Oh, how I have missed the highly strung tension of an Eric conversation. Loved it!

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

More to come!

@GabrielKish

Жыл бұрын

I absolutely love it when he gets pissed off. You can feel the raw disgust and barely controlled rage through the world's most eloquent snarl. He expresses how I feel about so many of the topics that offend and enrage him. I wish I could express myself in a similar manner under those situations. I can't and never will be able too but at least he gives me the vision of how I want to speak even if I fcuk it up.

@saturngenesis1306

8 ай бұрын

@@GabrielKish Hehe, me too. He sublimates so many of my SUPPRESSED intuitions into REAL insights, and so much of what he says feels.. palpably existential; word by perfect word.

@PeterGibbonns

Ай бұрын

@@GabrielKishChill out. Its really not that serious at all. Like really not at all.

@PeterGibbonns

Ай бұрын

@@saturngenesis1306You are a try hard.

Glad to see Eric.

I see Eric Weinstein and I click. Would love to see him do stuff elsewhere. Seems like this is the only channel that ever has him on in the last years. I appreciate you getting his ideas out in the world though, Brian. 👍

@tcarr349

Жыл бұрын

I second that!

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

More to come!

@chungboislim2061

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating ♥

@cyberista

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps ChatGPT can explain his Geometric Unity theory? 🙂

@RWin-fp5jn

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating I hope so! How about a follow-up format where 2 guests can discuss ONLY a central subject determined by you. I suggest to start with the single most important and ‘verboten’ subject of all, namely the nature of spacetime, as per Einstein’s following closing words of his 1920 Leiden lecture; ‘…Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it...’ So than, here Einstein finally and correctly describes spacetime not as a void but as an all-encompassing field with the interwoven (!) properties of space and time. Now then, since we are talking about the same fabric as in Einstein’s SR, we must now rectify Einstein’s SR. We than get that speed contracts both frontal space (deceitfully coined ‘length’ contraction) and frontal time (deceitfully called time ‘dilation’). Follow up question; where does this frontal spacetime go? Answer; it now forms the object’s increased potential (‘energy’ or ‘ inverse space’) and increased inertia (‘mass’ or ‘inverse time’, Penrose 2020). Are we getting it? Speed of an objects wraps the frontal fabric of spacetime around itself in a standing wave of integers (quanta) of windings, thus increasing its inertia and potential. Next, the energymass field around the object can be interpreted as its own grid. What is its internal motion formula? Well, we now get: Energy (distance)=Mass(time) * speed. Speed we must define as [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2=gammaC2]. So we get E=MC2 as the MOTION formula, not an equivalence relation. This is what our academic curriculum has desperately been hiding from us for 100 years. We can do 1000 more podcasts. But this is the essence that opens the door to full understanding. Enough stuff to do a new session on?

It's always refreshing to hear Eric throw a wrench into the gears, because he isn't just throwing the wrench, he looks at the problem from the entirety of science and is saying why are some people not allowed to play in the pool. At 53 minutes Daniel took the same out that Brian Green did on TOE, I have no particular blah, blah, blah. No one should feign there intelligence to the point of not having an opinion because they're unaware when they could actually make a competent description of the topic being discussed, it's simply dishonest to those taking part in the discussion and to those who might be looking for an honest answer to a question. It's just very insulting to everyone participating in the process, beyond being blatantly obvious. Thank you all very much for a great discussion/debate and exploration of ideas, Daniel, Eric, and Brian. PS The real value of a critic should always be illumination.

I like this new and improved Eric. I'd like to see his channel up and running again.

This is a profound interview and needs to be preserved.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

@justinmorris9519

Жыл бұрын

Also could use better production quality, that would help

@helicopter_traffic

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating respectfully, this reply format looks like a scam bot is imitating you

sound is very low on this video. I can't hear anything...

I love it when Eric goes berserk.

@PeterGibbonns

Ай бұрын

Does it make your butthole wink?

I’m in my car with the sound turned all the way up and it’s very hard to hear

I really wish I would have known that at the 14 min mark, Dr Brian Keating turns the volume up to a level I could hear this on Air Pods. I had to wait days to get to my amplified headphones to hear these amazing people.

Would love to see a session with Dan and Sabine

Eric is truly a gift to the world and I wish the world would listen more and allow him to take a larger role. Listening to his ideas on podcasts doesn’t seem like enough

@dievas1

Жыл бұрын

hes an imbecile, so is anyone who thinks hes somehow smart.

@inxiti

7 ай бұрын

lol… there’s a reason no one is listening to him. He seems like a decent enough person, kind of, but, he can’t be taken serious because he isn’t saying anything.

Quick summary: Eric - Guys you're doing stamp collection? Dan - Yeah but wonderful pathbreaking collection. Brian - Sure...uuhh

Would like to see Frank Wilczek, Leonard Susskind and Eric have at it, with Dr. Keating being the referee just like this session with Dan. Eric always brings his A game to these intellectual cage matches. Dan's right, it appears a lot of physicists to paraphrase him, get into the game, because they dream of being the next Einstein, when Einstein rather dreamed of traveling at light speed to realise a standing wave's peaks and troughs and the stoppage of time! Einstein was a day dreaming artist!

@wokeuptomorrow4533

Жыл бұрын

Looking at it like a cage match is not helpful if you want these conversations to happen, IMHO. The people in question are not up for that and will most likely not agree if that is how you view it. I mean would you?

