Assuming IQ maps linearly to number of brain cells in in the neocortex the IQ of E. Weinstein is 16 billions (human) divided by 0.25 billions (cat) multiplied with your IQ (est. 140) which equals 8,960
Eric, I am a nano engineering student at UCSD and recently proposed a novel geometric lattice structure composed of orthogonal struts, oriented in a Chiral manner. Using this lattice I was able to reconfigure the Fano plane used to describe the algebraic structure of Octonions. This new Fano plane is composed of two chiral components that can act independently. I would love to share these ideas with you as I have struggled to find someone able to comprehend its importance. To the RU-vid Community, I would sincerely appreciate all replies or favorites to this comment in order to hopefully bring this to the attention of Mr. Weinstein. Thank You -Alec
I really do want a good experimentalist to do something here. I don't get much of it, and get his theory would have lots that can't be tested, but just as a rule of thumb I have very little opinion on theory until it predicts something correctly.
ok, let me explain how I go about this with one word that I don't understand: eric: bla bla bla... gauge theorie... me: googles gauge theorie wiki: In physics, a gauge theory is a type of field theory in which the Lagrangian does not change (is invariant) under local transformations from certain Lie groups. me: googles Lagrangian wiki: Lagrangian field theory is a formalism in classical field theory. me : googles formalism and classical field theory wiki: A classical field theory is a physical theory that predicts how one or more physical fields interact with matter through field equations me: googles Lie groups wiki: In mathematics, a Lie group (pronounced /liː/ "Lee") is a group whose elements are organized continuously and smoothly, as opposed to discrete groups, where the elements are separated-this makes Lie groups differentiable manifolds. me: "manifolds", yeah I heard that before... googles differentiable manifolds wiki: In mathematics, a differentiable manifold (also differential manifold) is a type of manifold that is locally similar enough to a linear space to allow one to do calculus... me: googles "where can I buy LSD?"
You went off course: Lagrangian. : a function that describes the state of a dynamic system in terms of position coordinates and their time derivatives and that is equal to the difference between the potential energy and kinetic energy - compare hamiltonian. So... The gauge theories are those which retain all the dynamical information about a system (think game physics plus all the objects in a Halo level) upto isomorphism. ISOMORPHISM - An information preserving transformation (think tilting a page of text by 5 degrees), or encoding it in morse. DERIVATIVE - The measure of the *rate* of change of a function (think acceleration as the derivative of speed) BTW I am in no way an expert on Physics, I just have enough math to understand the wiki definitions with some work
There are many thousands of comments here, but I am not sure whether anyone has attempted to describe any historical background to this work. Weinstein mentions work at the Oxford Mathematical Institute from the 1970s here (and even mentions my supervisor there), so I will provide some (rough) history. In the 1950s physicists Yang and Mills developed a generalisation of the Equations of Maxwell (for electromagnetism) suitable for the new world of quantum fields and quantum particles. What they discovered was that there was a quantum geometric symmetry - a circle - within Electromagnetism, now known as a U(1) symmetry. Their Yang-Mills theory kept the idea of the EM equations and replaced the group U(1) with potentially any such symmetry group, called by physicists a "gauge group". Ignored for a few years, physicists found the ideas worked well for groups SU(2) and SU(3) in the 1960s. Many Nobel prizes were won on the basis of related theories. Physicists continued to try to see if these Yang-Mills ideas worked for other groups, like SU(5). However as these groups get bigger more particles are predicted and these particles or their properties failed to be validated by CERN type experiments. Now the various ingredients of Yang-Mills theory are mathematical, and even geometric: symmetry groups, gauge invariance, field equations, etc and at Oxford mathematicians like Atiyah developed very general mathematical theorems based on this geometric set of ideas. These ideas bring in topology, manifold theory, algebra into the picture. These abstract theorems seem to have inspired Eric Weinstein (although he was not researching in Oxford, I believe). The other major heavily geometric theory in Physics is General Relativity, based on Manifolds also. So there are similarities with the Quantum Field mathematics when expressed geometrically. However there are also differences - this is why "Quantum Gravity" has not happened or been easy. One difference is that GR uses a "metric" of a special form, but these Yang-Mills theories dont use any metric. So "Geometric Unification" would give them a metric. Going the other way abstract mathematics would introduce "Torsion" - but GR has set Torsion = 0. Overall there has to be a "uniform manifold" - which I think Weinstein has made 14 = 4 + 10 dimensional. We are all familiar with the challenges that String theory has to justify physically its 10 or 11 dimensions, so a 14 dimensional manifold requires some justification. Weinstein's theory also predicts a larger gauge group - I think it is Spin(10). Particle physicists will want to know whether it predicts the right particles and properties. This is a very special type of calculation done in particle physics labs rather than in geometric mathematical Institutes. So we probably don't know, unless such work is published.
