because he is basically a youtube "science popularizer", much like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, etc... all of them brought physics to an audience of non-mathematicians and non-physicists.
Except there is a HUGE difference between Eric and the other people mentioned.
1) Eric has ZERO academic accomplishments outside of getting a PhD.
2) Eric, for some reason, cannot fucking explain anything to anyone. His only talent seems to be that he can mystify people, who haven't taken a high-school level course in calculus, with big math words.
@@xAssailantx supposedly if you knew these big math words, would you say the same?
if you wouldn't know, why are you quick to judge? should he approach your curiosity with Simple English? how and when do we reach the complexity of a universe by doing that? it is obviously true that the complex ideas require complex vocabulary because the human cognitive span is limited only to a certain length of coherent thought.
and btw, I think I've just answered why scientists seek beauty and elegance. there is no other way to grasp it and maneuver between the folds of a theory if it weren't simple enough. these things are already at the edge of what human intelligence is comfortable with.
this is quite clearly the true reason why it is easier to pretend to do physics than otherwise. the rules of the game are very discouraging for the true thinkers. even you are doing this with this comment, and for no particular reason. I'm not claiming that Eric is inventing a language, at least when it comes to consensual mathematics, but even Tolkien had to invent his own languages to express himself better. but as with anything with life, it's a life's work to then try and describe this language to disinterested conformists like you, who wish to do everything by the book, and expect a paycheck for repeating the same thing over and over.
Think you are right with this one. I am doing a PhD in Mathematical Physics, so I have at least a rough understanding of most of the stuff Eric is talking about. I think he vastly overestimates his own efforts and capabilities, seeing himself as a misunderstood and excluded genius, and he is very happy to dish out lots of criticism to the Mathematical Physics community. Meanwhile what he puts forth himself as a "theory of everything" is at the moment at best a rough sketch of an idea and obviously at that level, many ideas can look pretty clever. It's certainly not unnatural to think like he does, that gravity using curvature tensors and then gauge theory doing so as well, hints at some idea where maybe it all can be formulated as a gauge theory or all in some kind of unified framework. A lot of the (mathematical) physics research is at least related to such ideas, including the string theory mainstream that he hates so much.
He is just very set to contrast himself of the "mainstream", while I feel like the kind of stuff he does at best falls into the same issues we've been seeing in said mainstream, with a kinda focus on maths over physics. And then some of the ideas he sketches out that he thinks warrant further investigation have been investigated quite thoroughly and were pretty much dead ends. It's just that his "theory" is not nearly fleshed out enough to have even encountered major technical problems.
I honestly am frustrated with the fact that he is even invited and played nice with in this discussion, since he really doesn't bring much to the table at all. He is just good at delivering a bunch of smart talk with a very overconfident attitude, name dropping various concepts from Mathematical Physics, while also somehow slamming the Mathematical Physics research that exists. Tbf he does put forth some legit criticisms, e.g. how the research institutions kinda developed a life on their own, where research direction is more determined by internal politics than by efficacy, but other people (e.g. Sabien Hossenfelder) present that criticism way better, and can point at least towards something akin to solutions, while his proposition seems to be that everyone should just listen to him, because he is (by his own assessment) a genius.
@@xAssailantx I think he is so popular because he is getting people to question our reality, intentionally or not. I don't know whether his goals have anything to do with the breakdown of the social/economic/political realm and people realizing how things there are not how they have seemed to be either. Is it more about getting people to think about all-encompassing esoteric, mystical/religious, meaning of life - nature of reality & consciousness things, as well as the sciences?
To me on the other hand, what Eric says sounds like the only adult in the room (except Lee).
Only him is pushing the envelope, being serious and exploratory here.
If there was any more intellectual capacity added to a single conversation than this one, that conversation would likely collapse into a conversational black hole and what was said couldn't be comprehended by those outside the event horizon.
with these guys your critique winds up on the bottom of the list.
I don't think this was a critique
@@MacNif Bingo
Watching this for Sabine. She makes this video worth watching.
Lee Smolin rocks!
Lee Smolin 2020 :
"What is the dynamical mechanism by which laws evolve"?
"space will turn out to be an emergent structure"
"What is local and not local will turn out to be dynamical and emergent".
From a non-Platonist philosophical perspective his manner of thinking is very attractive.
The second sentence is too much for me to take
He has nothing to back it up, he just think that it's like that.
Forget Buffy the Vampire Slayer, let's talk about Sabine the Incomprehensible Slayer. She slayed Eric and his gibberish, which he has yet to adequately explain to this day, not only in terms for the lay, but for those professionals in various fields of academic study as well. When will Eric stop trying to force people to understand his language and actually parse it down in colloquialisms with well formed definitions for what he's trying to convey? He's so angry with the established norm and so hell bent on breaking the system that he's completely forgotten his roots.
@@guyincognito8440 I highly doubt you understand anywhere near the level of math/physics they do, and to just claim someone is a con man, is just ignorant and irresponsible. And this kind of dogmatism is what is precisely killing academia.
I bet you don't understand even half of what they're talking about.
@@sombra1111 more than realise,
I think the ongoing effort to create more and more massive entangled objects (mostly from engineers in quantum computing and cryptography, and solid state physicists) will lead us to quantum objects whose gravitational properties ought to be measurable somehow.
This is basically what Sabine said: quantum objects are just no longer so small!
We might then be able to get sufficiently large ensembles of particles so that other emergent properties, e.g. capillarity, whose behavior in gravity is well known, can be measured.
59:00 love how straightforward Sabine is. Burn…
Sabine Hossenfelder is a unique personality. Her bluntness is a bit awkward at first, but then you begin to appreciate it. She definitely comes to play. I could see someone who was not familiar with her before could feel strongly offended. But maybe some of these folks know her from before so they take it in their stride.
Her problem is that her criticism is cheap because she doesn't have anything constructive to offer in return. You can read her own papers, if you wish, and you will find that she circles the very same drains that she criticizes. She doesn't have new ideas, either.