These guys hereby win 🥇 the Nobel Prize in the Audio Theory of Everything 😂

To Eric's point, The ethics of physics is equally important as the mathematics.

After listening to every podcast eric has been on, for years, including this latest with Joe Rogan…….. I am terrified, exhilarated, motivated, and paralyzed all at once. We all, especially since COVID have collectively, and slowly one by one in simple terms (sorry I’m not Eric Weinstein) realize something is massively wrong in our world on earth and in America. It’s becoming everyday harder and harder to stomach what we once thought of as news, read what we thought was the paper of record, and listen to this inane chirping from any authority or public figure about anything with out wanting to scream WHAT THE F IS GOING ON. If there’s anyone that can rally a solution it’s Eric. God help us.

@chrimony

Жыл бұрын

The quest for truth died with "authoritative sources" became a filter.

@CreatureColossus

Жыл бұрын

It's really not. You're just caught in the online culture war and things seem insane.

@mark4asp

Жыл бұрын

A neutral observer, such as an alien, might conclude the world had been taken over by psychopaths, and their flying monkeys.

@gregkirk1842

Жыл бұрын

There is your answer. As niechzte pointed out we have killed God and all the water in the world wont wash away the blood. He wont be coming to help.

@tomdivittis2688

Жыл бұрын

@@CreatureColossus at just over 50, from my perspective, things have definitely gone insane. To be fair, it is possible that just I have.

The Portal again in 2023? The absolutely best podcast/conversations on the infobahn, and I’m not even a smart dude 😊 Eric did an amazing job. But again, I’m not in the field at all, but really enjoy all the interesting conversations other people usually don’t have. Cheers from Norway 🇳🇴

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks very much Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet. *_And stay tuned for more._*

@wokeuptomorrow4533

Жыл бұрын

​@@DrBrianKeating Brian... Make a plug for your mailing list at the beginning of each episode ,but not in response to each comment. You can't see it maybe but its cringe and makes your replies come off as extremely... disingenuous. Cringe, telemarketery.

@Henry-kv7zl

Жыл бұрын

@@wokeuptomorrow4533 yea there's a reason it looks like a scam.

I feel like Eric and I could have a great talk, since my experience in the phil of mind/neuro community was somewhat similar. But instead of getting lost in mathematics, we got lost in language games. The community is conformist and terrified of anyone willing to actually engage the arguments, or to pit incompatible camps against each other. There's a very similar dynamic at play where those who care are threats and those who don't just fit in and gatekeep.

Most of the other channels I subscribe to. Sometimes, I make it all the way through. But with your channel, I watch the whole thing. Every time. Thanks, Brian.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

You're the best!

A TOE must include Everything. Everything. Nothing should be excluded. Very difficult, I know to explain it mathematically. But, maths is not necessarily the end all be all. We are not mathematical robots.😎 ps. I appreciate that you interact with the commoners. I'm a carpenter who has an unofficial BA in physics+. Interdisciplinary education should not be disparaged.

I still believe that our science institutes ARE forcing a mindset pattern of thinking on the young while entering higher education. Forcing them to adopt the language of the old to take on the new and unknown. If my mind is constrained to think "in these terms", how does it break into a new field of thinking? String theory or molecular structure or what have you necessarily evokes new lines of thought and in some cases new fields of components in the thought field. "You've got the wrong basis" or "you;'re wrong about..." makes it difficult for whole new venues and paths of thinking to develop and grow. Do our colleges and universities and laboratories allow for that wild maverick to thrive far enough to get some support and aid to develop in new areas of thought and theory. In other words I agree with Eric. There's too much scientific "elitism" that attempts to block out other avenues of thought.

Great discussion gentlemen thank you.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

Eric is sort of like a therapist for the physics community...and his ability to analogize is unmatched.

@dingai

6 ай бұрын

and his ability to actually do any actual work is also unmatched. zero. others try to accomplish as little, but he is the champion at blowing hot air...

Yes yes yes another Eric-episode 😊

All three of you are fundamentally contributing to progress of course. This is the way. 🙏

@balasubr2252

Жыл бұрын

Really? How? I’m not sure humans understand that a language is the medium (like a fish 🐠 may not know it is immersed in water) and any conversation is full of blind spots, preventing an audience from taking away anything of value.

@gastronic

Жыл бұрын

@@balasubr2252 Q.E.D. I meant progression in physics through the exchange of different opions. Welcome to planet Earth though, brother Bala. It took me some time as well to get used to human communication. I found their irony, humor and metaphors to be extremely tricky. What planet are you from ? 🖖🙏

@balasubr2252

Жыл бұрын

@@gastronic Human’s and their communication skills are not as tricky as they are primitive.

@gastronic

Жыл бұрын

@@balasubr2252 Agreed, that's why I prefer elemental telepathy.

@balasubr2252

Жыл бұрын

@@gastronic wouldn’t telepathy destroy my thoughts and replace it with incoming thoughts?

My sound is maxed out and still can’t hear this, then the ads come blasting in, UNWATCHABLE.

Hang tight! The audio is fixed very soon! This is an excellent discussion you will not regret it!!

@qubei

Жыл бұрын

Only about a minute of good audio from the guest and the rest is Eric talking over him.

