Geometric Unity - A Theory of Everything (Eric Weinstein) | AI Podcast Clips
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2020
- Full episode with Eric Weinstein (Apr 2020): • Eric Weinstein: Geomet...
Clips channel (Lex Clips): / lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): / lexfridman
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Eric Weinstein is a mathematician with a bold and piercing intelligence, unafraid to explore the biggest questions in the universe and shine a light on the darkest corners of our society. He is the host of The Portal podcast, a part of which, he recently released his 2013 Oxford lecture on his theory of Geometric Unity that is at the center of his lifelong efforts in arriving at a theory of everything that unifies the fundamental laws of physics.
Subscribe to this UA-cam channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Наука та технологія
Okay let me take a crack at explaining it. I've been wikipedia diving for a while. I tried to simplify the math in this explanation.
The problem with modern physics is that we have 2 models and both are good at describing things, but they cannot describe each other. For example, general relativity is useful but it doesn't have any concept of electricity. The Standard Model is also useful but it doesn't have any way to describe gravity. From a maths perspective there are also problems. GR uses maths relating to geometry and is concerned with the shape of space and time. The Standard Model uses maths relating to probability and individual particles.
Eric's theorem relates to the "Yang Mills Equations". These are equations which work on 4 dimensions and they have one really neat property. Dr. Yang and Dr. Mills showed that if you plug in certain values into their equations you actually can get equations which are identical to Maxwell's Equations (the 1800s classical electromagnetism equations). Physicists call this version of the Yang Mills Equations U(1).
U(1) is important in physics because it is one of the pieces of math which make up the Standard Model, specifically U(1) represents electromagnetism within the standard model. SU(3) is another set of equations which behave in the same way that we see the 12 particles behave. We use SU(3) to represent bosons, leptons, and quarks in the standard model. SU(2) is a set of equations which represent how spin particles (subatomic particles with spin) behave when undergoing special relativity. When physicists smash these equations together you get SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), a very complex but very complete model of our universe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model
Still with me? Cool. Eric's PhD dissertation was on these Yang Mills Equations. He showed that these equations actually could represent more than 4 dimensions. All of the rules Dr. Yang and Dr. Mills proved about their equations on 4d vector spaces ALSO work on 8 dimensional vector spaces, and even more. Geometric Unity is this idea that, hey, if we use 14 dimensional Yang Mills Equations and we decide that 4 of dimensions are spacetime and the rest are rulers and protractors, not only can you get Maxwell's Equations but you can also get the rest of Einstein's equations! This is pretty neat. If physicists were able to continue work on this theory (which requires LOTS of math) and show that you can make a model like SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) but with 14 dimensional versions of the pieces we might have a single theory which links general relativity and the standard model. We might also find that when extended into 14 dimensions the model stops working. We don't know yet.
Spinors: okay so spinors are a mathematical oddity that emerges when playing with equations that have to do with geometries and surfaces (Eric calls these manifolds). They are little things which, like Eric is saying, rotate 720 degrees. There's not much special about them, they just exist en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinor Eric's point is that there is a mathematical space he calls "the chimeric fiber bundle" which has pretty similar mathematical properties to his own 14 dimensional space. This chimeric fiber bundle also has spinors, but these spinors have a neat property where if you project/collapse the 14 dimensions down into just the 4 spacetime dimensions these spinors look just like the 12 particles of matter! They have internal quantum numbers and spin and angular momentum and all other things which we use to model particles within the standard model. So there is strong reason to believe that in Eric's mathematical model of the 14 dimensional yang mills equations we should try representing the 12 particles as spinors. If that works, Eric may have theory which is able to answer questions about electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and relativity.
Why hasn't Eric shown that 14 dimension spinors inside his model are able to represent the 12 particles of matter? I'm not sure. Maybe he needs help, maybe he is exhausted, or both. I remember him mentioning somewhere that he was struggling with the math behind quantum electrodynamics. Maybe he is trying to recover the QED equations?
Thank you. I am not an expert on physics or math, but I'm fascinated by their implications for my understanding of reality. So I've heard a lot of experts, including Eric, talk about these subjects in the past, but have come across various gaps in the logic of their explanations that I couldn't understand. Your explanation is the first that has actually filled in those gaps for me, and made it finally click (as much as it could for a lay person) as to what the general problems with our current understanding of physics are, and in what way physicists and mathematicians are attempting to solve these problems. This is invaluable information for me because suddenly so many of those podcasts and lectures are starting to make sense, and I can now personally ponder these questions in a general way. So I really can't thank you enough Alex. Well done!
I got more clarity from this comment than Eric talking about the relevance of his own idea/theory.
Thanks
Thanks!!! A little bit easier to “understand”... as far as I can understand something like that.
Eric was the migraine and you were the tylenol. I feel relieved now! Thanks a lot!!
"Did you have friends tha-"
Eric: "No"
Lmfao your comment has me cracking up bro. Chillll😂
friends just clog the works! :P
At 10:35 to 11:00 into this podcast Eric says it all: The current political setup of the academia will not produce anyone or anything that will solve the key questions. Agree. What we have not figured out is whether that would be intentional or even ideological. I can think of a financial reason: If your core business as academia is to research into the great unknown of physics, then solving the unknowns of physics would kill the goose with the golden eggs. Then all of the billions in budgets and academic positions would melt away just like the Apollo program did once humans actually set foot on the moon. As in yeah yeah been there seen it...Additionally there might be a more ideologic motive. Perhaps the answers are not at all complex and even known by some set of people or powers that be. Then they would do anything to steer us into the wrong directions ever since the pace of progress became too big 50 years ago. Maybe it is even a combination of both motives. But DISC by the act of peer-review dumbing down of science is a very real thing and I applaud Eric for scratching the surface if only briefly .
@@RWin-fp5jn man agree. I hope more people read this. Also all undergraduate requirements could be chalked up to the same thing, especially when for many people its an exact repeat of high school course work. the assumption used to be well everyone going into a big state university comes from different backgrounds so we need to re-cover these to make sure everyone is on the same page. But what if that's all intentional at some universities to waste 2 years of your time. Really makes you think.
@@jdtv50 *I don't believe in you*
Eric just has this impeccable talent for describing very complex and/or abstract subjects and ideas in such a way that is both comprehensive, yet very easily digestible and understandable to anyone who is himself.
😅
@@HarveyShankarIt is quite an honor. Only four months after posting this. Lol kinda forgot about this comment.
I understand what he is talking about.. I think the issue is that dumb people are trying to understand him and can't (Shrugs)
@@troubledseed definitely make sure to belittle someone here that may be trying to lessen their stupidity .... But you already knew that .... Because you're very smart, as you articulated.
@@Monfukin.tannan Correct. Thanks for explaining what was already done?
He's like the physics equivalent of Robert California from The Office
this comment doesnt get enough likes
@@timquigley986 Can literally imagine him saying "Do you want the Schrödinger's Cat metaphor or the sexual metaphor?"
*aggressive pausing*
Really wish I would have read this AFTER watching. Now it’s impossible to forget. 😂
The lizard king himself
Unity theory is just like a pizza, you got the cheese and the pepperoni and the sauce. Now think of the sauce like a shoe, any good shoe needs a sole, and laces, and insole. Now think of a man wearing the shoe, and climbing a tree, but it turns out the tree is actually a telephone pole. The telephone pole is kinda like a giant pencil, except it doesn't have any lead in it, so this is a real problem. What was I talking about again?
I like your style 😉
@@Srsbzns_5150 ahaha, still holds up
@@Zoonofski 😉
Brilliant!
I can't help but feel that Eric was enjoying making it unpleasant and unproductive Ugh.
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them." - George Orwell
"My definition of an intellectual: someone who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence." - Arthur C. Clarke
"A genius is someone who takes a complex thing and makes it look simple. An academic does the opposite." - Robert Fanney
You do realize that just because someone says a thing doesnt make it true. Like not even close
@@thermalrain_yt9725 there's a certain irony in saying that in defence of the charlatan Eric Weinstein, lol. Those qotes have all stood the test of time. They contain ideas that has been believed by generations of actual geniuses. Unlike the self aggrandizing and pompous word salads of Eric Weinstein.