I have thought since about 2015 that there is an 18-dimensional unification. I'd like to know your thoughts. This theory was first proposed in literature /First published here by Baaklini: journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.25.478
First of all thank you for the great overview! I am just a math undergraduate in his last few semesters and not a physicist by a long shot. So honest question, why is a 14 Dimensional Manifold a difficulty here? As far as I understand it the Problem of Stringtheory is that the Kaluza-Klein-Compactification of spacial dimensions not of symmetry dimensions is the problem. And Weinstein states here explicitly that (I think he calls it Endogenous Model) that U^14 is generated by X^4. So by Bundle theoretic viewpoints we should be in save waters there because our physical configuration space might be 14 dimensional but only 4 of those are spacetime and the other 10 are auxiliary symmetries like 2 U(1) and SU(2) and so on. Am I overlooking something here, I'd be really interested to know where if so but in any case thank you for your comment it really gave good context!
Stay humble and keep listening. Like any language you need to immerse yourself, you need to stay curious, and most importantly you need to stay humble when you feel like you’ve learned all of it and you watch a video like this and realize you learned nothing.
I have watched this now a couple times and maybe understand about 1/4 of it, if that. But thank you EW for sharing this discussion and stretching out the scope of our understanding of the binding principles of the universe. Further I am in awe of EW's tenacity at building this complex theory of theories and then having the courage to put it out there and defend it. I'll run thru it a couple more times. Thank you, awesome, liked, subscribed and shared !
Hello Eric, You have inspired me. From high school I have had a love and natural talent in physics I am 22 years old and have recently completed my undergraduate BA in Mathematics. You have inspired me to return to learning physics and attempt to as you say "go beneath Einstein" and unearth the source code of the universe. I want to be able to understand the lingo that you use when explaining your theory so that I can see what you see and help you change the scientific community to become more genuine and open to new ideas. Based on everything I have been presented I am inspired to continue higher education in order to obtain a clear understanding of the math and physics that you use in your theory. I am doing this because I believe that you are attempting to create a clear understanding of something that humans have been unable to clearly understand to this day. And I believe that there is a theory out there that will explain all the rules of the game. Now I am writing about this at 4 in the morning after not completely watching your video but I will keep on attempting to understand the picture your theory creates. and one day help accelerate the process and avoid getting bogged down by the ridged and harsh structure of our current scientific community.
There's almost unlimited physics and TOE lectures on youtube. This is definitely one of the most advanced and dense available. Ive only skimmed through it but he seems to have some bold ideas while also suggesting other ideas that conflict with what we believe we know to be true about the standard model.
Yeah no kidding. I often begrudge physics talks that dumb things down too much, but this is just outrageous! It was still fun to follow as much as I could, which was generously speaking about one eighth of it all.
Yea, it's almost like he's really effective at convincing people who are less intelligent than he is in math and physics that he knows what he's talking about.
Thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU!!!!! I so relate to your life struggle and totally agree about the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." I agree with being alone in discovery. It's not being anti-social, or that I couldn't find anyone "to play with." But, if it wasn't for my core center and my absolute refusal to do anything else but succeed in attempting to fulfill my vision, I wouldn't have succeeded in creating what I have thus far. I need to unpack your short hand so to be able to digest your presentation. I look forward to doing this. Thank you, again. Congratulations!
Eric is the most interesting voice in the world today. Very few people are brave enough to even ask the questions he is making a bold attempt to answer. Bravo to you, sir. What an inspiration to the world!