@clink69

Жыл бұрын

@@qubei eric weinstein is genius and the "guest" is living poo

@lowtek42

Жыл бұрын

Spoilers, audio stays bad 😔

ps It is typical in the history of physics that the younger generation ignores or sidesteps issues which seem absolutely crucial to the prior generation. The difference now is that it's somewhat visible to non physicists. It's a fun discussion, but the old physicists never let go of their theories and the associated unsolved issues, which they try to impose on the next generation, while the younger ones just attempt to work on stuff that interest them.

Eric interrupts a lot, gives me anxiety waiting for him to interrupt someone…like I’m holding my breathe the whole time someone else is talking. Hard to be calm listening to this…can we talk science and less he said she said stuff? Talk numbers, data, specifics, pull out equations together, do science

@alonsolopez1396

Жыл бұрын

Well, Eric Weinstein did clarify from the start that he's not a physicist so what you're asking wouldn't be fair to him.

@3rdPartyIntervener

Жыл бұрын

gives you "anxiety"? seek help, or touch grass, my dude.

@crowlsyong

Жыл бұрын

@@alonsolopez1396 true, so perhaps he isn’t qualified to be speaking on these issues? Idk “im not a physicist” is a bad a copout in my humble opinion. But I’m an internet comment so what do I know? Lol

@crowlsyong

Жыл бұрын

@@3rdPartyIntervener bro ur right i need to go take a walk outside.

@alonsolopez1396

Жыл бұрын

@@crowlsyong Yeap. 😉

It's simple. Anyone who puts forward an idea that "goes against" primary theories ( those which employ many people) are attacked and cancelled. That's the problem. I encountered this is my grad school days in an obscure corner of high energy physics involving fluid compression. I proposed a simplification that I found was more predictive under some common conditions, but didn't realize that if I was right that would supercede a certain area of physics theories involving Eigenvectors. I was BRUTALIZED by my advisor, and other people in that field. Because of this, I left physics entirely. I am one of those casualties Eric is referring to. To this day I have not seen the same approach used that I proposed, although I have seen some parts of it surface in material science, atheoretically.

Fascinating! I would love to see professors Erik Weinstein and Leonard Susskind debating in your podcast. Thanks Dr. brian keating.

Really enjoyed Eric’s perspective and insight, I think the fact more of the “mainstream” doesn’t have him on proves his point…

@Mark-Zhark

Жыл бұрын

Eric is smarter than most people who interview him, not to mention “debate” him.

@dinobotpwnz

Жыл бұрын

Mainstream physics professors don't have podcasts so...

@r5o4m

Жыл бұрын

@@dinobotpwnz “Mainstream” isn’t limited to physics professors nor to the podcast format but if it did there are plenty, Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, and Keith Baker to name a few. You seem to be a few quarks short of an atom…

This was a juicy one! Thanks Brian!

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

You bet!

Awesome talk and great to see so much respect 🤘🏻

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I miss the portal, any chance we can see it come back in 2023?

That disagree that the field has become kleptocratic, so they just talk past one another

That was so interesting, even essential. Gravity resolution is the main prize to be had. I suspect that it seems so close that physics is “done”, but where we really are is like the accountant who must reconcile the last 12cents on his balance sheet, and is looking for a 12 cent error, when the real problem is a missing credit of one million dollars and 38cents, and five “fallen behind the desk” debits that sum to one million and 50 cents. The place to find the discrepancy is where the most fine tuning is taking place, and the technique to identify oversights and distortions is through open communication, like this. Awesome, thanks Brian,…and Dan and Eric.

Dear Dr. Weinstein, kindly read the paper I link below - `Gravitation, and quantum theory, as emergent phenomena'. It answers several of the questions you ask. It also explains why string theory does not work as a theory of unification. And why the treatment of E8 x E8 presented in this paper works.

Skip the whole discussion until minute @46:00

Seriously, Dr Keating, hire an audio engineer.

@user-wh2oo4wh8v

Жыл бұрын

He really needs to, I downloaded a third party volume app for this..

@charlieb8735

2 ай бұрын

He needs a third mic lol

The universe is obviously designed and it gives us challenges. We are gifted with open minded imagination. There is a lot we know is real and unknown and we got to work unlimitedly hard together

@Self-Duality

Жыл бұрын

💯

I really liked this podcast. Good and important topics.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

The notion of the importance of memory is essential to new ideas ,this is well demonstrated in medical research

Dr Brian. Excellent as usual.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Many thanks!

Ground Control to Dr Keating, are you receiving, over... You seem to have on-going low volume audio issues embedded in your podcasts. Please rectify this annoying technical problem.

Points by Eric so beautifully made. Thank you for hosting this Brian!

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

24:00 “DeWitt’s book on antigravity is so good you can’t put it down”. Bravo!

It is an interesting point that Eric raised about not having convictions. As someone outside the academic/theoretical physics the inability to even understand what Eric meant by a conviction seems paradoxical in the realm of “theoretical” physics. It seems hard to understand why one would acquire “the tools” without imagining what they mean to build.

TEGWAR: The Exciting Game Without Any Rules. Lol I thought we were the only ones that played that!

If physics is this misunderstood by humanity then we need way more communions of quality reality

“in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,” physics has matured into theology. Denominations with priests fighting for followers and dollars, with faith, hope, and love: emerging from any market of abstract ideas.

Thanks, guys.