@@HansenFT I'm not saying that in defense of him more like against him. I for one don't agree with much of anything Eric says. Ever.
I was just saying they put these quotes here from smart people like they're facts or something. You can say whatever you want but until you show your work it's irrelevant. Same with this whole thing with Eric. Both him and his brother say some pretty crazy shit and people believe them because they're smarter than them.
@@thermalrain_yt9725 Lol actually the quotes are “against” him too. Maybe, and just maybe, actually read what something says before pitching in your two cents.
Why would anyone take what you think about it seriously when you can’t even understand basics like that? I certainly wouldn’t.
Why do people think quotes are some kind of empirical evidence. Don’t be mad because you can’t understand something that’s beyond you
"how do you feel as a human?"
"the problem with traditional academia is...."
every time with this guy. I've watched a lot of Eric's videos and I'm a lot clearer on how much he hates academia than I am on any of his theories.
kudos for Lex for trying to keep him on track.
Hmmmmm
He's had beef with academia mainly with Harvard as far as I know
He believes he was robbed of a project that he worked on and now he distrust those who you are supposed to trust in order to get your work shown. The old TV show turn where the rich man is caught by the poor man and in turn the rich man turns the story and the poor man is punished or taken advantage of. The who are they gonna believe defence.
I hate Eric more than anyone.
"I'm the smartest person who ever lived"
@@Funkadelick He might be..
I have attempted to meditate many times in my life and prior to this CD the only success I've experienced is with live guided meditation. ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxzpa8CIfZcihW4Z0F_ja0QF3W9KIatrsq This is the first CD I've used that cuts through my unmedicated ADHD and enables me to truly relax and experience a quiet and energizing interval. The instructors voice is very soothing and pleasant to listen to. I am easily able to sit successfully through the entire CD, and for quite some time after. I cannot adequately express how tremendously helpful this CD has been on my spiritual journey!! Two thumbs up and 10 stars!
I absolutely love how Lex shows a picture of basically every book his guests mention.
What's the point of your comment? Who cares if he shows the books.
And I pause and grab a screenshot of each. So now I have my own handy Graph Wall Tome Transmission Sequence Guide in Photos. I love that. Thanks Lex! Yet another wonderful trip to the portal. Keep ‘em coming!
@@krisanctil794I do. Makes it more convenient to look up the sources they are talking about and I'd imagine the point of the comment is just to show appreciation for the extra effort that has been put in.
@@krisanctil794 Lol someone hurt you.
Kris Anctil The point is so you know what he’s referencing to.
"-Every time I try to think about that, like my brain shuts down.
- No don't do that"
Best advice ever
Eric: I've solved the greatest mysteries of Physics.
Physicists: Great, can you show us? What are you equations?
Eric: Nah, I think I'll just go on podcasts and confuse UA-cam viewers instead with nonsense-sounding analogies.
He seems more cult leader than scientist
@@Smashingbonejuices *wanna be cult leader
When did Eric claim that he had solved the greatest mysteries of physics?
@@johongo Eric can tell that Tim is a jerk from a mile away.
@@____uncompetative thats what geometric unity is all about. Proving Einstein wrong and finding a way to travel faster than light so we can 'get off this planet' as if that wouldnt mean a collision with the tiniest of objects would create an explosion of such magnitude it would blow an entire planet to smithereens, and would require a motor more powerfull than the sun. But never mind little details like that.
Eric can't help but explain things as complicated as possible LMAO
It’s because he wants people to think he’s a genius
He speeks in jewish
Yeah.. its really unhelpful
Make things as simple as possible but no simpler. Albert Einstein
2:43 "So, I used to carry the number 14 as a closely guarded secret in my life. Where 14 is really 4 dimensions of space and time, plus ten extra dimensions of rulers and protractors, or for the cool kids out there, symmetric two tensors." - Eric Weinstein
I wonder if Weinstein is deliberately obfuscating the conceptual explanation of his work so that he can talk over the heads of all but the academics he wants to have listen to him. It really isn't that hard as this quote makes out, and could be explained with more clarity and include a lot more of the audience.
Okay, so the universe that we are familiar with, in which we can tie a knot has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. In his paper Eric writes this as (3, 1).
So, taken together you have four dimensions of "spacetime" as 3 + 1 = 4.
Eric then jumps to talk about another 10 without being at all specific about where they are coming from. The paper that he published has (7, 7) = (3, 1) + (4, 6).
So, that is 4 + 6 = 10 where that is another four spatial dimensions and an extra set of six temporal dimensions. Sum these all up and you get (7, 7) which is 14 dimensions.
A lot of the really clever math he does to unify the behaviour of tiny phenomena like electricity, magnetism, nuclear radiation, etc. all seem to take place on this (4, 6) "manifold", so you have a (3, 1) manifold called X which takes care of all the really huge stuff like stars and galaxies and phenomena like gravitation and this (4, 6) manifold called Y which takes care of the tiny stuff. At least that was what I made out of reading his draft paper.
This means that _Geometric Unity_ is a fairly straighforward attempt to unify the huge and the tiny, tying together X and Y by representing the mathematics that describes both in consistent terms by using relativistic wave equations rather than using the conventional approach of treating all the tiny stuff as point particles.
The number 14 isn't arbitrarily plucked out of thin air to get the math to work, but is a property of the geometry of the manifold X that we are most familiar with and can tie knots in without them becoming undone.
If you take X as this manifold (3, 1) then you can consider a position in space as being somewhere along the axes which run from left-right, up-down, and also forward-back. So, this suggests that you have three coordinates, which would be described mathematically as: (x, y, z)
You can then consider a position in time as being somewhere along a separate axis which runs from past-future. This suggests that you now need to track another coordinate, along this temporal axis, which would be described mathematically as: (t)
An event in spacetime could then just combine this into (x, y, z, t) and this would be everything you need to know about what is going on with X as Weinstein deliberately went out of his way to simplify it. Normally, it is a lot more complicated, and the equivalent manifold used by Albert Einstein was a great deal more sophisticated, but that was because his manifold had to exist on its own and it couldn't rely on being joined to another.
This is significant to _Geometric Unity_ and is the main reason why it is cool, but it makes better sense to explain this part of it later on as we still need to focus on our justification of these 14 dimensions.
(x, y, z, t) = 4 dimension variables = (3, 1).
Now we move from X to Y and see that we have (4, 6). The first set of extra spatial dimensions can be thought of as being the "magnitudes" of the "vectors" which each originate from the coordinates (x, y, z, t).
Eric often refers to these magnitudes as being "length", but they aren't length in the orthodox sense of length that we are familiar with. However, what you can do with a set of magnitudes is describe the velocity of a thing moving through space as the next position of an event could be seen as being what it used to be (x, y, z, t) plus these magnitudes, let's call these all (p, q, r, s). So that's:
(x', y', z', t') = (x, y, z, t) + (p, q, r, s)
However, there are another six dimensions in Y which give us the pair (4, 6) so what are they used for?
Well, half of them describe the angles that exist between the spatial axes: left-right, up-down, forward-back and if you hold out your hand so that you initially put your thumb at 90 degrees to your forefinger, and then look directly down your thumb with your forefinger held aloft, then lower your middle finger so that is at 90 degrees to your forefinger, then as you turn your wrist you will see you will have made your own rough coordinate frame for the x, y, z axes in which the angle between each is assumed to be 90 degrees.
However, it need not be 90 degrees. So, we need to use a dimension variable to capture that quirk, so that the angle that is between left-right and up-down does not have to be assumed to be 90 degrees, and the same applies to the other two angles between the coordinate axes.
You can see by looking at your fingers that there are only three angles, only another three dimensions, so where do the other three come from?
Well, if you take the forefinger from your other hand and imagine it freely being able to form angles with the three fingers you already held aloft, you can count for yourself that another three angles are needed between this temporal axis and each of the three spatial axes.