The Gods worriedly looked at each other. That night they drank coffee and double checked the source code of the sandbox. "They can't break out!" said Thor whilst staring into the glowing screen. "What if Hell breaks loose?!" said a buzzed Mars tightly clutching a mug emblazoned with "I love Physics".
I wouldn't usually spend time listening to a lecture I will have little ability to intelligably follow. However, due to the copious amount of excess time our virus has provided, (and my respect for Eric and his ideas) I'll give it a shot.
Many people online claim they've done language learning over time through watching and listening to what starts out as mostly not possible for them to follow.
@@ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack This happens too with the technical terminologies of things, I learnt to sound semi-credible with economics like that! For languages its better if you also add some kind of reading stimulus like subtitles so you can better follow what is going on
@@TheMushybees I feel you, my guy... I mean I have the luxury of at least having dipped my toes already a bit into manifold theory and topology in my major. So by now, it doesn't sound like a foreign language to me but still like every third word I go like "Wait what the Space of Metrics over X^4 is a 14 dimensional Manifold U that has 10-dimensional fibres?! How? Why should be true? Well, time to dig in MathStackExchange answers :D"
Happy birthday 🎉🎂🎈🎂. What's being 50 is like? Does it feel like you have lived a long time? How have your ideas compared to when you were 21? Did you understand this lecture? I have only ever taken mechanics at college with some self learning online but this went over my head.
Futuristic Gear Thanks! Its been a long time! But I still remember the first time I saw an episode of “Connections” where my mind was blown for the first time. I’m now fifty and I still am addicted to that explosion between the ears courtesy of Eric, Bret, Jordan, Ben, Sam, Heather, and others.
There is twice as much in the draft paper, but RU-vid won't let me link it. However, I can refer to my answer to the Quora question: "What has happened with Eric Weinstein's unifying theory of everything?" which includes a link to the .pdf
Seriously? This is complete nonsense. Please tell me as someone earning a B.S. in math that you realize the fact that he doesn't define any of these objects makes it meaningless? He's obviously not using any kind of standard definitions, because the typical meaning of "horizontal" and "vertical" as subbundles of the double tangent bundle is in contradiction with some of the most basic things he's saying...you should know better!
@@geometerfpv2804 I can understand your point of criticism regarding a lack of definitions. As a mathematician it's completely reasonable to hold Eric accountable for properly defining the objects he is working with. Maybe you can offer him that feedback somehow... I'm sure he would appreciate it. I guess, to play devil's advocate, Eric is working in the physics world where they are very loose with definitions. To make it clear though, I am not yet knowledgeable enough to identify the contradiction you mention. Can you elaborate on that for me please? Also, outside of the definitions, don't you think there's merit to relating various geometries in physics to investigate a framework for unification? It seems, at the very least, to be a good exercise.
@@rayal4395 42, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, is the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", calculated by a supercomputer named Deep Thought over a period of 7.5M years. (I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but I remembered hearing it so I googled that for ya)
As a five year old child in first grade I couldn’t understand who decided what speed was, why telephones worked faster than the speed of sound and why had we limited ourselves to these constraints I’m now 60 and my interest is alive again. I intend commencing a Physics degree next month. Thanks for igniting my brain again mate
"Why telephones work faster than the speed of sound" Lol I love it! What a noodle scratcher. Its similar to why I wonder when you wiggle your toes theres no time delay between your intent to do so and the act of doing it. It seems instantaneous...but it can't be
We all NEED TO THANK YOU. I feel hope for the first time since 1992 UCLA that I can get a job and I am not part of America’s throw away class anymore :) Godspeed Dr. - we desperately need you.
I don’t have the words deserving of how glad I am you a starting up your own podcast. We now don’t have to rely on others to invite you to their show, to listen to your ideas.