@@lepidoptera9337 In science, you don't need the alternative because may be we don't have enough data to do anything yet. If you just try to give an alternative, it's just pure guessing and in that case, the idea has a large possibility to be wrong. That's why people try not to jump the gun in science
@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 You don't need the alternative to be credible if you acknowledge that the problem is the available data from nature. That is not what she does, though. She keeps bashing her colleagues, including the ones that are much much smarter than she is herself. That is her mistake. Don't make the same one.
@@lepidoptera9337 the ability to call and explain BS is invaluable to science. As is refusing to add to it.
I’m amused that Eric Weinstein chose toilet paper tubes in attempting to explain himself. Perfectly appropriate.
Professor Keating, what are your currents thoughts about Eric's responses to the Nugyen, et al, critique of Eric's -GU?
I suggest that you host a new podcast episode with Tim Nguyen and Eric Weinstein.
Eric Weinstein is a crank. Either accept it or just be one of his zealots.
I’m shocked no one stopped Eric from conducting a lecture with toilet paper cardboard cartridges with a scrunchie wrapped around it! No one knows WTF he was saying as Sabine freely admitted! Didn’t Eric get it! Lol jeez...
I bursted out LAUGHING lol
59:40 if Sabine is struggling understanding Eric, where should that leave the rest of us.
@viralshield The heck you mean he can't finish a university semester? The guy has a phd in mathematical physics from Havard, also he has promised to publish written copies of his theory this year, we will see if he delivers on that, but the reality is not a lot of people are knowledgeable to understand GU, takes high level math that certain physicist don't even get to, and deep knowledge about quantum field theory, the average person's basic understanding of QM and GR are not enough to help them understand GU.
@viralshield You clearly have no idea what Mathematical physics is, and what do leftists have to do with the quality of the phd program?
@viralshield never read such nonsense , he has a maths PHD from Harvard , God almighty there's some lunatics on UA-cam.
@viralshield you are the one who couldn't understand it. which isn't an insult as a lot of people wont understand it that's fine in my book. It was your ludicrous claim that was very funny and complete nonsense. Read what you wrote , it was completely silly and childish . If you aren't even man enough to admit it that's fine . Keep saying a man with a PHD from Harvard in maths couldn't pass an exam at a decent uni. You make yourself look silly.
Well, Eric makes it clear later on. Where it leaves the rest of us is to bankrupt our societies giving particle physicists whatever toys they request, no matter how astronomical the cost and how unlikely and minimally beneficial the results they might achieve.
34:16 Sabine is just the greatest badass of our time!
OMG! Sabine Hossenfelder and Eric Weinstein in the SAME conversation? This should be delightfully interesting.
It was !!
ua-cam.com/video/5gmtAeqRs14/v-deo.html Sabine is a boss!
@@DrBrianKeating
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
"I think that's what a lot of people can for"
And Peter Dinklage too!!!
This was another substantive discussion, for 2/3 of the video. Wonderful to hear most of the ideas. I found myself needing to cognitively exclude one part, one thread, that consistently kept trying to take over and divert from the debate's primary exposition. Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder were wonderfully clear speakers. Matt O'Dowd and Brian Keating were helpful hosts and moderators.
This had one serious flaw. One panelist contributed to the topic only at the onset then began disrupting with tangential issues, even claiming the physics community has taken too much time and failed to accomplish this (very complicated) unification. That person did rightfully say physicists need to think differently, yet he seemed to ignore the fact that most physicists have said the same for decades, repeatedly.
Unfortunately, 1/3 into the video, that person continued behaving as a kid who felt excluded from "the club", so inclined to attack "the club". It's bad when an angry person disrupts a serious debate in a field they themselves say they're unskilled in. I had the feeling Lee Smolin left early per the negativity & fighting from one character sitting on a high chair.
Eric contributes very little to ideas, his contribution is words. He obfuscates and complains.
Oh my goodness! Dr Keating, Sabine, Eric Weinstein and Lee Smolin (I loved Time Reborn!). My introduction to Dr O'Dowd - looking forward to it!
Goody goody goody :) :) :)
How did I miss this talk? I'm so glad I found this.... Came up in my recommended after watching Dr Keaton's video on his small aperture telescope experiments..... I kind of follow Eric on his podcasts and others I've seen. He's a very interesting guy.
Sabine Hossenfelder 59:00 "First maybe let me make a comment about what Eric just said you complained that there has not been any substantive discussion about geometric unity i think that's because no one has any idea what you're talking about."
Ouch haha 🤣
She has hosted a critique of _Geometric Unity_ on her blog by two individuals who:
1. didn't wait for Eric's paper even though they knew it was about to be published
2. published their response to his speculative eight year old Oxford University lecture
3. misrepresented his work in progress that aspires to be a _Unified Field Theory_ as being a _Theory of Everything_
4. criticised it for not being a _Theory of Everything_
5. misrepresented his equations of motion, leaving out 195 of them so it only works in a one dimensional Universe
6. misrepresented or misunderstood that his concept of the Observerse includes space-time (they think it does not)
7. criticised his theory for not making sense as they can not see how to get from the Observerse to space-time (space-time observes the observerse)
8. changed his notation from what he used in the lecture so their critique of his work was obfuscated to anyone wanting to critique their work
9. changed his theory by 'complexifying it' because they thought it needed to be and they were helping him out because they thought he had forgot to
10. criticised his theory for being complexified (in the way they had just changed it) as it doesn't fit within an uncomplexified structure group
11. overlooked an important slide in the 2013 lecture which showed that it was using a complexified structure group
12. gave interviews questioning whether Eric was a "crackpot" where they admitted to not having read his paper since it came out
13. gave whiteboard explanations explaining what was wrong with Eric's theory based on their flawed critique of it, where all of their four concerns were invalid as they had guessed what might be in Eric's upcoming paper (chiral, space-time supersymmetric, uncomplexified) and guessed totally wrong (non-chiral, optionally non space-time supersymmetric, complexified) even though they had had ample opportunity to read Eric's paper and realise their critique was entirely flawed
14. ambush Eric on DISCORD and try to trip him up about what he knows about the Seiberg-Witten equations he did his PhD thesis on
15. use Eric's wife's work in a UA-cam video without credit, annoying Eric
16. publish another critique of Eric and his wife's work, this time of _An Extention of Intertemporal Ordinal Welfare to Changing Tastes: Economics as Gauge Theory._ by Pia N. Malaney and Eric R. Weinstein.
