Hello you savages. Watch the full episdoe with Eric Weinstein here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PYRYXhU4kxM.html! Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D and more from AG1 at drinkag1.com/modernwisdom
@@ChrisWillx Eric is trying to show people the oppressive and pedantic relationship between string theory and physics. The Big Bang Theory (tv show) is a perfect representation of this. Sheldon Cooper is always trying to maintain "his spot." He does this with his pedantic nature and an oppressive roommate agreement. Sheldon keeps Leonard around so he can dunk on him. Eric is trying to help Leonard rip up the roommate agreement and get a spot at the table.
@@bruteht4655 More like he's trying to show the rest of the world that Sheldon's apartment is kind of a shitbox and folks should stop trying to be the scarlet pimpernel in front of the king. It's gross.
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
Eric Weinstein is not alone in saying that string theory was a very expensive, time-consuming, and talent-intensive dead end, but he does say it loud and clear, without hesitating to give names. I like people who call a spade a spade.
Darwinian evolution has hilariously ended up being exactly the same yet hardly anyone has the spine to talk about it. Largely only the old timers whose career is over.
@@Redbaron_sites Well a very famous biologist called Denis Noble flat out came out and said evolution can't work, never will and needs to be completely replaced. The theory is dead. He cites epigenetics as just one critical issue it can't address.
Science has always been politicised. Remember Bruno? Humans will never change. Even in a thousand years, science will still be like this. That's just what we do
Science in its current state is broken. The gatekeeper mentality of the scientist that got into a powerful position is so detrimental to progress, it's such a shame. Let's just imagine a young physicist comes up with a brilliant paper showing that no matter how big the accelerators we will never be able to find dark matter particles this way. No journal with focus on particle physics will accept that paper as the gatekeepers will say no. And hence hinder progress of the field.....
I’m an almost 50 yo scientist, and I concur. If the public knew what even I know, they’d be irate and disgusted. There are things proven to be a distillation of evidence or inherently falsifiable, yet it’s somehow still a theory. Every scientific field is politicized now, and you either play by their rules, or your career and everything you’ve worked for, is for nought. It’s sickening.
Physicists diss via peer reviewed papers (in intellectual but often brutal ways). Weinstein has four publications (two unfinished/incomplete 'drafts') and only his dissertation paper from 30 years ago was cited three times in other scientific work. This man is no scientist, there is no current work, nor is there past work of any significance. He seems very salty about that, so he starts grievance mongering like a true guru & grifter.
Academics are driven by ego...always have been. That, and the fact leading edge science will always be controlled by Corporations, Military and Government.
This is what happen in science (and philosophy) all the time, People make a theory, they get fame, funds, books, interviews from that and then even if this theory later become obviously wrong they will go ahead, because of egos, because to not have to say "i wasted 30 years behind a wrong theory", because they got money from that. That's why when Planck said "science advance one funeral at a time" he was right on so many fronts.
SAME goes for archaeologists!! If they acknowledge all the new findings, new timelines and the changes it will do to history - they would need to let go of their past "paradigms", which is (like you said) their ego - nothing to do with actual science, yet everyday people look up to these guys.. what a shame..
It does not matter what topic Eric talks about. I'm always riveted...and I'm always left with the absolute conviction that nobody else on earth says so much, while being so compelling, while actually communicating so little.
I'm starting to refer to his talks as scholarly yapping. The art of telling a thousand intellectual words but somehow managing to avoid even a single sentence worth remembrance.
Eric keeps saying nobody took his work seriously but he's summarily dismissed the one person who did go through it all in depth and publish a critique... Have to admit Weinstein is pulling a Trump with that one.
51 now. And I’m long convinced if you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough and not giving yourself a fair platform to compete life, you’ve handicapped yourself tied 1 arm behind you back In trying to be successful. If you’re not scamming cheating and cutting corners you’re not in the same game as the big boys. Great kings and great crimes. Nobody gets that far and high in life without stepping on a lot of toes. Period, And yes, I’ve been cheating for a long time and it worked. And I don’t feel guilty because I don’t scam other people I care about, I pay all my debts and deal I negotiate, they just may have thought my negotiating was cruel and nasty and strong and pushy, but that’s winnings , winning isn’t pretty
@@hoopslaa5235 I don’t scam, I don’t cheat, I don’t cut corners, I do my best to be as truthful as I can be. There’s no duty honor country anymore, just me me me me money money money. It’s the new religion. Now we have incentive structures designed to destroy 90% of the population and make 10% the ruling class. It’s insanity beyond its wildest dreams.