Mr. Weinstein, I dont have a background in differential geometry, but in my quest for a Masters of Mech Engineering I have done quite a bit of linear algebra, differential equations, and dynamic systems modelling which apparently gives me enough of a vocabulary to read the wiki pages on these topics (plus my lifelong amateur interest in theoretical physics) and actually arrive at some level of understanding of what you're doing. So... though your theory might be flawed (I'm not expert enough to say), I would like to thank you for finally opening this world to me. This is a paradigmatic example of the portal. Just to give one example, I now believe I should have been told about metric spaces long before my high school physics class tried to teach time dilation. Things make much more sense now! I'm diving into your world and its very exciting! Thank you. Edit: I have to reiterate, it really is such a beautiful way you frame the question to say can everything come from almost nothing, and then begin with x 4 and a straight jacket. Seriously we need middle schools to be playing these games!
This was amazing Eric. Somehow to the elgence and the beauty appears even though i don't understand one bit of the math. You truly are a great explainer. thank you.
You have my interest sparked!I follow alot of the phisist , quantum phisist and mathmatitions...but there's just something about you..I'm just gonna keep my ears eyes open and see where you go with this;) luv ya man..your a good human!
i honestly don't know anywhere near enough to understand the lecture(s), but i''m very happy for you, and selfishly really glad that mr. thiel was able to recognize your brilliance.
i'm so happy i got to finally see this!!!!!!!!! geometry was my first love in mathematics it took my to Trig and finally landed me in electromagnetics and Logic control systems. Boolean expressions still make me giggle in how something so simple can creating VASTLY complicated logic!! Some of this makes perfect sense to me other parts are admittedly over my head.. but i believe with time and more reading could be learned. but most of all i feel like your so much more onto something with this than anyone in the past 40 years as even attempted most likely out of fear of being cast out for not agreeing with the almighty that is einstein and GR. THANK YOU for shedding your fears long enough to expose us all to this and letting us breath fresh air on the matter!!!
The man is changing corners on us and then asking we offer such a family cow for magic beans. Null geodesics not connected, or all the same sphere smeared out??? Why don't we see this whole thoery?! Even the questions are multiple realizable.
I like what you are doing here, Eric. Thank you for providing us with some tools for which we may talk about the world in perhaps ways which have not yet been tried. About the general case of Geometry I feel that it will forever be connected as a word with Plato, who as you know said, whoever does not know Geometry cannot enter the doorway of his school, The Academy. Whatever must have been inside that Academy, in those rooms must have been very interesting constructively so as to call for a prior knowledge of Geometry by those who enter. You speak of much, I recall, of the outside, which is what is not measured but which contains data making for an asymmetry between that inside the Academy outside the Academy relationship disproportional. And, I like the case that with some of the interior walls of the Academy, you are trying to break down so that those in other rooms may communicate, and have something to talk about that can be shared, or unified even. And, the same goes for the wall of Plato’s Academy which separates the inside from the outside. Doing so would truly be a feat of inclusion! Aside from Plato, I read and reread much more Homer, especially the Iliad, where what separates the Greeks from the Trojans is not just the wall which surrounds the city of Troy, but another geological feature, a linear one, which happens to be the River Scamander, the very one Achilles fights as it represents one of the Gods, but he overcomes it and goes on to call out his foe, Hector from the walls to challenge him to death. If Greek Plato has the Academy as a border between knowledge and common opinion, and the landscape of Ilium of Homer has the River Scamander as a border between enemy and enemy, then the way to Unify Plato’s wall, and the way to Unite the opposing Armies of Greek and Troy, may look the same “geometrically” but in fact have a difference in compatibility. Perhaps those of the opinions for Plato represented the poets, those on the outside, whereas those who seek knowledge were the insiders within the Academy. Just as in Homer‘s story, there is a battle in Plato’s too where instead of the Greeks versus the Trojans, there was the poets versus the philosophers, Plato on the side of the philosophers, and Homer on the side of the poets. The only person I have ever seen try to unite successfully poetry with philosophy was the American pragmatist, Richard Rorty, a personal hero of mine, my Spiritual Brother. I have paused your lecture to give me a break to write this, but I am listening with enjoyment your ideas. Thank you again for your work. - Billy M.
One day a year we should be allowed to share any and all of the ideas in our head. Eric this is the internet, sharing crazy ideas every day of the year is what it is all about.