So, let's summarise we have (j, k, l, m, n, o) as the angles between axes and (p, q, r, s) as the magnitudes of vectors and (x, y, z, t) giving us fourteen dimensional variables which describe all possible features of X.
We then take (j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s) onto Y and play around with them to see if we can't use those ten dimensions to fashion the behaviour of all the tiny phenomena that permeates our reality at small scales.
"So, I used to carry the number 14 as a closely guarded secret in my life. Where 14 is really *4 dimensions of space and time, plus ten extra dimensions of rulers and protractors,* or for the cool kids out there, symmetric two tensors."
A protractor is a circular piece of plastic that is used in geometry class to draw arcs and I am not 100% confident based on his reaction that Joe Rogan knew what one was for the purpose of this conceptual analogy as I don't know that he studied geometry at high school. Some people are traumatised by math classes, made to feel stupid, and never remember all the basic terminology. So, given the length of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Eric may have been better off taking this early part slower to keep his audience onboard, as you can hold up three fingers of one hand and describe, more easily than I have, how to get to fourteen dimension variables.
It really is 14 ways of measuring things, rather than what people assume, it means which is 14 spatial dimensions in addition to time, which would look like (14, 1) rather than (3, 1). These are dimension variables, rather than mirror universes we can go to, like in the recent _Doctor Strange_ movie.
Indeed, _Geometric Unity_ does address things being an incomplete portion that would make more sense if it had a mirror counterpart, but doesn't waste a whole dimension variable to obtain it, but uses complex numbers instead. This is where the predictions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy come from in his theory.
I said earlier that I would explain what makes _Geometric Unity_ cool, and for this I would like to use my own analogy of someone going hiking in the woods.
They didn't want the encumberance of having to bring along a tentpole in order to hold up the canvas of their tent, but as the forecast was dry and it was a lot lighter to just bring along another canvas they did that instead.
When it came to make camp they put their canvas on the ground and hammered tent pegs all around the edge to pin it down. It wasn't going to stay pitched and taut with no tentpole to prop it open, but they knew what to do instead, and tied the edges of their second canvas to the branches of the surrounding trees so it sagged down above the other tent that was a flabby mess on the ground.
They then took a clothes peg out of their pocket where they had remembered to keep it and pinned the maximal point of the lower tent to the minimal point of the upper V-shaped tent so that with the help of the trees and the tethering to the ground, one tent held the other open, so that they could crawl inside and sleep for the night without the wind being an issue.
In this analogy, the lower tent is X and the upper tent is Y. _Geometric Unity_ creates a manifold Y whose job is to hold up a flabby X which would otherwise have needed a defined metric (i.e. "tentpole").
This is an elegant solution and as it is also a Grand Unified Theory, consistently using relativistic wave equations to describe the tiny and the huge, and doesn't come up with the number 14 arbitrarily, but derives it from the geometry of the space that we can tie knots in, which suggests that there is a mathematical reason why we live in what seems to us to be (3, 1) even if that is part of a higher dimensional manifold. It is getting close to a Theory of Everything, however I don't remember reading in the draft paper about how the Universe came to be cosmologically, or why the masses of particles are what they are, or if there are at least a few beautiful mathematical structures unifying everything which seem to be reused in an economy of design, as current theoretical physics (though tested by experiment) has a lot of numbers put into the equations to get the predictions to work, with no clue as to where all those numbers come from, which I would think a Theory of Everything would pin down even if it didn't explain the interaction of reality with consciousness, initially.
If nothing else, Eric does have a good talent for coming up with names for things.
I agree, but it's ironic that "Intellectual Dark Web" is one of the lamest names he's come up with.
If he was in high school...
His gravestone should just read "In other words"
The entirety of his plan involves this. Notice how he jumped on the "Well, I'd hope I'd have a trademark." This dude is the next L. Ron Deepak Chopra.
@@joeporter4920 what will your gravestone say?
44:56 ok, I get this part, 10 + 4 = 14! Ok, go on.
😂😂
You made me laugh so hard! God bless you!
45:00 That ten-dimensional compliment, which is called: “a normal bundle” generates spin properties....
...nope. There it goes. Gone.
Brilliant! So funny I am still laughing!
Sry , but it should be 6 + 4 + 4 = 14
I like the "Lex, how can I help you most"-moment.
Not that it mattered, Eric just kept throwing out word combinations that means noting to anyone but himself.
@@PerfectionHunter Sorry, but just because you haven't heard certain word combinations does not mean others have not.
I think Lex was in trouble and Eric noticed. He was just trying to move forward. Was a great moment though.
Eric has this amazing capacity to turn every question about this own experience.
Everybody does that every time always, it is the only way to answer a question for a human being
Authors: Jonathan Tooker
In May of 2013 a pair of articles appeared on the Guardian newspaper website featuring a new candidate "theory of everything" called Geometric Unity. A cursory reading of each article gives the impression that Geometric Unity was developed by Eric Weinstein, but a closer reading reveals that Weinstein is not credited as such. The truth about Geometric Unity is that it was authored by this writer
Lex is the perfect interviewer for Eric,hes asking all the questions I would have wanted him to ask with a calm demeanor and eloquent syntax.
Eloquent syntax. Congrats on your thesaurus.
A calm demeanor and eloquent syntax and don't forget Reservoir Dogs suit. ;)
@@korhanalparslan8730 How erudite of you:P
Eloquent syntax
@@lievenyperman9363 dudes a MIB agent hiding in plain sight
I like Eric Weinstein but he doesn’t let people criticize him the way he criticizes mainstream academia.
I know nothing about this, but after watching it, it seems to me that the people that criticize him don't even really understand what they are talking about. They think they understand but are incorrect. This is seemingly a very arrogant position, "I'm right, you all are wrong", but it is a position that could be correct no matter how unpleasant it may seem. Or otherwise, due to their previous academic training/understanding, no one understands him. That seems to me to be Eric's position. I may be entirely wrong.
I like EW, but I get the impression he loves the smell of his own farts.
@@SomeBlueKind as we all do :D , but yeah he kind of does a bit more than the regular Joe
@@knpstrr This is a probabilistic question. How likely is it that he's right and the entirety of academia, which consists of thousands of exceedingly well educated, extraordinarily intelligent people, is wrong? There's no certainty because he refuses to properly publish his work. What does that tell us?
fair
If only Eric were as good at explaining things as he is at understanding them.
Thats Lexes Job
Metatron's Cube
@@johnpittscomQuack science 😩
@@Eric_Kabucha_ sacred geometry is not quack it's really old and built into everything. Just so happens these guys think they discovered something but it matched perfectly to what we already know from the ancient wisdom passed down and encoded into the pyramids so that those with the knowledge and understanding word decipher it and the rest of you call it quack because you have no f****** clue
He’s just a lot smarter than you
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan.
I don’t necessarily agree with that quote. The universe has no obligation to make sense to you.
But as Eric says...."it is not understandable"
@@thebeast5215 It would be one thing if it was too complicated to explain to the layman. But when other physics PhDs and math PhDs have no fucking clue what you are saying.... not a good sign.
@@thebeast5215 nothing about that quote implies that the universe has an obligation to make sense to you
There is a fine line between fraud and genius and I’m not smart enough to determine where this sits
It's fraud.
I'd say you're among the smarter, for posing the question.
In May 2013, Weinstein gave a colloquium talk, Geometric Unity, promoted by Marcus du Sautoy as a potential unified theory of physics. His UNPUBLISHED theory includes an "observerse," a 14-dimensional space, and predictions for undiscovered particles which he stated could account for dark matter. Joseph Conlon of the University of Oxford stated that some of these particles, IF THEY EXISTED, WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN DETECTED in existing accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider.
Few physicists attended and no preprint, paper, or equations were published. Weinstein's ideas were not widely debated. The few that did engage expressed skepticism. They were unable to debate more intensely due to the fact that there was no published paper.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that this is NOT how science is done. This is BS.