17. chase down sceptic Michael Shermer, who Eric has spoken to, and get him to arbitrate a discussion about what is wrong with _Geometric Unity_ (nothing at all that he has thus far alleged, besides it is a work in progress), instigating for this on Elon Musk's X
18. no criticisms have come from the second anonymous critic who we are meant to suppose coauthored the response paper, but it could be that this second critic is actually a sock account being run by one critic seeking to gain fame from being seen to tear holes in Eric's work based off his misrepresentation of it, which means he has gaslit a lot of people who were curious to read Eric's work and have been dissuaded because they trust the joint authority claimed by two authors who could well be one person (who knows _Quantum Field Theory_ but not _General Relativity_ ), bolstering his credibility by having a coauthor who people will suppose has the expert knowledge in _General Relativity_ to be able to critique Eric's elaboration of it to 14-dimensions after mixing it with _Chern-Simons theory_ despite him never saying anything in the way of a substantive criticism about the _General Relativity_ aspect of _Geometric Unity_ in the response paper or in the two and a half years since Eric published his, which they apparently still haven't read other than to check §8 and do CTRL+F to search for "Spinᶜ(4)" expecting that its absence would conclusively prove something when other authors represent this with different notation.
I wish Carlo roveli and abay ashtekar also joined the talk
What is truly disappointing with Eric is that the seriousness he says he craves has been given in thoughtful critiques, all of which point out that the "shiab operator" - a mathematical transformation entity on which the entire Geometric Unity conjecture hinges - isn't even defined. The theory is therefore a mirage, yet Weinstein continues these talk and is taken seriously. I see more of a peacock than I down an owl.
Very good. I appreciated the confrontational but honest energy.
For someone who is just learning physics, it would be helpful to give a basic video to explain some of the ideas being discussed here so that it is easier to understand the various theories. Thank you'
Check out any of their UA-cam channels.
Stay tuned for some introduction content on black holes
There are a lot and a lot and a lot. They will guide you to your own personal interest. Eventually. It’s big enough for everyone.
Mildly chaotic episode but charming to listen nontheless.
I would like to quote Einstein again: Imagination is more important than knowledge.
I would stamp it at every budding physicist's bedroom wall. In flashing lights.
Thanks to the hosts and all the participants. We're looking forward to more episodes!
There's lots of people with very active imaginations coming up with their own "theories" that have nothing to do with the world and that make no predictions about anything.
@@MrCmon113
You're right. But its easy to spot a wild un-critical, unbriddled imagination from a nobody.
It's much harder to cope with a dull, wrong argument based on accepted consensus. Specially when it comes from a widely recognised PhD authority.
Its amazing to see these people in discussions with Eric Weinstein.
It's like, the people you've grown up to admire the past 10 years of youtubes revolution of long-form intelligent podcasts, somehow magically all seem to come together now.
Clearly, I have little or no tolerance for people who ask complex questions and then lose all interest when the answer cannot be expressed in 2 sentences or less .
Rogan was certainly a leader of long format interviews and all too often, Rogan is not acknowledged for this contribution.. But I noticed the difference immediately because I have struggled with this question most of my life. I've found that if a person asks a question whose answer must justifiably begin with "it depends" they will generally not be capable of listening to the answer. Not everyone, mind you. but nevertheless signifixant.
Great video thank you to everyone involved! :)
Thanks that means a lot!
Was it Hossenfelder who dismissed studying gravitational quantum mechanics because particles are too "light"? Whoever said it, I was surprised with that adjective for mass, because the word has a double meaning. In any event, Roger Penrose went unmentioned here while his unification theory does pivot on the effect of gravity in disambiguating the Schrodinger cat paradox, an approach that is refreshingly different and deserves more discussion.
Everything (Matter), everywhere (Space) all at once (Time). So nice to see Professor Lee Smolin show up.
pulled out the toilet paper rolls 😭😭😭
Because you can wipe your derriere with his theory 😂😂😂
E. Weistein: ..it happens that you have to create in geometric unity an ambient space... horizontal tangent space... the spin 10 unified theory... they're two generations plus an imposter generation...
S. Hossenfelder: please tell me, what's the gravitational field of an electron in a superposition?
E. Weinstein:
eric weinstein absolutely won this discussion hands down. when he was on like podcast shows, he has explained geometric unity more simply than that, so i understood most of Weinstein's explanation of geometric unity after his joe rogan podcast, tat least i understand the space-and dimensions part, not the particles part as that was not discused in the podcast. but talking to physicists he probably felt he could be technical. what he forgot is as an almost pure mathematician,they can talk in such an abstract way, that normal physicists do not understand them. this was the case in weinsteins final comment where he gave an extremely complicated purely mathematical description of the space of geometric unity, sabine did not comprehend. i think matt probably understood it.