Didn't listen, but skimmed the transcript, mostly to see if anything new was said about Geometric Unity... But since I'm here I'll try to express what I know and what I believe. I've studied string theory, I've studied Geometric Unity and Woit's theory and many other theoretical ideas. String theory is far above all competitors in many ways, but it describes a large number of possible worlds, and it seems likely that "string phenomenologists" (who are the ones trying to obtain the standard model from string theory) have been looking at the wrong possibilities *within* string theory. Geometric Unity deserves more attention from mathematicians and mathematical physicists who specialize in the kind of objects appearing in the theory (14-dimensional spaces, spinors in 14-dimensional space, complexified gauge fields a la Nigel Hitchin, generalized elliptic complexes). I would particularly point to some of the work of Kirill Krasnov at the University of Nottingham, and also the study of branes in 14-dimensional space in "supercritical" string theory. Woit's theory, or construction, is interesting. It's one of a large number of theoretical constructs and empirical hints that I would want to be aware of, in looking for new or improved theories. It's hard to know what kind of institutional or cultural changes in theoretical physics would expedite fundamental discovery. The establishment and the fringe both produce value and both produce junk. One has to hope that interaction between the two will yield genuine progress.

@tpsingh100

Жыл бұрын

Kindly google for this paper: "Gravitation, and quantum theory, as emergent phenomena'. It addresses the first line of the last paragraph of your comment.

@MitchellPorter2025

Жыл бұрын

@@tpsingh100 Hi, I have read your papers too. The part about emergence from Adler's trace dynamics, I could actually believe. I think the rest, however, doesn't work. I kind of admire the imagination and audacity of the electroweak part (masses from combinations of Jordan algebra eigenvalues, mass associated with SU(2)_R the way that charge is associated with SU(2)_L), and that part I think deserves a close (but critical) analysis. On the other hand, the leftover parts of E8_R (e.g. the "gravi-gluons") don't really have anything going for them, and in my opinion are a sign that something's wrong with that part of the overall framework.

@tpsingh100

Жыл бұрын

@@MitchellPorter2025 Thanks for your comments Mitchell. I am grateful you read my papers. It will be interesting to know if there is some data which rules out the gravi-gluons. Cheers.

@MitchellPorter2025

Жыл бұрын

@@tpsingh100 The problem is more theoretical. We can approach it by putting the whole idea of "SU(2) gravity" in a little perspective. It goes back to Ashtekar's new variables, which gave rise to loop quantum gravity, but also have something twistorial about them. Then we have the Peter Woit approach: what if there's an SO(4) gauge group with two SU(2) factors, and one is electroweak and the other is Ashtekar gravity. OK, no one really got it to work yet, but interesting. But another possible direction would be to consider GxG, where G is some larger group that contains SU(2). You want to use G_SM x G_SM, where the lefthand factor is the standard model as we know it, and the righthand factor contains the Ashtekar SU(2) as well as an extra SU(3)xU(1) which is also somehow gravitational as well. My main technical complaint is that I don't even understand what is specifically gravitational about the extra SU(3)xU(1)... You know, in loop quantum gravity, there's a handful of papers that want to embed Ashtekar SU(2) in a larger group (this is supposed to happen in Eric Weinstein's theory too), but the intent is always to unify "SU(2) gravity" with standard model gauge forces. And as with other graviGUTs, this leads to technical problems that may or may not be tractable. On the other hand, you want to extend the "purely gravitational" part to something more than Ashtekar SU(2), but as far as I can see, you haven't actually explained how it works. I suppose it could be regarded as simply a generalization of Ashtekar's problem. No one really knows how to base a quantum theory of gravity on Ashtekar SU(2), let alone on "Singh et al G_SM". But if someone does propose a paradigm for a quantum theory based on Ashtekar SU(2), then that's a paradigm you could potentially use as well. In your case, I think it comes back to your assertion, or proposal, that left-handed fermions have gauge couplings that are "charge-like", and right-handed fermions have gauge couplings that are "mass-like". (I may not have phrased it exactly as you do, but you know what I'm referring to.) I am already both interested and skeptical about this proposal, just at the level of SU(2)L x SU(2)R ... forget about larger groups for now. Do you have a toy model of this minimal case, in which you have a Lagrangian or some other precise formulation that gives quantitative output, and which also fulfils the provocative slogans about charge on the left, and mass on the right?

@tpsingh100

Жыл бұрын

The breaking of SU(2)_R x U(1)_grav symmetry is suspected to give rise to GR as a broken symmetry in the vicinity of compact objects. In the outer regions of the galaxy (i.e. at accelerations below the critical MOND acceleration) the U(1)_grav dominates, and has the same features as that of MOND. These results are not written up yet - it is work in progress.

Good on the audio here, love to see the improvement

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Thanks

If the physics community would acquire an interest in warp drive physics, two things would happen. First, DARPA would be interested in practical applications for the warp drive. They might be interested in spending a lot of research money 💰 and fully fund the right project. Second, you would learn there are two types. Type 1: quantum entangled photons can store gravitational potential energy. Gravitons exist and they express the physics constants of this universe. Type 2: Gravitons of a superluminal universe can be captured which allow a spacecraft to exist in two universes simultaneously.

The big issue is there are no more discoveries for the would be Einsteins. All the low hanging fruit has been picked. Future progress in the field will have to come from a ruthless aggregator of talent like a Jobs or a Musk to focus tens, hundreds or thousands of minds to come up with the next great physics discovery. The problem is you need incentives like stock or wealth and not academic prestige in order to incentivize that many minds with big egos to work on a singular goal efficiently.