@@antonystringfellow5152 Did he try to get it published? Was the colloquium one of the steps in that process, and he essentially failed it (in the eyes of his colleagues)?
The correct response to him would be to let him to continue to elaborate and explain. He does no harm and only inspires and pushes information, physics, and math farther. I bet you know absolutely nothing about drag race cars. BUT there’s people out there who can talk in terms you don’t know and passionately about the subject and be 100% correct but 99% of people won’t understand him. So your gonna call him a fraud? the only difference between my two examples is that the guy who likes cars KNOWS he’s correct. Eric doesn’t. He is just presenting the knowledge of what he knows and works on the best he can. people want to knock or disrepute theorists when their brain comprehends concepts you couldn’t even say or spell let alone begin to think about in a correct manor. what is someone like Eric trying to fraud/fake? Being smart? Being incomprehensible to 99% of humans? Do people think he likes being so looked down upon by the people he hold in highest regard just because he wants to propose a different angle of thinking. Not a dangerous one. Not a harmful one. An exploratory one. A test. A theory. it’s like someone’s trying to keep dividing a real number by two until they get to zero(which is impossible) but Eric is saying, what if we can get to 0? what if this way I’m thinking gets us to 0? And then everyone goes NO FUCK YOU THATS IMPOSSIBLE. And shuts him out. people are so close minded, so afraid to explore the unknown. So motivated to be complacent with current information. Just sit and think. Think about why things work the way they do. Understand why they work that way. And build. Be open to new information but don’t take it at face value. Do research. Refine your knowledge. And if you want to take it as face value without understanding it don’t give your opinion on it. Don’t spread information you don’t understand and don’t say someone who has nothing to gain but better knowledge of the world we came from could be a fraud. You have no idea and neither do I but he does nothing but try to explain his theory. He doesn’t force it on anyone. He believes In it.
I think Eric uses WAY too much figurative language when he's trying to explain extremely complex material. I cannot speak for any of the technical legitimacy within Eric's theory but I certainly say that his "54 minute elevator pitch" needs a shit ton of work...
I got the feeling like both guys were getting frustrated toward the end. Lex stayed SO patient. I hope Eric gets the picture that if he wants his theory to resonate or catch on at all then it might not hurt to work on some better abstractions that other humans can comprehend.
seriously. what in the hell is baroque supposed to mean
@@mark3308 when I dont have money but still want to be fancy, I say I'm "baroque" jk
but seriously there was a time where Weinstein is asked a yes or no question and he begins explaining something that sounds completely unrelated. He's a brilliant man but difficult to follow for the average person
m haha I actually know this one!! If it’s the same meaning, which has nothing to do with math, baroque, meaning “irregular shape” was a style born out of enlightenment era Europe attributable to anything from music to clothing. It is denoted by grandeur, glitz, curved lines in architecture and just generally over the top stuff. Afraid I haven’t gotten to the part in the video where he uses it so I can’t put it in context but hope this helps.
But unfortunately, if you do not have money, people even don’t want to listen your truth.
Can you please comment on DMR Theory.
ua-cam.com/video/jaIwx5S7vh0/v-deo.html
I had the same thought .. he also seems to be assuming the audience knows what he's talking about, I almost had to look up every other word he said
hey @lexfridman, thanks for recording your conversations. i particularly enjoyed this one, glad i could look back on it.
appreciate it, keep up the good work, the world needs you
I appreciate that Lex asked him about where to start to better understand what Eric is proposing. Fascinating stuff, Lex.
The one video on this awesome podcast that I came out dumber at the end.
@@ceezb5629 you did not catch the point.
thumbs up and also sad face : ,(
@2:51 “...where 14 is really the 4 dimensions of space and time plus 10 dimensions of rulers and protractors...”
Me: I’ve got to somehow find a factor of 3 so that 14 ultimately amounts to 42.
Love both you guys. Thank You Brothers. Sorry it took so long to find this gem.
What makes me respect Lex may seem strange, but I will try and explain.
I’m constantly amazed at the number of times Lex will ask a question that makes me think, “what” and “why” ask that question. Or, Im puzzled at his take aways from a segment. Then I wait for the guest to be in agreement with me. But every single time, the guest thinks it’s a great question and the conversation gets even deeper. Lex has a very odd style and mannerisms that in a vacuum I am not a fan of, but I am a huge admirer of what comes out of the hard work he puts into every single conversation. He gets the very best out of all of the amazing guests he has on. Because of the incredible results Lex delivers, he’s probably the best there has been at what he does.
Spinners and manifolds i thought I was watching pimp my ride for a minute lol
underrated comment
I can't believe I just read that ( your comment i mean) , here! Lol but it's awesome.
lol
Lex, I'm a first time viewer. I just want to say I really appreciate your honest every-man approach and desire to share in understanding, and then sharing with us.
Love the conversation and so appreciative you are willing to share your ideas and approach to solving problems - I can listen for hours
Strange phenomenon of human endeavor… I’ve listened to this talk several times … and even began constructing a roadmap to get an overall understanding of Eric Weinstein work…via general relativity, manifolds, fiber bundles… linear algebra… etc.. and finally my own sense is that in some small way I’m beginning to appreciate the “Canvas.. ie the hand draws the hand “
You handled this interview beautifully lex, your interviews are great and I hope you keep them coming !
This is a "clip" from a podcast, and its almost an hour long.
I have to watch lex interviews over and over again and then sometimes over again. This one I have to watch in portions.
In portions as I have to research what’s presented. Whew!!!!
I thank Lex for exposing us to some interesting people and concepts. This was a difficult interview because Eric Weinstein keeps using weird metaphors to describe his work but he does give a link to the book "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose. I bought a used paperback copy incase I can't find anything in it I understand. I am just trying to get a qualitative understanding of the theories and math. Not going to spend 4 years studying the background math associated with this. I read reviews of the book and evidently Penrose makes an attempt to bring it down to
the educated layman's level to get some appreciation of the subject. I think Eric is probably right that this can't be explained without understanding at some leve what the Dirac Equation is. Dirac was terrible with people and would almost never say anything to anybody. What I got out of this is that there is a possible unity in the abstract spaces that Eric was describing that show an underlying unity between GR and Quantum mechanics but the Physics community is currently not ready to accept it.
I do agree that string theory is probably at the end of its rope with pun intended.
Thanks for putting in pop-ups when you guys mention a person or book. That's very helpful! Good video, Lex!
"Prometheus would like to discuss Fire with everyone else." Lmao
I burst out laughing too
@@Aphasiesc2 #####################
@@Aphasiesc2 ###################
The conversation was done for when Eric asked Lex how he could best help him, and then Eric started asking and answering his own questions.
The conversation was done when Lex wasn't able to keep a structure and ask relevant questions. Eric took things in his hand, and every professional would've done the same. Lex looked like the occasional student who's caught unprepared, and subtly invites the audience to stop trying to understand because it's too complicated. Very, very bad job.
Yeah that’s when he lost me too when he arm wrestled the interview into his own podium…and then he just interrupts and corrects and says no and cuts off Lex to every question Lex is trying to lead him to help people understand. …Arrogance to the extreme. Lex finally gets the question in about how can anyone understand and enjoy it instead of having Eric just being dismissive.
The Geometric Chronon Field Theory is embedded in 14 dimensions, 2 encode a Geroch time function 6 encode space, 2 others encode a field which accompanies the Geroch time with a space-like gradient and 4 are the observer spacetime. I've been working on that since 2003 and it points to a new technology, electro-gravity.
I realized when my daughter was growing up, that if I could explain some complex idea in a way where she understood the point that I was trying to make, then I knew I really understood the point I was trying to make...
That was also Feynmans idea for explaining things
Okay, Albert Einstein.
"Yes, it's very clear now daddy, thank you. Can I watch TV now?"
@@bozo5632 Is that how kids talk to you? Quite telling really....
And Weinstein failed at this
Eric Weinstein, clearly a great mind, and given his passion for the topic it's hard to doubt that his theory makes sense in his own mind. But having not done the work to build any credibility within the physics community he criticises everyone in the physics community. Simultaneously, he refuses to speak plainly enough for anyone else to understand. Plus, if Lex Fridman can't even grasp the beginning of what you're talking about, geez, Eric, mate, you have a lot of work to do in trying to communicate this thing.