I agree with Eric to a point. There has always been an institutional bias in physics toward one particular point of view - and that view changes depending on who is the old sage at that moment. Go back to the 1930. This young student on his way to England from India was reading some papers and doing a few calculations as physicists do when they are bored and developed a mathematically rigorous proof of a phenomenon he was sure existed. He was sure Einstein's equations and what had been published about quantum mechanics demanded it. Gets to England. Through some back and forth between this student and other professors the work was published. This work happened to go against the theories of the greatest British physicist of the time, Sir Arthur Eddington. And this young fellow was just a student. A bright fellow, but still just a student. So, even though no one could find a flaw in the math, due to Eddington's beliefs, no one would support the young student publicly. Turns out - the student was Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. What he calculated today is known as the Chandrasekhar limit - the exact point when a supernova explodes and a neutron star is created. A fellow at Cal by the name of J Robert Oppenheimer took this as a go ahead to start the groundwork for calculating at what point a black hole is created - which led him to head something called the Manhattan Project. The Chandra X-ray Observatory in orbit was named after him he was so monumental to high energy cosmology. We have watched what he calculated to happen really happen basically in real time. He is one of the greats of cosmology. BUT - it still took 50 years for him to get his Nobel Prize. Even though he had been shown to be correct decades earlier. That bias is real, even when the work is correct and proved it so. What to do about it? Who knows - it is very old that bias.
You're walking in the woods There's no one around and your phone is dead Out of the corner of your eye you spot him Eric Weinstein He's following you, about 30 feet back He gets down on all fours and breaks into a sprint He's gaining on you Eric Weinstein You're looking for you car but you're all turned around He's almost upon you now And you can see there's blood on his face My God, there's blood everywhere! Running for you life (from Eric Weinstein) He's brandishing a knife (it's Eric Weinstein) Lurking in the shadows…. Physics superstar Eric Weinstein Living in the woods (Eric Weinstein) Killing for sport (Eric Weinstein) Eating all the bodies Actual cannibal Eric Weinstein
Nguyen explains on his podcast, it's hilarious. Eric had a theory that nobody took seriously a d he got mad nobody looked at it. So Nguyen did, and for like 7 years now Eric goes on every show blasting academia but he refuses to acknowledge the one published in-depth critique of his work because the co-author of the critique remained anonymous... As if that matters. Eric's feelings got hurt then he got embarrassed for making a scene so he doubled down, as humans tend to do when pride stings. But he's so smart he's worth listening to if you take the whining with a saltlick. 8:35 "they'll never eat their words, they'll just keep lying..." 😂
I think that he is saying string theory will never go anywhere or produce anything but it is being used as a distraction. They were breaking new ground with anti gravity and zero point energy in the early 50s and it all stopped. He thinks they took it underground and are hiding tech from the world using string theory as a permanent dead end.
@@karagi101But that's just a popularity contest. What contributions did Leonard deliver to physics? The only difference between Leonard's and Eric's theories is that Leonard's theory is proven to be wrong. Whereas Eric's theory was just hand waved away without consideration. I've seen people work on Eric's theory. At this point Eric's theory stands on the same level as Wolfram's theory. Eric's problem is not that there are other theories. Eric's problem is that none of these theories got any light because the string theorists decided that only string theory is worth listening to. Which means for all other scientists it's either become a string theorist or wait till the theory reaches its logical conclusion. How many scientists have died with their theory being considered in the past 50 years because of this weird tunnel vision upheld by non-scientists. Dogma is anti-science.
When they started saying follow "the science" I thought, they seem to think science is an oracle like The Sybil. EDIT: Modern spelling of the ancient oracles is "Sibyl."
Eric encapsulates the experience of being led up a garden path. The confidence in his own voice is very convincing. His confetti of word drops pull you along the path to each curvature of promise until eventually you find yourself right back where you started.
@@brotherrogue2310 weinstein is mad because he has a ridiculous theory, that real physicists laugh at. so he's become anti science. this is the guy who is selling ivermectin, bro. he has rejected science, because science rejected him.
@i3dont3care3 OK... A mathematical physicist getting gangsta. Is that better? Geez. There's always someone who just has to correct everything. Don't be that guy. It's corny.