@callmedeno

Жыл бұрын

I was wondering something similar about mathematics re discoveries. The ground of abstraction upon and abstraction seems to be decently covered (not that anyone understand any of it completely), but we're talking about the common things to all algebras, groups, rings, sheafs in algebraic geometry etc. I guess I'm wondering if you get something abstract enough, and another really abstract thing, finding things in common becomes inevitable, and intuitively you think there must be some limit to the insights usefulness? On the other hand I think 'it may seem crazy but it's just hard to appreciate how much this insane amount of abstraction is actually leading us to reality and always has been'

@m-bronte

Жыл бұрын

Eric did say that in another podcast, that the younger generations entering into physics and or scientific study go in with a fresh mind full of idea's and sense that maybe they can change the world. Until they realize the education/higher learning has a one size fits all mentality.

The standard model takes classical spacetime as a given. However, that is an approximation, even at low energies such as at the LHC, and needs to be dropped. When that assumption is dropped, one makes progress. Also, there are three fermion generations because in the branching of E8 x E8, there is an SU(3) x SU(3) pair which is interpreted as SU(3) for three gens of left handed fermions, and another SU(3) for three gens of right handed fermions. See arXiv:2206.06911 [hep-ph]

@ondrejstefik159

Жыл бұрын

as in Tony Smith Physics model from 2 decades ago...

These guys huff and puff, literally as a counter to what Eric is saying. Seems like he's hitting some raw nerves here. All the while he is completely calm and collected. Don't have to be an astrophysicist to figure out what's going on here. 🤣

@peterkay7458

Жыл бұрын

yeah but ERic is throwing the low hanging fruit at them he has an amazing memory of all the mistakes but in my own experience tenured professors will look at any idea that might even solve the problem. BUT you must be able to summarize your idea with a simple diagram and concept if you need 200 words to preface why you are right and everything else is wrong the experts will tune you out and lastly, the best miinds are using physics to make money kinda like ERic focuing on investments using fourier analyzis i suspect

@m-bronte

Жыл бұрын

@@peterkay7458 Eric understands numbers and also understand words, I think that combo is a weapon. Eric's complaint is....the scientific establishment doesn't want to entertain new concepts. New concepts lead to new discoveries. The scientific community is no longer innovative, it's stuck in old concepts and revisiting them over and over again. etc Wild new idea's are not addressed, biased structures override new concepts.

nice job eric! it's really interesting how this situation is also reflected in our current political environment.

Yes,thanks I thought it was on my end.

I also demand a revolutionary new theory in physics

@VitaminStudios

Жыл бұрын

Same! But the old guard has no interest in doing anything useful other than sucking the dicks of their colleagues that agree with them. BORING and the new guard just wants to impress the old guard, because they want to climb the career ladder and make money, buy a house and fill that house with more stuff! (credit to George Carlin for that concept LOL)

Awesome, thank you much much

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

You're very welcome!

The number of ads on the video really breaks the momentum of every point being interrupted. Substantially more ads than I commonly see on videos here on KZread.

Great stuff Brian for having two unique views both from the same mathematics! I enjoy Eric and you speaking every time! I know this is a touchy point about Nguyen's critic on GU's math, where he claims Eric did not complexify his Shiab operator, and there was no cancellation remedy for his chiral gauge group anomaly. Gauge anomalies break unitarity, this renders the quantum theory ill-defined. Was this ever addressed by Eric online somewhere?

@____uncompetative

9 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, a lot of people have read that Timothy Nguyen has published _A Response to Geometric Unity_ and I come across a lot of comments under videos in which Eric Weinstein is a guest asking when he will respond to Nguyen's four concerns expressed in his paper. He doesn't need to. They are all irrelevant. You see Nguyen was not motivated to make a valid critique of Eric Weinstein's paper which he knew was about to be published, and had been working with an anonymous collaborator who goes by the psuedonym "Theo Polya" for several months after Eric made the mistake of uploading his 2013 Oxford lecture to his KZread channel in April 2020. This is called _A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look_ and is a speculative preview of an incomplete work in progress that aspires to be a _Unified Field Theory._ Strictly speaking it isn't a _Theory of Everything_ and doesn't claim to be, so Nguyen misrepresents Eric's work by framing it as something grander in the introduction to his own paper. By inflating _Geometric Unity_ into something grander than what was claimed Nguyen gets to "kill a bigger bull in the bullfighting arena" and clearly he enjoys the fame that has come from him "famously slaying" Weinstein even though most following all of this have not watched the 2013 lecture, or read Eric's 2021 draft paper, or Tim's response which was published BEFORE it. Tim works for Google, but I don't think they have secretly developed a time machine and lent it to him for the weekend. Tim based his response off the 2020 video of the 2013 Oxford lecture he did not attend and did not ask questions at. In the intervening eight years _Geometric Unity_ was worked on by Eric and significantly changed. A lot more was added to the _General Relativity_ aspect of the theory. The _Quantum Field Theory_ aspect is broadly the same. Elaborated versions of both theories are generalised to work in 14-dimensions and then the incompatibility of their underlying geometries is recognised as the central problem of _Geometric Unity_ and a Chimeric fiber bundle is described which is supposed to form a bidirectional bridge between the 14-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold and the 4-dimensional psuedo-Riemannian manifold out of which he then recovers Lorentzian (1, 3) spacetime. It isn't complete. That is why it is called a draft paper. It isn't the final instantiation of the theory (which you could call a model if you prefer at this point as the ideas outlined are really quite early). However, the key point to take away is that the 2013 Oxford lecture on which Tim says he based his February 23, 2021 response used a U(128) structure group, compared to U(1) for Electromagnetism within _The Standard Model,_ and this includes SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) as a part of this larger U(128), however Eric Weinstein's April 1, 2021 draft paper used a U(128, ℂ) structure group, so at some point in the intervening eight years following the 2013 lecture _Geometric Unity_ became complexified with the set of Complex Numbers. Eric added an introduction when he uploaded his 2013 lecture which talked about what a candidate for a _Theory of Everything_ "might look like". He wasn't bold enough to say that this was a theory of everything. Too many people are split over the scope of what that should explain. Explaining all physical phenomena that we have thus far observed might be okay, but a few others would argue that this does not include an explanation of emergent phenomena of complex systems such as consciousness, what we might be able to say about an electron in an experimental situation is quite different from their effect within a neural network on someone's expressed personality. So, I was a bit surprised to see Eric hand his draft paper across the table to Joe Rogan in episode 1628 (which can be found on Spotify) and say that "I think it's the theory of everything." which I think was a mistake, but a mistake that happened in April 2021, five weeks after Timothy Nguyen had falsely claimed _Geometric Unity_ had been presented in 2020 as a _Theory of Everything._ At best there was the implication that it might in time become a candidate for what a final _Theory of Everything_ might look like, because it was trying very hard to start off with as little as possible. Now, I think it starts off with too much, and paraphrased the draft paper can be reduced to this: ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ X⁴ → "everything in physics"