@@dbufi aah!
always 1
To be fair he did say it is not that simple. It's like trying to explain the math to someone who doesn't know the numbers.
@@yoooyoyooo But to what extend has he tried to explain it to others who do know the numbers?
@@zeytelaloi At some point you have to bring something, a certain knowledge, to the table yourself. One can't expect Eric, or others, to start at ground level with everything. Do you really believe the subject matter and the topics contained within theoretical physics can be summarized thoroughly in lay terms and that the gap from basic math to the Dirac equation can be closed in 50 minutes worth of conversation? Richard Feynman set someone (the interviewer) straight on this exact issue when he was asked to explain magnetism. If someone wants to understand these very recondite subjects you have to be willing to put the time in. Otherwise, using analogies and metaphors is the best you are likely to get. The moment mathematical proofs come into the equation peoples eyes glaze over. Don't expect someone to spoon feed you, not in the slightest. It's not going to happen.
Lex this was a perfect interview. The playfulness at 27 min is just flowing.
Keep. it. up!
I think the ship we have going from 60k ft to 1 ft in 1 second may have been moving at a slower speed, but we only see the light its able to reflect which is why we see it move in 1 second. Its warping the space around it somehow to move.
Damn bro, the bitterness is palpable
who do you think is bitter and why?
There's a history of Eric stumbling into groups of once endorsed "mathematians," such as Epstein, and becoming sickingly indignant at their wholly acceptance in the "prestigious" communities worldwide.
"I could walk over to that board and give you a five minute lecture on gauge theory that's better than the official lecture."
Um can you pls do that then? Thanks
-a physics undergrad
It's when he says things like this that I really question this guy's motives. Put the five minute lecture on UA-cam. Ask your peers to help review your geometric unity theory. If nothing else, he clearly needs help articulating it...
he wonders why his peers dont like him
@@kwyman986 but isnt that his whole thing that hes super paranoid and doesnt trust anyone to peer review his stuff cus it might get yoinked or sweped under the rug by the bullshittery of the science community? hes never gunna give any clues to what hes been working on if he doesnt trust any institution. Theres no way in hell the average student will ever learn anything from him.
HappyAgony given what happened to Bret with his telomere stuff, I don’t think he’s paranoid. He’s right on the money.
@@SpeedfreakUK Im not saying hes wrong im just saying that hes just gunna keep his research to himself? eventually he will need funds and support as well to prove his findings.
Interviewer: “Explain this to me like I’m a two year old.” Weinstein, 30 seconds in: “...symmetric nondegenerate two-tensors on the tangent space of the four manifold x4...”
Great interview, great guest want to hear more about this guy, the fresh view of the universe is extremely interesting
I know from first glance, a guy saying "everyone else was crazy in academia except for me" sounds like someone who just didn't have the chops for it... but god damn let me say in my Physics Dept. the culture was god awful, exactly how he is describing.
@@venomtang scool tells, And the telling tales got Old. The New age is the way of inbetween . This is the new way he digs in to, we all did and do at a point in time.
Sounds like Steve Jobs to me
Only people who go against the grain will make progress, and since Eric has a PhD in Mathematical Physics, I believe that his chops are just fine! It’s fun to hear new theories :)
@@vinayseth1114 Basically the opposite of "open source culture"
@@cashglobe My understanding is, there's quite a gap from having a PhD and being an active researcher at the forefront of a field's advancement
This just feels like some sort of AdultSwim skit 29:36
The point at which we truly have a theory of everything worth merit will be a point where the theory itself can be understood by the majority of laymen on a fundamental level without going into vocabulary that requires a definition to accompany it.
Im pretty sure its wishful thinking on other academics quietly dissecting this theory. More likely it will be business as usual as if Eric never released this
This was really helpful, thanks Lex.
So my take of this so far is that there are two super important parts, the chimeric bundle, and how spinnors are created. And the chimeric bundle is a manifold that creates generations of spinnor, so you have 1 kind of spinnor like an electron, and its second generation that is heavier the muon. So this chimeric bundle interacts with the 4d world once to create "non adorned" spinnors, and a second time to create "adorned" spinnors. And it is these spins that somehow give the bosons and fermions their personalities.
So the chimeric bundle is essentially like a tower and spinnors are the thing coming out of the lifts on the ground floor. So this differs from the higgs view of things by its measure of depth, and is trying to describe how the personality of matter is created.
So, this chimeric bundle, if I am to take a random guess is probably based off the word chimera, or some sort of amalgam of the extra ten dimensions and in that bundle is a set of symetries and asymmetries that when translated through four dimensions, leaves you with the spins you see and predicts some spins, but he doesnt know the physics of what energy to look for those spins at.
(rubs face)
So, just to summarise for myself, dirac equation is the discovery of spinnors where he found that you could actually get an equation to work where originally it was accepted that two x values would cancel out. He said that, they arent the same and the two x values are actually a matrix with two values. So spin is essentially that and he discovered that.
Then you have einstein who we all know well who basically allowed us telemetry on a warped space time and told us how matter and energy are the same (and there is the connection to frequency and energy being the same too)
Then you have yang mills maxwell, which is a guage theory.
So, the chimeric bundle is the guage theory part, the spin is the dirac part, and the way it comes into being or is manifest or communicated is the 4d einstein part.
So my best understanding then is that some bundle of ropes in a 10d space create personality of the standard model, which is then expressed 4 dimensionally, with a set of properties. And somehow this bundle, perhaps like space time is a series of manifolds of different properties that ALMOST create a measurement themselves but JUST fall short.
I can say for sure I don't get parts of this
So for example I dont get if this chimeric bundle is made of the same stuff as the 4 dimensions, or is just a different size, or if it doesnt matter what this "stuff" its made out of is.
But I do get that the chimeric bundle is the hands drawing itself that eventually somehow creates these spins that define personality. I don;t know how spins affect a particles mass, but I do know that masses are affected by generations of matter so I can intuit a connection between mass and the sort of spin or properties. So that is okay.
I dont understand what the obseverse is, if its the 10 d, 4 d, or 14 d part of this. But I do understand that the obseverse is a kind of "almost real" thing, like maybe the corona of a star, or a well of gravity. And sort of intuit though I am not sure if correct or not, that this almost real part affects quantum particles via these dimensions.
So... if string theory says there are vibrating strings in different dimensions, this maybe says there are abstract manifolds that affect spin.
So... it talks about properties but not the why or how of the strangeness of quantum mechanics. Just sort of describes its more solid properties.
I uh, don't know if its addressing quantum uncertainty or not. Like explaining why it does what it does. Or explaining the origin of matter. But I guess this chimeric bundle formed near the earliest part of the big bang before space time and the forces, and this is to describe the forces and gravity as a kind of permutation of each other but not the same thing.
Okay, so I think I understand that part. The part of how it might create reality and the particles we know and the 2nd gen particles, and then space time in the same vein.
The part I dont get and perhaps am not meant to get bbecause it might not be part of the theory, is then how the quantum mechanical uncertainty works, how this 10d aspect influences not only particle properties but behavior and what interfaces and what doesnt.
I am glad however I get the symmetry and asymetry of how it might create the properties of the fundamental forces though, that is quite neat!!!
But yes still much to scratch my head upon.
Damn, seems like you know a lot about this stuff - if you'd be able to provide me with a simplistic explanation, I'd appreciate it a lot
@@aaditya91 No problem.
The below text is how I got to the following analogy. But here is the simplest way to explain it.
When you chew bubblegum it becomes a mess, if you were to try to see what shape it was it would be all deformed and have many different points and edges and faces, maybe even twists in it. The quantum world is like this. Then as you blow air into it, it becomes an almost perfect sphere, with just a mess of gum at the bottom. Now the air in this example is Spinnors. This is a property of fundamental particles, and it is by weinsteins theory, how particles get their personality, and also how space and time got blown into that uniform bubble within which all the other dimensions play at its base.