It's not that difficult. He's creating a system that transcends group or category theory in order to have a non contradictory maths network that can unify different mathematical physics equations in order to have a wholly consistent frame. Lol. In his ideation he's using a 4 dimensions fort instance axiom to reprisent nature. This seems arbitary but maybe it's to represent 4 forces of physics but I don't think that's it since this new theory assumes nothing in the physical world. If have gone with 0 dimensions . Anyways. He then wants to create differences in mathematical abstractions as scalers. So if you describe light in one equation you'd use a specific size and weight and scale that's consistent with other equations so therefore you'd be able to mix equations and no contradiction. You're using objective scaler functions. It's definitely going to solve alot.of problems . An example of this type of maths you can read about is univalent holotype theory. This is 22nd century maths
I have no idea why Im still watching this lol. I haven't understood a single word for the past hour and there's an hour to go but I'm not going anywhere.
I wish I had something material to add to this endeavor you're on Eric, but despite the fact I do not possess the tools needed to contribute directly, I would very much like to extend my gratitude and support for the fact you've held on and are stepping up. It takes strength and courage to do either, and I have a great deal of respect for your efforts. I wish you the very best of luck in this.
"Greatness looks like madness until it finds context." The portal collective rides with you, Eric, into the horizon not yet known. Thank you for everything; your life's work enriches us with hope.
@Helder Almeida Then you'll be happy to know that money probably is not an issue for Eric. As the managing director of Thiel Capital, he's most likely extremely financially secure.
Eric has spoken about 3 world view changing events in the last three years for me. For a contrarian anarchic capitalist...this is big. For the last 15~20 years I was only reviewing/refining my worldview...Eric has broken that 3 times in the last 3 years!!!! This is number 3.
Your a bad boy... your making me look up everything....such as names of great physicists...also what are vectors... tensors...spinners...etc....and I love it! Thank you! ❤️. It's all new to me... trying to upgrade step by step to understand the language of physics...I'm still a plebian 👍🤠
Spinors - Paul Dirac. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MpCUprl8SIM.html _Geometric _*_Unity_* explained in under 2 minutes ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wVlDoR_EMPg.html
I was a mathmajor being in my third semester when I listen to you talk about gauge theory. Now almost a year , a bachelorsthesis on differential topology and a lot of home studying on differential geometry later you drop this gem. I feel so stoked about the process of understanding this. Might take another year until I understand what fully takes place here but I already know I'll come back to this again and again and again until I get it!
@@tactics40 man to understand pullbacks and 1-forms properly you really have to have a solid grasp on the tangentspace und the differential or push forward. I remember around christmas when I wrote on my thesis, banging my head against that wall of a definition for about 6-7 hours straight and finally getting a working version of it in my mind. So if you're not offended by that, that's pretty impressive!
I have a degree in theoretical physics, and I could not follow this -- simply because I do not know even a fraction of what he is talking about. That is my failure and not Eric's. But this sounds very very interesting. I implore you, Eric, to have the conviction to develop these awesome ideas in a 'rigorous way' . I'm no good at notation either, but I would say you need a completely unified notation system to tackle this potential path to a unified field theory! Don't let detractors squash you. You speak of the problems with academia and science -- problems I witnessed and experienced well enough while at the University, enough so to put me off ever wanting to persue a PhD (also, I am probably not smart or conscientious enough) -- and you suggest the action that will help alleviate the hostility any theorist faces when they are suggesting something so radical: pay them more. I agree. But until that happens neither you, nor I, nor any 1 person can make that change happen. It would have to be something we all come together for. Until then, don't let that system stop you. This is that. This video was you not letting them stop you. Carry on! You have my support, the support of your fans. You're a brilliant mathematician, theorist and scientist. Honestly. Even if this road leads to a dead end, it would be a glorious dead end. Godspeed man.
@@littleripper312 you'd have to flesh out every concept before you talk about it. This is stuff the worlds greatest minds have problems with, its gonna be hard even with laymen version
I was compelled to listen the whole lecture, fairly clueless. Phrases like, “pulling back on the cotangent bundle” gradually became deeply meaningful. Like jazz. I definitely think Eric is onto something. There’s no doubt about it. Now I need to take another mushroom.