@____uncompetative

9 ай бұрын

Because it gets the parameter 4 from the observation that our universe has four dimensions X¹·³ in a Lorentzian split-signature metric where X is a psuedo-Riemannian manifold endowed with an "ocean" of Spinors which are host to the phenomena we can observe or infer exist within our universe, that doesn't preclude another exouniverse having more dimensions with a different split-signature and that somehow being viable. Why is it 4? One possibility is that our universe only exists in (1, 3) signature because in no other combination can you tie a knot. I don't know enough mathematics to be able to prove that (1, 3) is the only viable metric in which you can tie a persistent knot, but anyone can think through the cases for themselves with an imaginary rope and quickly realise how many combinations of dimensions are useless and only (1, 3) works. This doesn't imply that "everything is knots" as with Lord Kelvin's _Vortex Theory._ Some other reason for it being 4 and not some other value may emerge and knots will have just been a curious mathematical echo of the same sentiment. However, my issue remains that I personally feel that no one has a final theory until it is entirely parameterless. I don't want magic numbers. So, I think Eric made a mistake to "sell it to" Joe as something it wasn't (yet). If you were going to be extremely charitable, you would argue that it was the informal non-scientific setting of a popular podcast not a lecture in front of theoretical physicists at Oxford University (he didn't say it there), and if you assume an extended implicit time frame for this work in progress then it is like saying "I think it's my new home" when standing on a building site for the house you have the blueprints for but have none of the furniture ordered yet. So, him saying this is awkward and he would have been far better off to say that it is "A draft paper which describes an elaborated replacement for the current theories which describe the very tiny and extremely huge" then you can get into what those current theories are and why they are geometrically incompatible and your proposal for a bridge between their surfaces which is called a "Chimeric fiber bundle" and shut up about the Hopf fibration as it doesn't even appear within the draft paper, it is just easy to visualise, and represents a class of principal fiber bundles which are of mathematical interest to Eric and he is convinced he can explain them to the layman (or to Lex Fridman in five minutes with the aid of a whiteboard), but he is denied that opportunity and is stuck with analogies to do with hair scrunchies and water wiggles, which in the case of Joe Rogan leave him so lost and frustrated because much of his audience is listening on the radio that he almost gets angry at Eric for using his podcast to promote his idea with an extended super confusing "Show & Tell", making that portion of the episode a "car crash". Eric seems interested in too many things, including alternative pedagogy involving a lower dimensional analogue of spacetime within a sort of connected multiverse where there is but one game, but multiple observers of it seeing events from different points of view, which is demonstrated with cardboard tubes in a pandemic after panic buying emptied shelves of the toilet paper from which these are the spent cores. So, this unorthodox teaching method is a mistake, and calling his _Geometric Unity_ website "Pull That Up, Jamie" without Jamie Vernon's permission is a mistake, and saying you think it's the theory of everything is a mistake, but worst of all releasing the 2013 lecture ahead of publishing the draft paper gave motivated critics to transcribe its equations of motion (incorrectly) and then guess what would be in the draft when it was published and preemptively raise concerns about it: 1. overlooking a complexification step ~ Eric does not provide a formal definition for his Ship In A Bottle operator as he lost the notes, but promises to reconstruct it from scratch for future drafts. This is equivalent to having a manual car without a clutch await repair. 2. the choice of U(128) leads to a quantum gauge anomaly ~ had Tim waited five weeks he wouldn't have made a fool of himself as this is no longer a problem as it is now U(128, ℂ) which decomposes to U(64, 64) which is non-chiral when Tim assumed its chiral 3. blather about supersymmetry which Tim guessed would be a core part of the theory ~ it is explored and then dismissed 4. technical details are omitted ~ Eric says that this criticism is valid. It is not as Tim is preemptively criticising a video of a lecture he didn't attend and subsequently saying in interviews that he hasn't read the draft paper all the way through, but only checked one section and performed a CRTL+F to look for a fragment of text he expects it needs to have to be right and because he doesn't find it he concludes his work is done. This is not the work of a serious critic. It seems as if he opportunistically sniped at a few _QFT_ related flaws present within the 2013 lecture, and said nothing about the _General Relativity_ aspect even though that part of the paper was much more substantial in the draft paper since its preview in the lecture. Tim knows _QFT_ as part of his job at Google, however he lacks expertise with _General Relativity._ Hence the need for this "Theo Polya" collaborator. Presumably, we are supposed to think that Theo knows _General Relativity_ inside and out, and would provide criticism of that aspect if there was some to make. Except, curiously, nothing has been said from either of them in the past two years since the draft was published. I suspect "Theo Polya" is a sock account run by Timothy Nguyen to pretend he isn't a "one man band" who lacks the expertise to critique a _Unified Field Theory._ There is a lot here to digest and I couldn't provide any evidence to back up my claims as I can't post links in this comments section, so if you are sceptical I recommend you look for my video here on KZread, entitled: _Uncompetative hates 'A Response to Geometric Unity' by Timothy Nguyen_