Eric is one of the most prolific complainers on youtube, but the community does not view him as a top nerd in physics. This is precisely why he is upset. Leonard Susskind, however, is viewed as a top nerd within the community.
@creightonvilsack9514 bingo. Eric doesn't know physics you have to spend decades studying physics to understand physics. He spent decades studying math... the irony is that string theory isn't really physics it's got a lot of stuff that hurts your intuition if you don't first master real physics... same thing with the guys who studied super symmetry. Very unfortunate waste of brain power. But omelets need broken eggs. I knew Suskind Eric doesn't seem to. Suskind could answer tough questions about gr qm stat mech and particle physics off the cuff and teach that stuff in his sleep. He also researched string theory. Most grad students that I knew who studied string theory didn't know physics... except for a couple of Suskind's grad students. That's a pretty important bit of data.
@@creightonvilsack9514 Within his OWN community, I think you mean. I'm not defending Weinstein, but that's part of the same problem: each one says the others are full of shit and are ruining the reputation of Physics in general. Well, they've got the last part right, for sure. Or as somebody once put it, "two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong".
He is a great podcast guest, a very charismatic man and a great person to promote physichs and math. But he has done nothing to for his respective fields of science. If you look a bit deeper you can find many faults of his, so better not, enjoy him in a podcast here and there and take everything he says with a grain of salt
This.... this is why the smartest minds have yet to develop cold fusion, zero point energy, hover cars etc. This. This deserves far more attention than it gets.
No. It's actually because the speed of knowledge goes at whatever speed it feels like. There is no set speed where knowledge is uncovered at certain regular intervals.
@@lookupverazhou8599 Knowledge sounds an awful lot like predestination or the fates as you describe it.What God determines the pace of knowledge in this faith of yours? Furthermore, there is either the speed of knowledge, as you say in sentence one, or there is no set speed, as you say in sentence two. You contradict yourself AND make no logical sense.
@@lookupverazhou8599 it seems to me everyone just dreams up answers while they sleep to these impossibe questions throughout history. we need more sleep scientists. :)
String theory has yet to make a prediction that was testable and wasn’t explainable by another theory. It has not made a prediction, that is unique to string theory, that we could actually test and prove. It may never.
Hollywood takes it seriously, proving it’s ridiculous. In all seriousness, any rational person could see long ago it violated known physics and the scientific method. But, but, but we had “celebrity” scientists that said something and had lots of letters in front of their names so the gullible and pliable went with it.
Because the mean string theorists bullied him out and he’s taking to every fringe podcaster to get the word out! This guy is the real deal look at his kill bill references.
I knew when I watched the Nova episode about string theory, and the assumptions needed to give it any credence, that we would all be listening to this very conversation eventually. I am, by no measure, a mathematician. .
I can't really recall how many interviews I've watched with Eric now, but I still don't have a grasp of a single argument for why we should "hate" or "abolish" whoever is "in charge" of science. I mean for someone who seemingly is so invested in the topic, you'd think he would make more concrete cases for his reasoning, but instead we tend to just hear "get those these and them people out of the positions of power" and somehow that will make things better? I just don't really see it, he makes it very hard to follow his string of thought even though he clearly wants people to follow him, and I'm even of the mind of someone who WANTS to hear his thoughts. I don't like disregarding people just for the positions they hold, even if I don't fundamentally agree with that position. I want to hear his arguments, his reasoning, and his concrete examples of why the people he name drops are hurting science. But not a single reason or thought has stuck. Instead of rambling about WHO should be fired and WHO'S causing problems, instead just explain WHY they should get fired and WHAT'S the problem that they supposedly are causing. I always leave these interviews feeling like I've listened to a thousand words, but not a single actual sentence worth much. Some fine scholarly yapping, but where's the substance. For all we (as listeners) know, he's just a man involved in funding and has an academic PhD background in physics - and while that in itself is a credible paper, it's not a green pass for him to assume people will just take his ideology at face value and run with it. If Eric can't present himself as more than just a man with some beliefs, that ultimately can't ever be more than a personal hill to stand on. It may very well be a fine hill, but it is his own, and he doesn't really do much to bring others to his point of view.