sabine is all she cares about is quantising gravity. i can solve that right now. gravity cannot be quantised. all the other three forces were quantised really really accurately-so we have QED, QCD, QFD, for electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak force. gravity isnt a force.gravity is negligible at quantum scales, or atomic scales. wanting to know the gravitational field of an electron. it's barely anything. so it's not important. if you have a black hole singularity, then you have alot of curvature of a small amount of space-producing either a spacelike or a weak singularity-the latter is likely for a rotation kerr blackhole in the latest computer simulations of them. so that produces the most curved space in the universe. it curves space so much, because so much mass in such a small volume means maximum curvature of spacetime that dimensionality allows. so forget quantum gravity. we want to look inside a blackhole at the singularity, and it will be a kerr type black hole and a super mssive one for sure. we would try the one that is best for survivability. and be looking to exist a supermasive fast spinning kerr black hole weak ring singularity into another universe, or another galaxy,. bit of a suicide mission but there are people out there willing to do it. train a deathrow inmate as an astronaut. so basically in smaller volumes with more mass, you get greater curvature of the spacetime. so this is still general relativity not quantum theory at all.stop applying particle theory to spacetime. relativity is violated otherwise. and the invariance of the lorentz stuff has been tested now below the planck length and so the relativity holds even below the planck scale. spacetime must be continuous not discrete otherwise relativity id violated.,which is impossible. so there is no quantum gravity. there is gravity, which is always expressed by general relativity. ring singularity of a kerr black hole is not quantum. it is small but non quantum sized. that you get extreme rotations in four dimensions so time and space switch their roles with space becoming one directional and minkowski found mathematically that time acts like space except with a factor of c, the speed of light in vacuum, and a factor of i, the imaginary number √(-1). increasing your motion through space decreases your motion through time, and vice versa. (Mathematically, this is where the i comes in .
in minkowski diagram speak, which is in worldtubes or worldlines, in flat space you have inertial motion of a particle which is basically a default state-this is unaccelerated motion, and newton's laws of motion still apply there. the worldline for the inertial motion next an accelerated particle-this is a deformed worldline and represented as such by a deformed or curved line on the spacetime diagram. now a third possible worldline is formed in the case of gravity, which is curved space, where we get a curved worldline but it is not deformed. in flat space that is not possible. but space with the ricci curvature tensor is curved spacetime, it's pure geometry-shapes. a particle's worldline in a gravity well is going to be steeply curved like going down a valley. what eric weinstein was talking about is the unified field theories in einsteins time, which were not the theories of everything of today, and that is the tradition which weinstein has returned to. it had no'thing to do with quantum gravity. they were geometrical theories.spacetime specialists and mathematians who exceled in geometry knew that.
kaluzas attempt to get electromagnetism by extending einstein's general relativity and minkowskis spacetime to five dimensions is the kind of work weinstein is doing. it's in that tradition of the twenties and thirties. smolin mentioned cohl furey-i've been following her avidly-her work on division algebras -with reals, compelx numbers, quaternions, octonians, these number groups correspond to dimensions and to parts of physics e.g. special relativity. the point eric weinstein was making to sabine is the standard model is hollow. we dont know why it is as it is. sabine doesnt care about this. but science can and does need to answer why. she just wants to do the basic 'shut up and calculate. but the true goal of physics is to find the why is it like this? we answered why there is gravity, and we were not content with newtons universal gravitation that only calculated the amount of gravity generated by masses, and therefore in simple cases could calculate the orbits of celestial bodies to a good degree of accuracy. the why answer was-spacetime curved by alot of mass to form a gravity well, like a valley, and you are actually moving along a curved spacetime path when under gravity, which is every day on earth. sabines philosophy of science is hollow. weinstein also explained these are not TOEs. these are more like the old unified field theories of Einstein's early career. higher dimensions has always been thought to be a thing. ive myself re gone over the very beginning of modern physics. from maxwell onwards, to the michelon-morley experiment, the birth or relativity, the early atom models, the precursors to string theory-such as the kaluza and kaluza klein five dimensional manifold explanation of the electromanetic force, as motion throii
this is why sabine is such an unimaginative physicist. we do not know why the standard model is based on the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)/Z_6, and not some other gauge group. Even given that gauge group, the standard model does not specify why it uses such a long, apparently arbitrary, list of particles to represent that group. The standard model does not explain why its quarks and leptons are organized into three generations. It does not explain why SU(2) weak isospin acts only on left-handed states. Finally, the standard model does not explain the values of its 19 parameters. These questions, and others, have gone unanswered now for nearly 40 years. mathematicians are the ones who are answering these things-in cohl furey and eric weinstein. btw weinstein is a mathematics research fellow so he is an academic now. plus his phd was in mathematical physics. einstein when working on special relativity was a complete unknown-he would therefore be regarded by sabine and the panel as an ousider, a non physicist. minkowski-einsteins maths professor is the author of spacetime itself, along with the concepts of worldlines, light cones, plus his far more detailed paper on special relativity than einstein, published three years after including famous lecture explained the deep physical meaning behind length contraction and time dilation-that we live in a four dimensional world. and that not only do different people in different reference frames-e.g one person stationary-in inertial motion, and other one being accelerated very fast, they both have their own time, which means they hsve their own space too, so there are many spaces. my only disappointment in eric weinstein is that he didnt include minkowski in the list of his most admired twentieth century scientific figures. but it took a pure mathematician to discover the real spacetime structure of the cosmos. in hermann minkowski, with credit particularly to lorentz and poincare. lorentz would have penned special; relativity instead of einatein if only we've got cohl furey a mathematical physicisdt who again has found the number ten that weinstein mentioned keeps coming up, she found a foundational matrix, with nine numbers corresponding to spatial dimensions, and one that behaves as a time dimension. weinstein again with ten.
@@shaunhumphreys6714 thank you for painstakingly commenting your counter argument. Very valuable.
@viralshield sabine was exposed. Weinstein owned her
@@shaunhumphreys6714 thanks for the read my friend although that was more than I bargained for. Some of that went over my head but love it gave me a bit to think about as I begin this being fans of all the speakers here. Praised be
@@shaunhumphreys6714 are you familiar with the modern criticisms of GU from Tim Nguyen? Gu has some serious mathematical deficiencies, namely an undefined "shiab" operator that Nguyen shows would break the theory with any valid definition.
Eric: "... sometimes we just want warm apple pie..."
Matt: *craves apple pie at this point* "Eric, we're gonna wrap it up"
Prof Lee Smolin seems like such a nice guy...
Weistein is obviously very clever. He may be right or totally wrong, but gosh he's a pompous speaker.