So in the math, all the complexity is in the gum, all the beauty is in the sphere. Same with space time being very elegant, but the quantum world being very tricky.
Weinstien says that the GUM created the bubble, not that the bubble explains the gum.
He says the gum, is a 10d manifold, and it expresses itself in 4d via spin.
Okay now below you can see the longer version.
Normal string theory sort of says 4 dimensions are like we see them. Then there is a quantum world and at the very small, the strings that make up tiny particles and such are strings that have many more dimensions than 4D reality, so those extra dimensions do all this work at the very small. This theory states that the dimensions at that level aren't small per se, but that the dimensions are connected to the 4d world via a kind of "observer meets the stage" connection that is MOST active at the quantum level, and less active at the 4D world. Sort of like in the stadium is where people watch the match and away from the stadium there are empty streets.
So the 4D world is like those empty streets. The stadium is... a 10 dimensional manifold, so its like a discoball of party with respect to where everything is and will be etc, but the most concrete thing you get out of this is SPIN, which is like the up and down of a wave in the ocean. Not exactly, but, just say a particle has two properties not just one (its weird but it is known to be true). So this spin is a result of this party meeting each particle twice.
So as simple as I can say it, 4dimensions isn't the MAIN SHOW of the universe, it is a RESULT of the party at the stage (the quantum level).
Which makes sense, cuz if the big bang exploded, you would imagine the MOST action and vibration and energy was at very very very small locations, and youd imagine more dimensions might form there, before LATER space time then got its dimensions. (why you have more dimensions down below than you do on top).
When space time was created it kind of was SPUN into existence you could say, by these other smaller dimensions interacting with a spatial medium because otherwise it couldn't have expanded or exploded. The spins are like leaks from these other dimensions into space time and it was a pretty explosion rather than an ugly one because it came through these spins, not just as chaotic forces.
This leaves us with a world with 4dimensions and another 10 that sort of still flutter about creating matter, except they don't create it now, they just sort of alternate if given the right forces and conditions. Um to explain this, basically in quantum physics you CAN create a particle from nothing, if you provide enough energy. It will form in two halves, as antimatter like a positron and the normal variant the electron. And if the antimatter particle cancels out, you are left with the electron. So, the quantum world is kind of like the cook of the kitchen, you give him ingredients he can whip you up a particle.
Now, for how these relate to each other...
Imagine you are doing origami, you have a big square of paper to start with. How do you fold this without hands? Well you could kind of just jiggle all the particles until stuff randomly happened, but we know the universe isn't fully just random, or at least it is unlikely to just have boiled into existence as one of many trillions of other universes that failed to. So lets say the paper can do something unique, it can spin, it can then have a finger on one side and a finger on the other of any point. These spins create folds in the paper in neat creases. At first they don't do much, just push stuff around a bit, until they cant really complicate more, and then it starts folding bigger pieces of paper like you might do with your hands. These pieces are space time.
In the end you kind of end up with a swan, the big neck is the big folds and is from space time, but the body is from all these smaller folds which is from the quantum level and all its dimensions.
Its baaaasically saying that the way to create a universal theory of everything is to not look at it from the perspective of 4dimensions looking down at the quantum world and saying "what are you" with the expectation that it will fit our view of how things work. It is to say that to create a theory that encompasses everything you have to start with HOW our 4d world was even created for us to then think the world should work the way we see it.
Imagine we are all computers, and we think in numbers and code. After a while we discover humans and at first we think it is just code, we try to analyse them this way but they always do unexpected things a certain percentage of the time and often not even in predictable ways, creating things and even creating us. So we want to know how they did it.
We can't understand how they did it by thinking they work on our source code, we have to see that source code is a CONSTRUCT arrived at previously, in order to create us. And as we start to see beyond source code we start to reveal the organism that is humans more intuitively and we become "sentient" to humans, no longer focused on the code but now on this other world.
Well computers could be kind of seen as 2 d beings. Forwards and back, and a component of time as electricity and light rushes through the silicon chips. To these two dimensional beings, a 4 dimensional being is a bit weird to concieve of, so their first attempt to see us is just as they KNOW, to use code. It works remarkeably accurately and they model us, but they dont understand us. To understand us, they have to let go of code and start comprehending the 4D world.
Now, the same could be said of the quantum world, it is essentially influencing things like SPIN which we as humans dont really access (though we might access it via microtubules in our cells and it may be part of our conscious state, as consciousness may have evolved using quantum mechanics, simply because it could and it made organisms live longer)
These spins and such could weave together our complex nature and that of the natural world. And they do... cuz all we know, is that the standard model of bosons and fermions, like quarks, electrons, and all that, they are responsible for everything we see, except space time and dark matter/dark energy. So they build everything.
The spins and such can be created by mathematical models with many dimensions. And this suffices. So it is pretty well known now that many dimensions do exist down at the quantum level. What weinstein is saying is that we are thinking about it wrong, expecting it to conform to our world, when in reality, our world was created as an OFFSHOOT of its, and this is simply the FIELD it plays upon as its crowd grew.
He calls that the obseverse, or the space that observes the ACTIVE part of reality.
So think of it like our conciousness might actually be multidimensional, there is definately a possibility cuz our consciousness has been proven by anaesthetics that it is not chemical in nature, and might not be entirely explainable by the brain. There are microtubules that are in all cells that are part of the folding and unfolding of dna as it splits in mitosis and in how it creates protiens and enzymes for the body. So it isn't inconcievable our consciousness is multidimensional.
BUT, in a way then, the 4d world is just a body, that gives space for the other particles, it is the place where the particles can BE but not exactly their ORIGIN. Just like our thought can affect a limb but it only through other means sends signals to affect it.
So the 4D world is the PERIPHERAL world, and the more inherent world is a world of strangeness, many dimensions and spin. But it all in the END appears to be more 4D because of the way it is structured, you just get the RESULTS on the page after all the work, you dont SEE all the work as the artwork.
How to make that simpler... Hes saying that, our 4d world, is an ELBOW bump in a crowd of dimensions. This elbow bump sort of pushed into space time, where the real crowd of spinnors in a multidimensional world, manifest.
So the world at its core is all this spin, and many dimensions, but what is manifest is the elbow into the 4D world.
You can get it to elbow you back by pushing into it with an elbow of energy, but cus its a serious crowd in there you don't know how the elbow comes flying back at you.
So if creation was a busy party, a moshpit of polite dignitaries. When the main show came on stage, they all start elbowing each other to have room. And those elbows create extra dimensions of space and time. BUT the crowd, still remains outside of those dimensions. Liiiiike...how bubblegum is a chewed mess inside the mouth but a sphere as blown up with air.
Actually yeah, bubblegum is the simplest explaination. Let me put that up the top. Ill leave this here so you can read if you like.
@@Explainmerandom wow thank you
Poop
@@Explainmerandom Really appreciate that explanation! Helped a ton. I was really struggling with Eric's analogies. I feel when he tries to dumb it down he somehow makes it more complicated by going off on so many tangents.
Lex is trying so hard to pin this down. Good effort man! We love you for it!
Thank you Lex. I struggled with so much of this conversation (due in no small part to my lack of intelligence) and I was beginning to wonder why I was still listening to it and then between 50 & 52 mins you broke it down so succinctly. I found that I was transfixed by Eric's passion for the subject and then pleased to see you were also struggling to get a clearer sense of understanding the beauty of the topic. Love Eric and love what you do. Thanks.
Literally everyone I’ve ever met who talks about gauge theory can describe it better than Eric
Lex does a “beautiful “ job of gently and kindly trying to coax clarity out of a brilliant man who is hopeless at explaining himself.
Weinstein has no problem explaining himself. He talks for hours on his podcast about his beliefs in a way that resembles a cult leader. He can't explain his theory here because it's bullshit.
@@andrewdevine3920 I think he’s a narcissistic dick but he’s not an idiot. Every time he went on a tangent that I couldn’t understand, once I could it all made sense. He’s just an off-putting guy in general lol but he’s still brilliant.