_but I still don't have a grasp of a single argument for why we should "hate" or "abolish" whoever is "in charge" of science_ Perhaps that's because that's not what he says. What he says instead (didn't you say _ you'd think he would make more concrete cases for his reasoning, but instead we tend to just hear "get those these and them people out of the positions of power" and somehow that will make things better?_ ) is that we should get all the string theorists and their opponents into conferences and have a series of proper academic debates. That seems like an eminently reasonable concrete proposal to me. We used to do that sort of thing. Why not now...unless it is as Eric says, 'trolls with PhDs' have damaged careers through reputation destruction, which has also happened before (Alfred Wegener, remember?).
Basically string theory has been the go to theory in physics for 40 plus years now, taking all of the funding and destroying other people's theories and sometimes livelihoods along the way. It has managed to deliver pretty much nothing whilst still screaming "I'm right and you're wrong!" and it is time it was abandoned for the BS it is, allowing funding and work to go to other theories. I guess you could call it science / academia twaddle with no meaning in the real world....
@Real_MisterSir I've listened to a lot of Eric's discussions and rants. He wants the universities to allow researchers to research and have support and funding to pursue all kinds of ideas especially in science. Currently, the peer review system of publishing is a censor and serves as a gated access community that only allows acceptable ideas to pass. He wants less money going to administration and endless enrollment and more to the professors who invent and design and advance physics. For physics specifically, he doesn't like how the string theorist group has muscled out all the other physics pursuits and that string theory is dead and has nothing to show. He also doesn't like the US several decades bringing in numerous foreign graduate students in STEM fields with the excuse that home grown engineers and science people couldn't be found. It was a smokescreen for getting free workers as graduate students rather than paying higher wages in science fields with the people that were already in the US. These are some of his beefs as I recall.
"This perspective is reminiscent of climate change theories, or rather, the global warming narrative. The real issue isn't CO2; it's the Sun. Unfortunately, academia has become too invested in perpetuating this misconception."
Weinstein is motivated by politics more than science. He knows that attacking scientists and scientific consensus will get him the attention he craves.
@@paulczar well, all I can say about it is in my small world I wanted to learn. Let the teachers fuss or brawl or punch each other out. But let them teach
It blows my mind how our society is so dependent on research like for medical stuff for technology and physics and in chemistry. Who's doing that research though? How much money do they make? Most of it's done by people who don't make a lot of money or any money at all even. There are people out here working on research that will save people's lives and they will receive absolutely nothing for it
The upper echelons of science are exclusive and terminal. You don't switch theoretical models once you're a part of a lab and those labs take decades to reach the top so no one can even explore alternative models.
Reminds me of when I was at this conference for Quantum Information theory and Quantum Gravity @Berkeley and Jonathan Oppenheim gave a talk on his novel Stochastic approach to Gravity and this one string theorist in the room who had presented on ads-cft earlier just berated the hell out of him, saying something like "I have to interrupt sorry, you dont know anything about gravity, you don't deserve to speak🗣️!". Hilarious really but also kindof sad, its true that their frameworks don't work together but to my knowledge his approach wasn't wrong and we really should be more open to ideas in the community. We eventually got them to take the beef outside 😂.
I like Leonard Susskind talking about black holes and wormholes a LOT. I’m not a string theorist or talk about that much. BUT in general, this is a HUGE problem in academia and science. The school system and how we learn today is a hive of left-brain training, the emissary being groomed to be the master of something it by definition cannot see and has no business doing. These are SYMPTOMS of a massively messed up educational system. It’s the tip of the iceberg. I LEFT GRADUATE SCHOOL after 4 years in a PhD program because I knew they didn’t know what was going on. They were technicians solidifying themselves into a niche. Rarely did I ever find people truly motivated by higher truth-or, MOST IMPORTANTLY, willing to sacrifice for it. ❤ even if there were those who were truly creative and motivated they are hamstrung by not putting competition and social politics in the forefront of everything they do. The irony is that science was invented to keep politics out of truth/seeking.
Are you suggesting that even in a modern educational system that the students are being fed a narrative to "train them" to think in a certain direction? I like what you're saying, I'm just trying to better understand.
@@eightytwofootball what is most important is left behind. Just because gravity is subtle, doesn’t mean it doesn’t form worlds, that it doesn’t form the life giving warmth and radiation of suns. Humans living their daily lives don’t think much about gravity but it’s very important. This is what meaning is to lives and civilizations, it enables thought and creativity. I explain it better in my book “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind”.
I lost a lot of respect for Michio Kaku when he did a complete 180 from ridiculing UAPs to saying, it’s obvious we see vehicles that defy physics in our skies.