I watch his portal thing over time I reckon he is pretty humble and likes to raise others up. I reckon clever people can always come over pompous and sometimes indeed simply are but there's more to everyone usually 😉
He speaks in so many analogies while describing his mathematics that it makes him impossible to understand. Save the analogies for literature, just speak in mathematical terms while talking about mathematics. It’s like every sentence Eric speaks must contain 3 analogies and be able to win a game of scrabble.
These people are like sculptures with no knowledge of materials.
Sabine's bluntness is exactly what's needed today, and I admire Eric's courage to put out his Geometric Unity theory, but hes too smart and esoteric. I wish he would follow in the footsteps of Feynman, who understood long ago that you need to dumb it down to a certain level to be accepted by everyone as a whole, even for the physics community
Also I believe there's nothing dumb about something complicated explained understandably, but rather it is something that requires a huge amount of intelligence and communication skills.
I think when Eric talks it’s more to do with showing how smart he is rather than crisply conveying concepts to the people listening to him
Sabine: Politely - although bluntly - gives advice to Eric on how to better teach and spread his theory.
Eric: No U
I think Eric should have responded something like this: "Thank you for the constructive criticism. I didn't realize that I was being incomprehensible. Maybe I'll have to work on that."
I agree with Sabine that he is being incomprehensible. Does anyone want to calculate the lix number for his explanation?
she is german he is jewish with german backround maybe thats it :)
Lee was right - Eric and Sabine were arguing about different concepts of TOE in the first place.
Lee Smolin is a strange fella, but I love his books and his Darwinia universe hypothesis.
You forgot songwriter/singer in Sabine's titles!!!! Jk lol we are talking science, not music. I love her channel.
Great job on getting everyone together to talk! I'll have to check out all their channels as well now!
Lol. Thanks !!
I like how matt didn't bother introducing brian at all
Because he's the host?
Hay Brian! Last comment! You need to be sent to an economics course that never ends til you understand the first law of economics: satisfying unlimited wants, with limited means!
How did I not know this conversation happened?! AWESOME!
Please subscribe and hit the bell!
I enjoy physicists fighting, one: your theory suck, other: no your theory suck, another: all theories suck :)
Just more subtle
Right? I don't know what they're on about and I'm up because Arsenal are playing Man City tomorrow (COYG!!) and I can't sleep.
LOVE watching them talk to eachother it's like watching the Royal Rumble but with PHDs.
Might not learn much but it'll make me sleep. The comments are golden too look at all the nerds go! Defending their favourite lambasting the one they hate. Glorious stuff
I wanted two more hours of this, the subject deserves it.
Seriously man, they gotta stop putting time limits on most of these. I know peeps are busy but man, this stuff is important to the public.
Does “beauty” have to be simple, symmetrical, or clean? Cant beauty also be scary, complex and chaotic, yet still contain beauty?
An immaculate home with simple decor and simple style can share beauty with a grungy, dingy, worn out house, which a photographer may prefer as scenery.
Both perfection and in-perfection are beautiful. Both simplicity and complexity are beautiful.
Great points
There is an idea in japanese aesthetic tradition called wabi- sabi that I think reflect what you've pointed out. In some sense is the idea of finding beauty in imperfection. It can be applied here 👍.
Beauty of complexity comes from the perspective. A good perspective locates hidden order in chaos, that’s why a photographer is needed to simplify/beautify a messy room by cutting out the order with a frame.
@@diegocolomes Snap! I was gonna comment the same thing!😊
I love toward the end when Sabine accused Eric of being a poor communicator and that inspired him to launch into an "explanation" that probably virtually no one on the planet could follow. I listened to it mesmerized like I was listening to Putin give a speech (I enjoy just hearing Russian being spoken for some reason). I was expecting Sabine to counter all this by inviting Eric to devise experiments that would prove what he was saying was correct concerning Geometric Unity. Eric would have gotten angry at that and proclaimed that he was not an experimental physicist and that it was not his job to design experiments. Then Sabine might have commented that, since Eric was so dependent on experimental physicists to actually be interested in what he was saying -- which they are not -- then he should be nicer to them. I think Sabine was being deliberately non combative.
Eric is fairly wealthy. Maybe he should consider hiring an experimental physicist to work directly with him. Interest in his theories would increase in direct proportion to the fee he was offering.
Also, Eric stating that the public should just toss funding into whatever science wants is hard to take seriously. Is he really that naive? Even incredible projects that well deserve funding (like the James Webb Telescope) are regularly threatened with defunding. Even the military doesn't automatically get everything it asks for. No one does.
Agree with much of what you're saying. Sabine is the better communicator but Eric is the one who at least talks about physics in terms of (tangible) geometric deformaties, where objects get their material of existence from the material that normally forms the grid itself. At least if this is what he means, than thats correct and a great beakthrough in thinking. With respect to financing , I agree that Eric is a bit naive here. More money is not the solution , it is the problem. 100 years ago, fundamental physics used to be the realm of the few. It was not a great career choice and often involved finding sponsors for their passion to examine the true genesis of all. Fast forward to today we have literally 10's of thousands trying the same in government sponsored academia. Some may be gifted, the majority statistically will be mediocre at best. What is their main concern? To keep their bread and butter and still have a job at the end at the month. What is the biggest threat to them? Actually FINDING the solution to fundamental physics. If the fundaments are found, they can all pack and go home. No more budgets, prestige, prizes, nothing. So there is a MASSIVE incentive NOT to find what you say you are looking for. If anything you have to tout that fundaments are exponentially more complex then thought (which by the way is a contradictio in terminis). So no, anybody with potential and who is on to something will be sidelined, silenced or moved over to DARPA where they are far more advanced in their knowledge than these talking heads....Again...I like Eric's view, no-nonsense posture , but he is off on the politics behind academia.....
Let me summarize what you just said. Eric is talking out of his ass mostly. He does this on almost all topics. The bluster never matches the threat.
When is Eric going to address Nguyen's concerns about geometric unity?
He'll never do that, he can only make up word salads to confuse people even more. He's a crank.
Eric only published his draft because everyone (more importantly Joe Rogan) pressure him. Eric likes the attention he gets from bashing String Theory but his theory isn't any better. I am not a physicist so perhaps my opinion is worth anything.