Professors pathologically launch into fragments of practiced lectures. You can't interview them.
All this sounds to me like is you’ve taken threesix or 360/3600° (is number one) now 4x and made it 1440…. two is thrown a leap year on the deal so you got 1461 ? An extra 21 on your 1440 . But then at Saturn Stead of minutes in a day or spins in four years and you see lingering at 1433.5 or so another number based on the same thing and you’re just using things that already exist , 1514-1388? Is in that group or lots of things can be found stuck in that. they just need to be looked at in this multi dimensional whatever way they can just use an existing model and start referring to it in whatever way they need to much of which part already exist in plane and simple minimum or maximum orbital radius/dianeter? or polar or equatorial diameters and radiuss? This model to the discussion can already exist and has been created to look at or at least a fair representation of these higher orders of math that things that’s get twisted and contorted overtime as they slowly try to go back two or achieve this synchronicity Or whatever the origin or resonance pattern isthat will inevitably never happen ?
there’s the expansion At 3.8 cm a year(moon away ftom earth) or there’s uranium 238/92 sharing numerival references with at the very end of the same number that is equivalent end of human hearing at 19872… If x /864 Hz = 24 and that dropped for hurts every single way since the original 8642 achieve 92 total at the end of all of that or is it 23 it depends on where you’re referring to? But it’s the same thing missing in all kinds of places 4/3.937 in the conversion from centimeters to.3937 versus four.. reciprocal of that (.000000000000238418529) Is essentially the volume of the sphere constant when the radius is one(1/4194304) Which is 240° in a circle spot all the way out the opposite direction towards the source frequency as any of 864 or the absolute connection between 1 m It must share at the highest or lowest or fastest or slowest no matter what everything is based on the speed of light and everything is based on the meter and even if you change your logarithmically you’re still bound to the scenario just like earth is bound to one 10,000s of just be like oh you’re number three is bound to participate in mass in the same way it does on a log 10 X scaling of things that otherwise float on the three to the eighth power and only a handful of columns of that describe the whole universe. In reference value numbers that we all know..
Me, Spitballing At random without a clue…
Lex exposed him more like. The man is a fraud. If he had a real theory of any worth he would have had several of his peers give it some real attention. Instead he mystifies it using outlandish decriptions, analogies and digressions. Then he has a weird smirk as if to say, oh (maybe just maybe I'll just come out as trolling the world - wink wink - Arpil's Fool Day release) because deep down he knows himself he's a charlatan.
This is like trying to figure out a dmt trip
funny thing i was traveling on LSD three days ago, and saw a "theory of everything", that i see repeated here... could be wishfull thinking, or missinterpretation for not knowing enough, or perhaps we took the same stuff...
funny non the less, strange to the point it made me a bit scared
To paraphrase Eric's quote by Dirac: "If your equation's don't agree with experiment, that's a minor detail, they have true beauty in them.." I watched his whole Oxford lecture on his portal and he made use of every kind of algebraic and geometric mathematical theorem out there in his work and it looked very impressive indeed and seemed to give all the correct answers according to those theorems. Unfortunate they are so complex and abstract that there is no way to observe these equations in reality yet. This is where Eric mentions he needs a quantum field theorist to take over. sooo that just puts us right back to square one right? there is no unified theory. His work is just a great playing field to show his skills at mathematics with no usefullness.
I think spinors are derived from tetrahedron spin inside a spherical boundary. Draw a line from each point of the tet perpendicular to the face opposite. Do this for all 4 points. Then spin the tet around all 4 axis simultaneously. Take any of the 4 paths these axis trace inside the spherical boundary, and you'll get a spinor path. Polarise the tet, ie, one up, or spin up, and one down or spin down, you'll get 8 paths that im hoping will eventually reconnect. And also hoping will become a mobius loop.
I am considering the tet space, and the axis, time.......
This video really put my reading comprehension level and general understanding of the world to the test. There should be a genre called "Complicated Interviews" for people who don't want to do math but want to explore intellectual pursuits vicariously through an interviewer. lol, Super dope.
Lol Eric Weinstein fans be like 'this interview was so great I loved the part where eric made no sense that was really amazing'
@@not_co_co I mean, you’re free to patronize me, but that’s a personal problem on your end.
What did the 14th dimensional creature say to the 4th dimensional creatures? Never mind, you wouldn't understand!
17:40 proper description of the theory begins. but it gets a bit off once or twice again track again after that
I am really enjoying this conversation, especially the argument of canvas over the standard model. My thoughts go to gravity as a private dancer of all other matter, as a matter of fact I truly believe that canvas called out for its own painter, who explored the most comprehensive ink, because canvas itself was the brain or the mind of the painter.
"The world of academia will prohibit anybody who is trying to make real progress." (Paraphrasing.) This is, in many cases, 100% accurate. If the "progress" requires the decimation of a paradigm, or even a reconstruction, you will often be met with intense hostility. Hell, I'm not a famous or esteemed academic, and even I have rudely dismissed the idea's of another, solely because of my ego.
When someone challenges you on something you've worked insanely hard on, it's difficult to not become defensive, and subsequently go on the offensive. Just another weakness in human character I suppose, or at least my character.
Only person that never tried to work on anything didn't fall in to that trap. It's a matter of open mindedness to scrap all you have been doing for years to start a new. That takes real balls.
@@yoooyoyooo Agreed.
"Prometheus would like to discuss fire with everyone else" great line
April 1 was around the time that a lot of Bitcoiners got activated too; the fed had announced money printing in March 2020. A year later, it seems like so much has happened already, and I really do believe Eric was right in saying 'it was the end of the big nap'.
I love that music score analogy
Yeah the only thing I know about Dirac is the "Dirac's Sea" Kaiju battle from Evangelion... Yeah.
I was thinking the same thing the entire time haha
As far as i know the dirac sea is a crude analogy for a positron. Basically if there were infinite negative energy levels all full of electrons, the removal of an electron from the sea would make a hole which is really just a positron and there is no sea
Fascinating. I've never heard of so many technical terms tossed around in a single conversation. Forget classical 'spinners', my head is spinning!
I don’t think I ever understood the beauty of Lex until this moment. What an amazing creature he is! Top echelon of human forms-no question.
Absolutely correct! We are lucky that we get to listen in.
simp
Yeah you right, I'd be honored to be his friend
Ask him out ....
You're young and pleasant to the eye , Lex is also the latter, plus brilliant .. go for it ! Lmao
If anyone is interested, Timothy Nguyen discusses his critique of Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity in this detailed interview: ua-cam.com/video/o31cGMENDTI/v-deo.html
Thanks for the link. I was only gonna watch the highlights. Ended up watching the whole thing. Dr Nguyen is such a good communicator!
Now wait for Elon to test an interstellar/interdimensional engine that runs on DMT
lmao
Can’t tell if ur serious
Chief Engineer Joe “Do Jellyfish Have Penises” Rogan
Blaine Sandoval lmfao
The spice must flow?
It's so cool Eric's theory hinges on spinors. That Mobius-strip-related 720 degrees is a clue (a portal, even) to a hidden weirdness, and I believe he is really onto it. I have to learn about the Dirac equation, though. And retry Penrose's The Road to Reality.
Lol somebody just watched Avengers Endgame and is trying to pretend they are smart
Wouldn’t a path on the surface of a torus explain those 720 degrees including the sort of reversal in direction?
Perhaps the key point in 'Unified Field Theory' (what we used to call it, no?) is the !Joyful Goal! of the different scientific fields starting to talk to each other? To compare data and contrast predictions? Disclaimer: I have a lymbic system (computational equivalence) that defaults towards Love. And I love both Eric and Lex via thought and image. *
The more time Fridman takes trying to make EW seem coherent, the more I question Fridman's judgement in continuing this conversation.
As smart as Lex is, he also has a kind of childlike innocence about him where he’s extremely charitable and trusting toward people. On balance I think it’s an admirable trait, but I agree with you that it’s led him astray here.