Reminds me of the bs brian cox is always peddling, he refuses to acknowledge some of the greatest most established science of his own field. The spacetime theorems that establish the universe had a finite start, because he refuses to follow where the science leads and puts his atheism first.
@@JB_inks I flat out just refuted your statement before you even made it lol. Ridiculous you just commented that. You are also pretending he follows and accepts where facts and science leads when I just refuted that and you are inferring the thought process of his mind on top of that.
I was typing out a comment on this video about him and then his name came out of Eric’s mouth I was like “Holy Shit!”. He was talking about arrogant string theory guys and michio kaku popped right in my head. He makes statements as if they are gospel and yes, him talking about the UAP stuff was just talking straight out of his ass but he said it as if he was right or somehow an authority on it when it’s obvious to all it’s pure speculation on his part. He’s just been propped up because of all the media he has been in like tv shows, RU-vid clips, ect…
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep but science DOESNT show the universe had a finite start. We only know what the universe did up to the plank time, not before. For all we know the universe compressed into a tiny point and then just re-expanded into what we see now. You didn’t refute anything in the other guys comment, it’s ironic you are saying that Brian cox is letting his atheism get in the way of his science while you are letting your theology get in the way of yours and are ignoring what science actually says and trying to conform it to fit in with your religion. Athiesm doesn’t have anything to do with science, that’s something only a thiest would say. Go study the Big Bang a little more, we CALL it the start of the universe but that’s for practical reasons at the end of the day we have no clue of things before the plank time. If your theory is “god did it” what do you even care about science anyways? Do you think the earth is also 10k years old and that we all came from Adam and even and are products of incest?
it sounds like the academic elites are playing the elite musical chairs game for the highest chair of the prestigious position or title, recognition, popularity, and publicity. it is a sign of academic decadency due to the over abundancy of competing elites.
@@Real_MisterSir at what cost? fake or false or pseudo or unproven sciences and theories that are an infinite loop of obsessed useless research using current, stagnant knowledge and tech and wasted time of decades, instead of moving on, creating new useful proven working knowledge and tech. thereby, halting new discoveries. i guess scientific culture is just as self-destructive as the other socio-cultures. historically, socio-declines cause it to have a cult-like religion to it. over time, survival of the intellectual fittest will kick in and weed the false prophets.
@0:25 thank you for guiding Mr Weinstein back to a rational point of view. To listen to Eric say Leonard Susskind is not a leading String Theorist is just nonsense. Why is Eric Weinstein even worth talking to? Eric is just noise. I might just edit this every few minutes when I hear Eric talk like he even rates as practicing physicist.
@@craigsmith1443The reasoning is simple. The guy who thinks he’s smarter than everyone and opines on things he’s not qualified to opine about, proposed a theory and the entire physics community rejected it. He’s now butt hurt and out to discredit everyone.
@@karagi101 _The guy who thinks he’s smarter than everyone and opines on things he’s not qualified to opine about, proposed a theory and the entire physics community rejected it. He’s now butt hurt and out to discredit everyone._ That is neither evidence nor reasoning. That's merely judgment. You have reasoning and evidence?
@@craigsmith1443 The evidence was right in this video. Leonard Susskind is a world renowned physicist. Renowned by fellow physicists. His physics awards include:Dirac Medal (2023), Oskar Klein medal (2018), Pomeranchuk Prize (2008), Science Writing Award (1998), Sakurai Prize (1998), Boris Pregel Award (1975). And we have Weinstein here saying he’s not a great physicist. I think that’s proof enough. But if you want more proof, look up Weinstein’s theory and how its been received by the physics community. Zero waves. Now ignored.
@@Randelgraft from how it looks he's making a joke. Like saying Nostradamus could tell the future. You say 100 things and maybe you get 1 thing right, only because cuz you made a lot of random guesses.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
I just subscribed to your channel. This guest is the most INTERESTING of any I've heard in many years. He seems to have a grasp on reality and important issues in general that I find amazingly cohesive and well-supported. I'm impressed, and very few things truly impress me.
These academics are ruthless. Its like intellectual gladiatory combat. Very entertaining. Eric Weinstein is always an excellent interview I find. Very interesting fellow.
I wonder if Eric will ever figure out a way to do anything about this problem or if he will just keep complaining for the next 20 years without actually doing anything until he passes away
No matter how complex a topic Eric will find a way to make it much more complex. All in service of a fragile ego that demands to be considered the smartest person in the room. He's no fool, but he is the quintessential example of a dumb persons idea of a genius.