Sabine is the Nietzsche of physics.
No, she's the reincarnation of feynman.
More like Schopenhauer
I don't understand what that is supposed to mean lol.
@C hrist I can actually somewhat see the connection here. I have no clue what she has to do with Nietzsche.
@C hrist I don't really see in what way even that would connect to Nietzsche. Just a weird comparison lol
But Wittgenstein? Yeah I can kinda see that.
Translation: Humanity needs a mathematical model that predicts the conversion of electromagnetism into gravity.
To Eric Weinstein:
Change your number base from 10 to 8 and see if the "10" correspondence remains or changes to an "8" correspondence. If the "8" correspondence replaces the "10" correspondence then you are looking at a mathematical artifact and not reality.
Why isn't Stephen Wolfram in this chat?
Φυσικός είσαι ρε τρελέ;
Eric knows he could solve these communication problems about GU if he provided predictions. That's physics 101. Make predictions based on GU Eric and let the scientist see it work or not work in this universe.
But he's not a physicist, sooooooooooooooo..... he can play in the physics sandbox but not have to play by their rules (at least in his inflated head).
@@chuckschillingvideos I'm so glad you trolled. Eric is a master math guru. However, Eric has no fucking clue about physics. Hey like to act like he's physics badass, but he has the skills of a fucking 20 yr old. It's fucking embarrassing. Especially for us that love him.
Like a string theory?
Do any of these people have PhD's? I can't tell.
😂
@@DrBrianKeating It's always a bit cringey to me when people on these podcasts feel the need to state that they're a PhD. It doesn't really matter to a youtube audience, and just comes off as a bit of self-congratulatory elitism (even to those of us who also have advanced training). You can have no degree and have great ideas, just as you can have many degrees and shit ideas. So let's hear about the ideas, and let them stand on their own merit. I'll be more impressed when I'm intrigued enough to google you, find your academic background, and be impressed that you were humble enough to not need to mention it.
Who has multiple PhDs though?
Agree 100%. But this wasn’t my branding or graphics.
@Mr. H My point is, a PhD doesn't qualify you for anything. You can have one and still be a complete idiot. (And plenty of great ideas in history have come from non-specialists.)
Eric really should take sabine criticism onboard. Sabine called it. Eric just babbled big words and fumbled with toilet rolls. Its a thread that runs through a lot of his conversations: big words, weird metaphors. Just not considering his audience.
I like Lee’s thinking re: evolution, such as natural selection, as providing the mechanism for the emergence of laws. The book, Quantum Darwinism, suggests some of this. But I think it’s a foundational principle that underlies the unfolding of everything-whether we’re talking about time, space, matter, galaxies, life, etc. His statement about space being an emergent property which, as such, can explain the enigma of non-locality really struck me as logical!
Yeah but what is the criteria that defines successful replication? In biology it's mating. To my understand of Lee he suggests black hole propagation? That seems totally random but if it turns out that we can create universe's in a lab then it's possible that intelligence and self knowledge is the replication mechanism on our framework of reality. Any universal framework (constants of nature) that construct objects that can gain enough self knowledge to replicate their own universe/framework then they will in fact do that.
Sabine schooling Eric for his incoherent blabber made my day.
Where?? Can you please give the time stamp
@mr.greengold8236 58:58 Sabine tells Eric he needs to be able to communicate better with other physicists. He claims that academia is against his theory but no one knows what he is on about. Yes String Theory is a dead end but his theory is no better. He has publish a very rough draft and on the opening page he mentions he hasn't been practicing physics.
Eric didn't need to be a part of this discussion. It would have been better off without him.
Eric is an absolute titan.. I reckon he is more than a formidable foe to witten
Yes! So glad to see such company in one place! This is fantastic
Lee raising his hand 😂🤣
Eric Weinstein: Look this is really simple concept: blah blah blah
Me: flies so high above my head I don't even feel the breeze.
It wasn't above your head, it went by the side of your head because Eric was throwing tons of jargon terms, and people often think that means it's valuable or smart. But a 7-year-old could tell Leonardo Da Vinci what he did after school and Da Vinci would have no idea what the kid was saying, because Da Vinci didn't speak English. Intelligence is not in obscurity complexity. You can watch Richard Feynman's video "knowing the name of something is not the same as knowing something" to see the same concept also. Eric Weinstein never learned this and goes out of his way to try to sound smart through jargon and not answering questions. It's honestly embarrassing and he's a complete waste of time. Both his own and that of thousands of other people.
Feynman lecturers were often aimed at teaching layman simple physics in a fun and exciting way. In one awesome video he said himself that explaining magnetic to any depth is extremely difficult to a person who lacks the theoretical framework. Here Eric is explaining his theories to a group of physics phD. I know it makes you feel inadequate not understand the man but let us not going on the attack and pretend that he is the one with the problem.
I find the recent popular podcasts-world trend of discussing the approaches to the theory of everything not confined to the string theory enormously interesting and inspiring development. There are, however, some obvious issues which remain not addressed and questions which should be cleared so the discussion can go deeper into the actual non-trivial questions.
First, the podcasts discussion seems to involve three type of players: 1. non-particle physicist who are not really sympathetic to the whole idea of the theory of everything; 2. the experimental astrophysicists and cosmologists who while attracted and open to the new ideas on the theory of everything, are not really in a position to offer a serious pushback and make necessary distinctions between different approaches; and finally you have 3. few independent and very articulated brilliant thinkers, not part of the professional physics practice, who have courage to work directly on the holy grail of the fundamental physics - the theory of everything (or, as Eric points out correctly, work on the alternative approaches which could at the end of a long painful process that a scientific theory has to go through, always had, lead to the theory of everything).
What is missing is participation of the high profile practicing theoretical physicist who actually work in the fundamental theoretical physics. I may be wrong but I have to assume that some of the practicing high energy theorists would be open to provide the alternative opinions and explain what it would take to actually take seriously some of these new ideas and provide the much needed constructive criticism of even few aspects of the new theory. Unlike most of the participants so far, these are the people who actually are equipped with ability to both, understand the new proposals and provide the informed and (a big IF) a productive criticism. One person I would personally recommend as rather fair and open minded is John Preskill of Caltech.