Eric's displeasure with the state of physics is more than fair.

@seditt5146

Жыл бұрын

Not really because its clear he has no understanding of the state of physics to make any judgement on it. Dudes clueless and the host here should have laid him flat for it. IDK why people even listen to anything he has to say as its clear he is clueless.

@fredwerza3478

Жыл бұрын

@@seditt5146 Eric does seem clueless about a lot of things

@peterkay7458

Жыл бұрын

@@seditt5146 i honestly agree it reminds me of watching a tradesman doing something and thinking i can do a better job and being passed the tools and just blowing it one of my professors won a nobel prize and i remember asking him a question befofe he won the nobel prize and the mind that guy had WOww just wow\ i see hints of that ability in Eric but he has to be more consturctive in his concerns having said the way he was treated by academia shows there is some real antagonism that no one knows or talks about

@m-bronte

Жыл бұрын

@@seditt5146 Eric is a mathematician, Physicists rely heavily on math for calculation in their work. He does have an understanding.

@Jon-pw2ik

Жыл бұрын

@@seditt5146 clearly you have no idea what it is you are speaking about unfortunately. Being a mathematician and a proven capable one at that, I've watched him speak fluently about physics with many physicists, at the top of the pyramid would be Roger Penrose, and Eric was able to follow, analyze, and ask questions in lock step with all of them. Even the things he stated and pitched where agreed upon, almost every single time in every single conversation by every single one of them. Which is even more amazing because this is all in the linguistic side of understanding of the knowledge, which he as a mathematician should not be close to being able to accomplished even if he knew how to express them mathematically. It's like not only being an expert on Michael Jordan and being able to teach the X's and O's of how he plays, how to play with him, and how to play against him, but actually being able to get on the court and do a quality job at executing those things himself. Eric is truly a gift to mankind because of so many, I hope that he finds fulfillment whether his ideas are correct, incorrect, or a stepping stone in humanity's attainment in discovering what he wishes for in his best dreams. Keep on goin Eric you're a beast

Really good video love this.

Ya, Eric needs to MAYBE start or just join an heterodox, alternate, or independent start-up college OR university, i.e., University of Austin (if Niall Ferguson et al are gonna do STEMs NAMELY physics & mathematics.

I’m surprised by how many points of Eric’s Dan just took with little to no pushback. The pushback that he did give was kinda on the periphery and somewhat anecdotal. I want to see Eric challenged vigorously, he puts a lot of pressure on his counterpart and I want to see it turned around on him. It’s because I like him so much that I want to see this.

@johnvonleibniz

Жыл бұрын

Who do you think would be a worthy opponent?

@nicholasmosley8707

Жыл бұрын

I’m not sure, I don’t know the academic physics world all that well. I guess I just would have thought that when this guy comes in and says hey I don’t think you folks are making much progress and you’re pushing possible solid ideas out, that the response from a physicist would be you don’t know what you’re talking about. Followed by all the things the dept is doing. Didn’t really come out that way, I feel like he mostly agreed with the critique.

@RubixNinja

Жыл бұрын

@@nicholasmosley8707 Problem is there are very few people in the world that are as well versed as Eric is in his very particular area of expertise, as he was a mathematician tackling fundamental theory , and his verbal intelligence and memory is through the roof, and he is fluent in english....

@THIS---GUY

Жыл бұрын

Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson would be interesting

@VitaminStudios

Жыл бұрын

​@@johnvonleibniz Ed Whitten...but that dude is a biatch and can throw down and slay and prove himself right in an academic debate...fucking geeks hahahaha

How interested is Dr Brian as he walks away?

in causation, time is subtracted from space, going in opposite direction (also in relativity more space in less time)? with space expanding, time can be contracting (even down to infinitesimal zero point - singularity)? contraction of time may even be causing expansion of space (kind of dark energy)?

The perspective Eric shares as criticism is the fundamental hierarchy of the Rockefeller education system. Rare and precious are the free.

Just got to know Eric and i love him

awesome! I learned a ton

Give these men swords and shields 😊 I love a little debating amongst brains.