At 15 minutes the most OBVIOUS thing to say is, "That's very interesting, have you published a paper about it?" Then when you say no, maybe the questioner can say something like, "That's cool...my neighbor says one day we'll know what dogs are thinking."
You make it sound like publishing a paper is some easy little thing that you could tick off in an afternoon. regardless of that the big hindrance as with everything is most likely funding.. Hard to publish papers without funding I would imagine. I know exactly what my dog is thinking most of the time...
Eric was pushed out of academia and therefore the practice of paper publishing. He’s back to raise the alarm that the people who chased him out were full of it. The best venue for that is probably not an academic paper from a nonacademic.
@@mikestray76 not easy. But if you have a math PhD, people claim you're the smartest man on the Internet, AND you've been saying for YEARS that you have a TOE...put up or shut up. Money shouldn't be a hindrance for Weinstein... he's a hedge fund manager, plus, writing papers is cheap. So congrats... you're as understandable as Eric is.
Good cinematography. And I was gonna say thank god you understood that the close-up goes inside the medium shot, which almost everybody ignores, but you broke that rule yourself in your promo clip at the end.
I never felt string theory adequately describes the universe. When I first started studying physics, I felt that there were a lot of holes in the story. But then I felt the same way for Hertzian logic, as well as the concept of electro-dynamics in regards to the vacuum of space as described, and gravity. When I was able to describe the spacial geometry of an isolated electron, and find out decades later what scientist were able record in 2008, it confirmed a lot of things in my head about theories. The current standard model is barking up the wrong tree, and we need a new description and model. The science has to change by destroying the current field, because there are too many trolls, politics and special interest corrupting what should be a source of truth. It is the dominant reason why I left UCLA Physics behind in the mid 90's, because I felt my pursuits would be ridiculed, because I don't follow the flow of grain of logic. I am too much of a rebel. I am a total fan of Eric and Sabina... even though I don't always agree with their views. They represent the honesty absent in the field.
When I first saw the high dollar PBS NOVA production about introducing "String Theory" with Brian Greene, I thought to myself, "Where did PBS suddenly get all of this money for all of these high-end fancy graphics that don't explain anything?" My next thought was, "Brian Greene is talking gibberish. None of this makes any sense. How smug can you be?" That was decades ago. I still can't believe it. Utter rubbish. I stopped supporting PBS after that. And I founded a PBS station.
@@zipperpillow I remember when I had my first professor tell me: It has been verified that a vacuum in space is empty as opposed to the argument of aether. Then I remembered the Kasmir Effect experiment, and thought to myself, someone is trying to blow smoke up my ass. I used to do kinematic experiments with the transfer of energy thru certain materials, ie metal bars to determine the transfer rate of the wave. The denser the material, the faster the wave. Then I thought to myself, what if the fabric of space is so dense with material, that the wave generated is at the speed of light? Sorta like a hyperfluid. Particles can theoretically travel in a dense fluid matrix, and when accelerated, leave a density of waves in its wake. Then an object going relativistic speed would create a gradient of standing waves of gravity, the faster it tried to go, the mass from the gradient of standing waves would increase contributing to the mass of the object. I actually did the math on it, and it did correlate, and explained why when a mass goes relativistic speeds, mass increases. There is a gravity potential being created, that generates waves. You can't accomplish that if there is no energy potential the space would remain flat. So space-time itself, is an extremely dense energy field, with so much energy in it, you could potentially create a new universe within the span of a micron. Now the whole reason why we observe expansion...whoa... thats because each point in space does a cubic expansion based the entropy of higher dimensions. That's right, higher dimensions are breaking down to give way to manifest 4-3d space, and for each point that does that, theoretically you would see a flux of virtual particles coming from a different dimension to create the new point.
@@zipperpillow 1. I drank way too much coffee today. 2. my brain is hyperactive and ocd. 3. If what I wrote is more along the line of the how on the universe, it does legitimately dis on string theory.
I do appreciate Eric's interpretation and intellectual 'opinions', but this guy's whole schtick is comprised of speaking to people with half his intellect and acting like his word is Gospel. He projects the same undesirable attributes as those he condemns. It's always the same with him. He just likes to flex by being unnecessarily deep about 'everything', but takes a simple comment from someone like Susskind and claims to know the operation of his mind.