Again, I don’t know if they are excluded from these discussions intentionally by the podcasters, or because all of them are so heavily invested into the current approach that they reject to appear in the discussions which may force on them to admit certain inconvenient truths about their own work & the field. Hopefully this is not the case.
There are so many other things to unpack here, that I can’t possibly do in a text, so let me just finish with few random observations:
1. String theory failed so far not because it was not a mathematically deep and beautiful but because despite decades of work did not lead to doable calculations which show it is predicting the things we know are true but don’t know why, and new things we didn’t know about.
2. There will be a huge gap between any theory of everything proposal and being able to predict from it the numbers. The originator of the theory will usually be expected to do much work at least initially to bridge the gap between the theory and its most interesting predictions. This is were individual scientist working outside of the “acceptable framework” are severely disadvantaged as they can’t count on an army of postdocs and fellow scientists to do the work.
3. If I were Eric, I would write a paper presenting in as much detail my theory as possible, together with open questions I am working on as well as questions which if not resolved could disprove the theory. This would be less then perfect but would stake the claim “in writing” on the theory as developed in the moment, and would not be possible to ignore. It would also give the open minded people within the professional theoretical physics community a chance to actually understand what’s done and criticize it in an informed and hopefully a productive way.
It is risky to do so prematurely but it is risky to let it be ignored for too long while leaking its features because a brilliant person who is thinking along the similar lines can use even without realizing these hints to model his own thinking and incorporate them in his own work, coming up with in principle the same or similar theory, without even felling or even being conscious of the obligation to give a due credit to the person who gave the hints needed to make progress sooner rather then later -it would not be first time that something like this happen in science and it is rather well known phenomena that a brilliant people hearing a good argument for an idea they may have considered among many others before, often feel this was their idea anyway...
4. Etc
Eric, as Dirac said( I’m paraphrasing): “can your model compute the mass of the electron? Please come back when it does!”
John Dewey liked to say that even when we fail, progress is made. I support any progress in working for a democracy without any humiliation happening. We all have our own interests which we take to. I like to look at Gravity as the change in subject matter, with that little photon as the only particle. Yet, maybe the wave function has collapsed again, because it seems to need more hope (not knowledge) to keep it going. Thus, I look for what hopeful colors which I am missing in my own spectrum. That's why I am here. Thanks for the group video!
We all of us seem to appreciate some beauty, but I think hope is the best to go for.
If there is surface, is there matter? But when is there not surface? Wallace Stevens liked to say that the only poverty is not living in a physical world.
beauty is not a cherry picking. because the beauty emerges after the individual makes a discovery. then realizing how simple it was. beauty is parabolic. beauty is symmetric. beauty is the inherent simplicity itself.
Eric would make a great politician
He is.
Lol. True
He obfuscates, to enthrall the naive, _who can't differentiate gibberish from intelligence._
I was checking on the portal wiki to see if there is any full publication of the theory, then I see PBS space time. I click, I am here. Popcorn is popping as we speak.
Also if all of you have a PhD, what's the point in writing after each name PhD?
So smart but couldn’t figure out how to remove the noise from the background 🤔😂 Just teasing 😉 Love all you brilliant minds but audio was too bad so wasn’t able to listen for more than a few minutes.
I don't know if many people know the phenomenon, that physicists and mathematicians (with exceptions) don't understand each other. Easiest problems in maths are completely incomprehensible to many physicist and vise versa. As a mathematician Eric's approach comes very easy to me.
Again, to reiterate (for whoever happens to be reading my comments), the "atoms of spacetime" are very, very, very likely to be electrons. I think Finster made that leap of understanding, it fits excellently with emergent gravity, CDTs, and loop quantum gravity. It provides a neat explanation of the vacuum energy (i.e. electrons merely absorb photons from one location in the universe, tunnel, then deposit them elsewhere), and I'd propose an exchange of Z particles (i.e. a neutral current) to explain neutrino flavour oscillations.
The fact that Rric Wienstein is included has lessened my respect for everyone involved.
My particular view on this is that we can get very close to a theory of 'everything' with the (not unjustified) assumption that gravity is equal to the force of electromagnetism less radiation pressure. I started with the thought experiment of two atoms of ordinary hydrogen in a 1cm^3 box with no external sources of gravitational interference, say at a Lagrange point, and then compared the electromagnetic force augmented with the ration between gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion, and the ordinary force of gravity between the two atoms anticipated in Newton's law. I discovered that, if you augment the force of electromagnetism in this way, you bring it very nearly into alignment with the (tiny) force anticipated in Newton's law, and that the remainder can be explained as the force of radiation pressure created by intervening photons in the background. To give a little more detail, the idea rests on the assumption that tunneling electron from one hydrogen atom exerts an electrostatic (or van der Waals) force of attraction over the proton in the nucleus of the other atom, and vice versa. Augmenting the anticipated force of gravity by dividing the number of particles in the system by the ratio between the force of gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion (4.17 x 10^42) yields an extraneous electrical force roughly concomitant with the anticipated force of gravity; however, this would be the force of 'gravity' explained in terms of some quantity of a tunneling elementary particle, namely the electron. This also allows us to perform a calculation which disregards the overwhelming majority of the electromagnetic force on the (I think reasonable) assumption that most of that force is bound up in the atom itself, i.e. it consists exclusively between the proton and electron of a given hydrogen atom and doesn't travel beyond the atoms' radius. Hence, 'gravity' is explicable as a very sight residual electromagnetic/electrostatic interaction resulting from an electron which, very occasionally, tunnels to within the appropriate range of a foreign proton to exert a force of attraction over it. That is, one time in every ~4.17 x 10^42nd times, it tunnels close enough to a foreign nucleus to exchange gauge particles with that nucleus and create an attractive force. Obviously I'm a crank though, so no one believes me :)
As person who is 10x less smarter I noticed the big names in physics such as Eric Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Robert Oppenheimer and Niels Bohr who were at the cutting edge at their times and were reaching their limits all turned to ancient Indian Hindu text and I would recommend that be in corporates in educating physicists so bring them out of the stagnation to breakthrough.