Yeah, no. "Pulling back on the cotangent bundle" doesn't become "deeply meaningful" to you just because you hear it being said 5 times in an hour. Taking a couple of courses on differential geometry on the other hand might help you with that.
This is amazing to have! I followed the math through the generalizations of all those equations to be able to map them all into that beautiful manifold model of existence, but I need to look into the physics contained in each of them to fully be able to comprehend this fantastic lecture. Thank you Eric! I love you, man!
As an artist I think and feel that your closing statement summed up the rest of it for me. And God knows as hard as I tried I understood about less than 1%.
I am very dumb when it comes to math but I get the same feeling of awe, inspiration, and beauty with this as I do with beautiful classical music. Thank you, Eric.
Honestly, thats a really, really apt comparison. I'm a student currently just entering into physics, and I don't have the first clue what he is saying mathematically, but it is in a certain sense like music. You don't have to understand the time signatures, structure, or individual notes, you simply admire the beauty of the composition and awe at the fact that a human could produce such brilliance.
@@soulsfang i don't almost any knowledge of phisics, but i take it the same way, like when use to listen to music in english when i didn't know the language, you follow your feelings, like when he first mentioned the e8 structure of the li group (on which garret lisi, an outsider of phisics, was working) as the most important structure in the universe, i suddendly believed he was on something, sometimes you have to listen to your gut feelings, like he is doing since he was 18
Every time I watch this, I understand more and more of what is being explained and see the universe so differently. All the "holes" in the mainstream physics taught to society at large by mainstream educators always had contradictions and conflicts that I could never parse. I'm now watching this among Eric's other GU videos, for the 4th time and I still find it exhilarating and informative. I dream of working on this stuff some day, unfortunately I also have learning differences, so access to material and mentors is tough. It's videos like yours Eric that allow my understanding to evolve and my interest to continue, thank you for bringing this and all your other insights about thinking differently to the world. It has had a meaningful impact on my life!
@@michaelugghhh1729 if only that were the case. Meritocracy is no longer the metric we use, it's all about influence, money, power, And your name. Sure there are room for outliers, but an outlier I am not, just slightly above average.
Amazing, well-articulated and very poignant backstory that accompanies this brave presentation. I'm sure there are many people who, like me, are with you, Eric.
I have a graduate degree in physics. Here is a summary I made that gives some background and perspective to the level and type of math to understand Eric's ideas. I hope it helps some folks. Each level designates a major increase in complexity, and can roughly (though not necessarily intended to) correlate to: 0 elementary school, 1 high school, 2 undergraduate, 3 graduate, 4 PhD/post grad/professional. MATHEMATICS 0 Numbers, number line, arithmetic, circles, squares, triangles. 1 Variables, equations, algebra, exponents, quadratic equation. Functions and graphs. Simple vectors. Geometry (pi, area, volume, lines, graphs), trigonometry, log. 2 Calculus, differential equations including partial differential, linear algebra (systems, matrices, operators), Euclidian vector spaces and vector calculus. Complex analysis is useful. 3 Abstract algebra (mappings, groups, rings, fields, especially group theory and group representations). Lie groups (importantly the Poincare group). Basic differential geometry, in particular Riemannian geometry in conjunction with tensor calculus. (Affine geometry is useful too). Exterior algebra. 4 Topology (point-set, algebraic including cohomology, and differential), differentiable manifolds, differential forms. Fiber bundles: associated bundle, principle bundle, tangent and cotangent bundles. Category theory and functors. Vector-valued differential forms, specifically Lie algebra-valued forms and adjoint bundles. Killing fields, Clifford algebra, Weyl algebra, Hopf bialgebra are useful. PHYSICS 0 Motion, matter, basic concept of energy, atoms. Dimensions of space. Electricity. Magnets. 1 Newton's laws including gravity. Kinetic and potential energy and momentum. Elementary particle physics. Electric current, Ohm's law, electric and magnetic fields. Optics is useful. 2 Classical mechanics (coordinate systems, equations of motion, classical waves). Electromagnetism, potentials, Maxwell's equations. Quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation, electronic structure of atom). Special relativity (Minkowski spacetime, 4-momentum). 3 Advanced mechanics: Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, variational principle, Noether's theorem. Quantum theory: Hilbert space, quantum harmonic oscillators, Dirac equation and Dirac spinors. Basic quantum field theory (i.e. canonical quantization), quantum electrodynamics. General relativity. 4 Gauge field theories, Yang-Mills equations, electroweak unification, quantum chromodynamics, standard model unification. Higgs mechanism. General theory of spinors. Modern formalism of general relativity. Note that M theory (supersymmetry, supergravity, superstrings) is good to be aware of but appears at odds with experimental evidence.