Yea I have yet to hear a single well reasoned argument from his side. And not necessarily one I would agree with, just any argument really. Anything that goes beyond the surface level "these people in these positions are screwing it over for everyone else. They should all get fired" -said 10x over without ever actually touching on WHAT it is they're doing that is so bad. Aside from every industry seeking position of reverence and power at the very top, but that's to be expected no matter what once you get within the top 1% of any field of work.
@@Real_MisterSir to be expected, and then to be avoided. Just because the paths are predictable does mean they're right. His point is the people with the power and money need to start admitting they're wrong, and use their incredible intellect to teachh something worth teaching, instead of continually digging their own grave.
I don't understand most of the high level theoretical physics, etc. But even as a normal everyday non-physicist I know intuitively that string theory is BS. It's been around for decades without ever producing or revealing anything amazing about the universe and without changing fundamental physics. Obviously what we don't see as the general public is all of the political and funding battles that have been going on. Eric (in my opinion) seems to be a very upfront and honest person when he talks about these things and it sounds like String theory has for decades existed at the expense of other 'real' and / or potential game changing theoretical physics ideas. If he is accurate and it has set us back years for nothing then he has a right to be pissed off as we all should be.
To understand his approach involves learning his experience with academia throughout his life and his brother's, too. His approach, without understanding his history, would seem blunt, but there is an involved history behind his frustration.
Dr. Weinstein is unfortunately one of the brothers grim. They're media personalities, and associated with the right-wing movement of Thiel. Eric is bright but I fear he's pulling a media play here as well. He's never been a physicist (he's a mathematician), never been a professor of anything, and is instead a businessman (managing director of Thiel Capital). He's going to give a pronouncement about the end of string physics? Really? Let's do our research, folks. His "Geometic Unity" theory was never a published academic paper. No peer review, just a lecture at Oxford that was roundly criticized by the vast majority of physicists. This is all hot air, from what I can tell from just a small amount of research on his background. Susskind is another story, widely respected and the recipient of multiple awards, even recently, for his ideas. Professor at Stanford, peer-reviewed throughout his career.
Awards in science mean nothing. Take Ivermectin for example. Noble-prized winning medicine demonized to obscurity. Also that Noble-prize winning scientist who advocated intraveneous high dose Vit C for curing cancer and general well-being, outcast by his peers.
The most threatening thing a young grad student or academic can do within academia is go AGAINST the circle-jerk and status quo. Those at the top of the hierarchy, who've spent their entire's life to get there, will squash down anyone who dares to jeopardize their legacy by finding something that disproves their life's work. I wish I were kidding. This is true at every major research institution, and no matter the discipline. It is a very rare academic at the top who is NOT full of narcissistic hubris. It is far, far worse at the most esteemed universities. The problem is, you generally have to have attended one of those highly prestigious universities before you see it first hand, and you have to be very closely involved before you can become a big enough threat to be targeted for distruction (usually by somehow being discredited). Most people in the periphery go along with it once they see the first person's entire career destroyed when they discent or...worse of all...are able to disprove someone's life's work. Your post suggests you've been duped by the "awards" and "peer reviews" and "reputation of Stanford" despite the fact that Stanford has a long history of hiring people who've falsified their research, and other less than reputable acts. You remind me of the people who won't believe a child in some religion has been sexually abused by the clerical leaders because "they're so highly esteemed" and "they've don't all this good for the community", and they've "won't all these awards for philanthropy"...or the spouse who is viciously abused by the other who is a "pillar of the community" and "attended an Ivy League university" and has "given so much to charity". It's like you have no understand of how pathological narcissists behave behind closed doors, how they are entirely driven to achieve so they can be 'admired" and what they're actually capable of doing to anyone who dare speaks out against them. They will do ANYTHING to not lose the public admiration they've worked so hard to obtaib their entire life.
So Eric's failed, half theory doesn't even get noticed by real scientists and boy is he maaaaad! He also professionally criticizes every single person who is not him. But somehow he's "famous"... kinda.
I’m not sure why people still listen to him. He is only known for whining on podcasts and speaking in extremely abstract terms that nobody can follow because it’s bs.
Just a lot of ad hominem and grievance, and even revenge. He seems to think he's Achilles and Leonard Susskind is Maxwell Smart. And he's got a pop analogy for everything.
I remember reading a book on string theory and thinking “this is BS. They keep adding equations and complexity to make it ‘work’ instead of seeing if it’s true”