This was probably a great conversation. Unfortunately the volume was so low that even at max volume level on my computer I could barely hear it. 😕 good attempt though

@nckey42

Жыл бұрын

The audio gets fixed, zip ahead a little

What are you discussing at the beginning? Something about differential forms?

Dr. Keating, I thought a good point by Mr. Weinstein was when you asked how do you know all those theories are wrong. And made a great point.... "they can't "all" be right.

Eric and Dan exchange 83 minutes' worth of robust commentary with one another, and then Brian parachutes in with the best line of the whole event... "Thrilla in San Dieg-ah." Well-played on this occasion, gentlemen.

Love that you still have issues with audio Doc 😂. 1:11

Eric destroyed that guy... Just kidding :D Amazing guests and great convo. Thanks, Brian!

The first rule of science club is: we don't talk about the rules of science club?

Amazing time that we can spend an hour with these brilliant minds, thanks Dr. Keating for putting this together.

@DrBrianKeating

Жыл бұрын

Any time!

@RWin-fp5jn

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBrianKeating Agree Brian, this is a very fruitful setup! Hugely enjoyed this stand-off! We need more of such podcast formats where we can critically discuss the other (wo)man’s opinion rather than only promoting his or her own in a monologue with flashy animations. Reminds me of the Bohr-Einstein debates which were vitally instrumental to finetuning both men’s later theories. Congrats also to Dan for standing his ground against Eric’s infamous rhetoric skills. In a way Dan is correct. If we follow Wikipedia’s definition of the word ‘physics’ then any added description with predictive value is a gain. I also get Eric’s grudge; in his view we stall because it’s not enough to describe physics; we need to get to more fundamental and simpler ideas as to WHY it works. Different angle. The error in Eric’s thinking (typical for a mathematician) is that simply because Einstein’s theories (formulas) work, they are to be taken as a given from which to go beyond. Ironically it is precisely because we take Einstein’s theories for granted that we stalled. So, what’s wrong? More than we realise! Let’s start with the quite correct notion we need to look for symmetry. Symmetry is a must if we want to design a universe that can come ‘out of nothing’, as only two opposites can come out of nothing. The error in our thinking is our assumption this symmetry must to be reflected in the ‘standard model of particles’. Nonsense! Particles are just human placeholder concepts of distortions (excitations) of a field. It does not matter what zoo of particles are out there, as long as their collective traits form an equilibrium with the collective inverse traits they inflict on the grid they arose from. So it is NOT about particles, it is about the equilibrium of the total 4 continuum functions of grid, clock, potential, inertia and their 4 continuum measures of space, time, energy, mass. It is CRUCIAL we have these relations between 4 functions and 4 measures correct. We are so sure of ourselves we got all that covered. Really? Penrose (2020) stated quite clearly; substituting E=hf into E=MC2 means mass fundamentally equals inverse time. In the subatomic world MASS is the clock (dicat Penrose). Einstein claimed mass would be equivalent to energy. Which is it? Both cannot be right! Hello? Doesn’t anybody understand what Nobel Laureate Penrose just said? And mind you; from experiments we know energy and space have an inverse relation; it takes highest energies to explore the smallest distances. And our universe was all about immense energy and zero space now heading to immense space and zero energy. So if energy and space are inversely equivalent AND mass and time are inversely related, then we are looking at a complete fundamental inversion of the academic truth, hindering further progress. How about a second similar podcast setup discussing this MOST fundamental issue with Penrose.

The sound is very quiet, so i but the volume to full but then when youtube adverts come on I get deafened, otherwise Great video 📹 👍 😁

How can you not have a blackboard between them and let them write?! People would still watch, the conversation is already pretty technical anyway

Sound level is too low and phone can't raise it enough

Hey! I've found on a number of your videos the content is 10/10 and the audio is 3/10. It may be worth investing in better audio/streaming solutions to make the content easier to consume.. just my $.02 I am glad to be on the journey with you 💜

Physics could be increased with co-lateral function. It's a bio ops essay but it could help communicate with others out in the universe in foreign planets or such.

wow audio is way too quiet

Maybe the creation is both realities viewed by consciousness? Maybe math is the intersections in geometry?

could information from quantum gravity and string theory be used as data for how to proceed or hypothesize?

Hope that the sound will be better in the next one

E8 is fascinating theory..... Question I have is simple, why is universe flat?

"Puppies are adorable, ice cream is delicious, mom and apple pie are good things." Someone needs to make a song of this, it's hilarious.

Please more of Eric

contraction of time having any quantum gravity beneath planck length might manifest as particle (graviton)?

1:11:35 "Paulie is an asshole.".. If this is an idea, opinion, hypothesis or fact, then Pauli himself can help to figure it out: "As a criterion for the truth of any idea, it is proposed to immediately apply this idea to the body of the author of this idea."(Pauli).

I'd like to watch but I can't hear the audio component, it's FAR too faint & I'm afraid to crank my volume that much because then the next video will blow my speakers if I forget to lower the volume first, & I can't take that very real risk. Thankfully there's an audio-only version (see video description) that is audible, but it means missing the visuals. Disappointed, once again. 😪

eric is a great force in the field, if only to bring attention and the vibe and hopefully, eventually more money

@Jon-pw2ik

Жыл бұрын

True, and the wild thing is physics isn't even his primary field 👀

Dr Keating, I would love to fall asleep to your videos but the drastically dynamic volume makes it impossible. Please normalize your audio!