I dont know if you tried to impress peo plewith your comment, but Physics is very simple, is not some misterious realm. Eric Weinstein is not the guardian of some secret knowledge that is not available for the rest of us. The scientific comunity dont take his delusions of importance seriously.
To provide some context to non-physicists/mathematicians about the level of material in this lecture: I've recently finished my master's in physics at Oxford, where a lot of my lectures actually took place in the very lecture theatre Eric is standing in here. I'd say I was able to *somewhat* follow the flow of concepts being discussed, and I had to take most of the maths as a given. I would need time, probably on the scale of year(s), of studying - particularly around groups and gauge theory - to actually be able to follow the maths presented here.
To me as an outsider of the academic field i`ve find it impossible to figure out Dr. Weinstein, he might be an "Idiot savant" for all i know. Should he be the real deal though, humanity's fate could rest on the shoulder of those whom exploring and publishing his works. Hugh risks involved for those whose sacrifice months of their time to investigate but what could be the outcome?
@@jamesfrancese6091 I probably won't know it either by the time I pass my quals (equivalent of a master's). Then again, I'm in Astrophysics so my time is better spent learning other things. But the PhD program is simply in "Physics". The field of physics as a whole is huge, fundamental physics (what Eric talks about) isn't the same as other fields. Astrophysics, cosmology, material physics, condensed matter physics, high energy physics, geophysics, biophysics, particle physics, QM, QFT, etc...
Noble aspirations Eric. I think with A.I we will get closer, as there are paradigms involved which no human can comprehend, but whatever A.I discovers, it won't mean anything to us :-)
Eric, I hope you read comments. I've been waiting years for this. I've had my suspicions of what you were getting at based on comments that you've made in the past. Good for you putting it out there. I hope you and your family are well. Best, C
I never comment on videos but seeing how emotional your are when you talk about this stuff is touching, I hope it turns out great and I hope you know you are an inspiration to hundreds of thousands of people, best of luck sir!
The lecture was great, like watching The Book of Genesis being told in mathematical form. Got a little shaky about 3/4 through, but it's complex - there has to be room for reiteration. I hope you give yourself some grace. It's a brilliant theory. I'm excited to see it develop.
I love this video, wish there was more of this. Would love to see you sit down with either a group, some supporters and some adversaries to go through this. As opposed to seeing them just try to fight the battle in the media you should challenge them, and if they will not accept to do it publicly, then just offer a donation or fundraiser.
Actually, he already has been challenged. A Theo Polya and Tim Ngyuen have written a short response which includes a few pointed questions to Eric about this theory. Eric has not yet replied publicly to them, but I suspect it will be coming soon.
Jester J : I agree. But the language he used I have no definition for in probably 75% of the entire lecture. I feel like this just wasn’t meant for me. Which is fine, because his sincerity is so clear. I feel like this was meant to disenchant certain academics while simultaneously throwing them a replacement enchanting idea.
Eric: Grab a work light and bounce it off a bed sheet; put that behind the camera; if you want to get fancy, grab a shower curtain and put that between you and the light/sheet (technically a "book light"). Throw a few blankets on the floor for the reverb. (great episode)
@Alyosha How to duct-tape professional lighting. :D @Mat3431433 Put some books under the laptop. :D We are listing for the content here though, great episode!
If you end up reading comments today I just wanted to say good job and thank you. You probably won't gain many new subscribers with this format please know how much fans of your work appreciate this effort. Thank you!!!