Lex and Eric’s conversations are fascinating. Every one of them.
Eric is usually quite interesting to listen to about a variety of topics. This topic is interesting, but I think some answers to important questions are needed in order to help determine a starting place for evaluating his theory.
1). What testable predictions does your theory make?
2). How could your theory be falsified?
3). What set of observations does it explain that other attempts at unification fail to explain?
4). Can you formulate a few summary sentences that sensibly describe your theory to a non-technical person?
Because he isn't a scientist, this isn't an actual theory, and he's just a quack conspiracy nut with math skills who made millions working with Peter Thiel.
He thinks he has figured out a new working physics model for the universe but refuses to bring it out to the public or subject it to analysis
It's bullshit.
@@kypdurron62 But does any other theory do better, if not then calling it bullshit is too soon.
But you have to agree with his view that physicists don't bother to actually dive deep, take leaps of faith, but are instead limiting themselves with surface level science that is available.
It's pretty obvious as well that in order to have a theory of everything, you can't just start from the top and go deeper, you must as well start from the very bottom with logic and go up, and try to bridge that gap inbetween.
@@heraclitus9721 Are you crazy? Theoretical physicists are doing all sorts of deep dives, and then publishing on it. And yes, the theories we currently have do better, because they actually exist.
You're arguing that some vapourware BS that he refuses to publish is better?
When the title is "clip" and it's almost an hour long. 😏
I'm in. 😎
Dear Eric, have you read the Quanta Magazine article on octonions (and quaternions)? The original Maxwell equations were in quaternion form so not 3 spatial dimensions + time but 4 spatial dimensions + time.
The ability to effectively communicate to the less versed comes from a hard-won clarity - here, I suspect there is very little. Tone of voice just doesn’t cut it. Lex, keep fighting the good fight for clarity. Thank you for your work.
Geometric unity this week, telomeres last week. I feel like I’m being rocketed into another dimension.
I highly recommend the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
Excellent work on the part of E.W. I would love to talk with him. I agree whole-heartedly with Eric and I will explain in my own words how: so many people want things in a nutshell. Certain people have done the long, hard work and then others come in and say give me an easy explanation - give me the overview in the least amount of words. Many things cannot be understood that way. For one thing you definitely must know the terminology, the language. That will go a long way to helping you understand the concepts. And one concept builds on another. And it is really cheating if you always want something in a nutshell. Having an explanation in a nutshell is helpful for the purpose of learning more and not just stopping at that point.
Word. Wait, you mean the Theory of EVERYTHING can't be given in a nutshell?? Yeah, that would make sense 😅
Eric is generous and I recognise how difficult it is to discuss things that really aren't well understood ... But Lex made a valiant effort...it feels like society needs an undergraduate degree in math and physics to learn the language that would make this conversation comprehensible
Just great, a proper conversation with its ups and downs.
"Prometheus would like to discuss fire with everybody else". Brilliant, Eric.
its crazy how much hope this gives me! thank you
A very smart man once said something to the effect" if you understand your theory completely you can explain it to the person on the barstool next to you". I dont think Eric was able to do that. But i love the guy and you and your show. Thanks
I love this channel but I've gotta say Eric seems to be talking in circles & paradoxes. He says so much without revealing anything relevant to a theory
His mentioning of spinners is irrelevant. He tries to share interesting tidbits to throw off anyone interviewing him.
@@tedlemoine5587 I'm beginning to think spinors are the nub of it. Quarks, at least.
Yeah, I also noticed Eric was acting a lot differently than in his other podcasts/talks. I can't put my finger on it but he seems "different"
That's because he's a bullshitter. Becomes obvious when the interviewer asks him to explain something that a stupid person can understand and he proceeds to explain it in an even more complicated way. This is just a way to disguise his "theories" is nothing but smoke and mirrors...
@@rickarda9232 _"he proceeds to explain something that a stupid person can understand"_ - which was? You have me guessing for no good reason.
A good book to read on symmetries and spin and SO-whatever is "Deep Down Things", it makes sense of some very tough concepts in understandable terms.
Eric is just a modern day Chris Langan, a man smart enough to cook up a giant bowl of mathematical spaghetti that has no bottom no matter how far you dig the fork in.
Authors: Jonathan Tooker
In May of 2013 a pair of articles appeared on the Guardian newspaper website featuring a new candidate "theory of everything" called Geometric Unity. A cursory reading of each article gives the impression that Geometric Unity was developed by Eric Weinstein, but a closer reading reveals that Weinstein is not credited as such. The truth about Geometric Unity is that it was authored by this writer
Langan is very relevant today and he is absolutely correct. What Langan is saying is not really that complicated or controversial, albeit being a stroke of genius. If one just reads through the material a couple times it will make perfect sense. One has to have some background on western thought and TOEs and some math and philosophy of science, but most people with an interest in the topic will have this. Langan is just another great western philosopher/polymath that fits perfectly into the chain of western thought. One could say that he is the greatest western thinker of all time.
@@WilhelmAmundsen Langan is absolutely irrelevant. His work is much like your comment, a long string of empty nothing. You are a no content troll channel anyway, so we can safely ignore everything you said and consider it as irrelevant and meaningless as Langan's mathematical bowl of bottomless spaghetti. Thanks for playing
@@WilhelmAmundsen am I shadowbanned?
@@johnpittscom no
“Lex, how can I help you most?”
That was the bravest question ever asked.
An hour long interview and all I've learned is that ideas that can't be communicated effectively are worse than useless.
Do you know Tensor Calculus and topology?
@@redrum41987 that's not relevant. he makes a good point
xybersurfer Eric has said repeatedly that this isn’t for the layman
Useless for people who cannot follow the conversation
@@xybersurfer I mean it is kinda of pointless to try to explain what he is purposing to people who do not understand ideas that lay at the basis of the objects we use to mathematically describe physical phenomena. Saying it is worse than useless is kind of moot though.
It seems like the major point that Eric is trying to make is that ideas like his need to be discussed openly in order to speed up progress in physics. Even if his idea is proven to be completely wrong with constructive criticism. Given that only 1000 or so people can make these kinds of contributions to physics, and these contributions can have a profound impact on the future of technology, having his idea talked about is important.
The fact that next generation of technological innovation could be heavily influenced by what these handful of academics figure out is just one of the most obvious reasons why this is important among others.
So while it appears that Eric is just over intellectualizing some small office politic problem in academia what he is actually doing is exposing a major issue where a handful of talented people who can make progress cannot currently effectively discuss and share new theoretical ideas. And the current office politic environment in academia could slow major breakthroughs in understanding the universe (or simulation) and also slow the next generation of technological progress that can be heavily influenced my breakthroughs in physics.
Exactly, like he was saying about the field stagnating under current ideas and assumptions. A little bit of thought exercise at the worst, possibly a theory that could become workable at best. Win-win in my book.
Bruno Ribeiro They said the same thing about Einstein at first.
This video is 3 years old but Lex and Eric look and talk so differently now it seems like a lifetime ago.
This guy was supposed to explain the theory of everything but instead talked for an hour about absolutely nothing.
Lex, you earned new levels of my respect when you articulated my struggle with understanding the current situation in AI research: 'You're working on AI, but then why are you not working on intelligence... Just building toys'. Wow! So I'm not the only one initially disillusioned by what AI research is today. But then, who is, and how, researching intelligence? Please respond, I need intel! Thank you for a great opportunity every podcast.
dude your brain is a toy, and technically, so is everybody elses
Isnt deep mind and alpha zero examples of proper AI research? Im not sure but would look into that
The IQ researchers and philosophers
Why has Eric gone dark since the interview with Stephen Wolfram?
Well I'm glad Eric completely cleared that Theory of Everything stuff up for me.
**scratches head**
31:15 When he talks about SPINNORS ... makes me remind the Benitez's book 1 Caballo de Troya, which have a huge appendix talking about "swivels" ... I strong remend you guys read at least this part ... so intriguing ... 😮
Haha! that face at 32:30 is exactly how I feel watching this.