"10x less smarter" makes no sense. 10% less smart would be better. However, it isn't solely a matter of them having a higher IQ. Let's assume you are average IQ which is 100, then 10% more smart would be 100 + 100 x 0.10 = 100 + 10 = 110. Yet, this does not factor in the panel's knowledge. It took me two years of reasearch to get a gist of an understanding about Eric Weinstein's _Geometric Unity_ as an Art School drop out. Lack of knowledge and patience are more of an obstacle than IQ. Interestingly, 10% less smart than 111.111111 or 1000/9 will get you to 100 IQ. Note, I am not saying your IQ is 100. I just picked that to make the sums easier.
I think you may be right. The elephant in the room, which many take for granted, and others mistake aspects of it for other phenomena, is Time. Ganesh seems pretty important, so that might be a clue, as you suggested.
18:16 look at Matt he is so happy, he knows Eric doesn't know what's coming..
I support Sabine, less money, less money, less money, and more importantly NO CORRUPTION. We should get away from doing things because of money especially in research and development, it's a problem solving issue and the problem isn't a lack of money and end corruption, it destroys everything. Eric is comparing finance with the wrong people, tge army, the economists, military industrial complex and the economists that cause global recession. Less money, no corruption, more solution and if at all you need more money invest it in more energy production and free education to the degree
Truth is beautiful because it generates awe !
However beauty does not generate truth.
Just think why beauty is beauty.
Sabine giving Eric some feedback on geometric unity starting at 59:00 was pretty enjoyable 🤣 But I was a little perplexed that Sabine didn't care to understand the fundamental questions Eric was posing, "it's just like that", was a bit dissapointing.
It's not that they aren't interesting questions, it's just that the kinds of questions Eric is asking can't be answered with an experiment, and therefore isn't physics, but philosophy.
Her science response was "The Standard Model works" so there is no problem.
Sabine was consistent throughout that the most important problem to solve is the quantization of gravity. She also said the of the 0.5 million views of Eric's Geometric Unity she felt she new more than most but was still not prepared to invest time in it. Eric believes he is fixing something at a foundational level but it is clear she is not convinced. She is correct that he needs to put more effort into getting buy in for his theory.
If you come up with some reason why it's chiral this was rather than that and that reason doesn't explain anything else, you've really gained nothing at all.
I have an elementary understanding of Physics so not in position to analyse the content of the discussion. I am struck by some of the hostility in the comments and am therefore keen to understand why a theory, however wrong it might be, justifies so much hate?
Gate keeping, that's why.
Which hate are you referring to? If it is towards Eric, afaik it might be because he has been touting his approach for a while now without actually publishing anything for anyone to dig into, claiming he is worried about hostility. The problem is, in the scientific world you *have* to expose your ideas to public scrutiny, otherwise ideas can’t be challenged. Either don’t talk about it like it’s the next theory of relativity, or publish. I like Eric, but in this regard I find him very frustrating.
memespace no, People are dying to see the next physics revolution. I know physicists and academia, gate keeping usually is the opposite of what they are about. As long as scientific standards are met of course, which is essential.
@@chrisdistant9040 he did post the Oxford lecture where he explains it on his channel, but a paper would be nice for denser folks like me
Maxwell was right on it. So I've delved deep into Maxwell and he wasn't looking at the tree. He was searching for the roots. But being a prisoner of his time, that being said it's incredible and I'm not sure if the understanding was lost at some point as the decades past. So the vacuum itself has no geometry but the matter in the space does so when does the interaction first occur naturally and why? The bending of fields makes all the marbles work. But if those fields bend it must be just slight. Dampners are staring right at us were on one I think. It's incredible stuff.
'Einstein once said: “If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: don’t listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds.” For, he continued, “to the discoverer in this field the products of his imagination appear so necessary and natural that he regards them, and would have them regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities.” (From Max Jammer's The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics)
Well this debate flew over my head because I have no idea of the definitions of the elements being discussed ... It's a different language and I think Sabine is correct that Eric is not recognising the difficulties in communication that are inherent or intrinsic to conversation... Unless you have an advanced degree in the subjects the debate between Eric and Sabine is pretty much incomprehensible....
As an honorary metaphysican, I'm very excited to listen to your discussion!! :-)
For goodness sake. Physics cannot have a fundamental theory. Questions concerning the fundamental belong in metaphysics. This is physics 101. When physicists say 'theory of everything' or 'fundamental theory' this is just a manner of speaking, and not a helpful one.
Everything Eric says is just dripping with overconfidence and his enormous sense of him being a genius. Meanwhile he barely presented anything so far. He has this image that he casts of himself of the ostraciced genius that is just held back by the oppressive academic system. I share some of his criticisms with that system, but it's kinda crazy to see someone talking with such confidence, when they so far brought pretty much nothing to the table.
It is a glue that brings everyone to the table. Grab your own take and go. It’s the same thing they all are doing.
Eric has brought his own theory of everything to the table, think it called Geometric Unity. I know he seems upset by a lackluster response to it. I find it interesting, but like all the major theories of everything that people have put forward, they are so detached from the world that we can scientifically probe, it is hard for me, and many others more qualified to judge, to get excited about. Eric may have a grating personality, but I have a lot of respect for many of his opinions.
I support his rather crazy idea of detonating an atomic bomb on the Earth's surface somewhere. He believes that the world needs to be reminded of just how destructive one bomb can be.
"Let him finish. Let him finish"
Lmao
"...go back to a period before 1984..." -- and the Terminator is sent back in time to kill String Theory 👀
Oh no!!!
Never question a theory that belongs to a narcissist, in the presence of the narcissist. He will take it as an attack on the legitimacy of his very existence.