Theories of Everything: Cosmic Controversies with Eric Weinstein, Sabine Hossenfelder, & Lee Smolin 

This is brilliant advice.

When you have so many people, you have to moderate.

Actually I think there are too many clowns in the circus arena. A one on one moderation is far more interesting otherwise you get a clash for popular soundbites which Sabine wins. Eric for sure has the brightest mind, and all the others have failed for 4 decades now on our Expensenses. I would love to redo this with lee and Eric....

Bruh..if u had a podcast with impt ppl..whose knowledge exceed the course of an hour....YOU TRY TO STRUCTURE every second of interaction...i thought this was obvious

yes

Plus! He brought a couple toilet paper rolls this time. Got it 🤣

Hahaha! 😄👍👍

His explanation would nice fit into a Star Trek episode. eg Technobabble

His theory might look conclusive, but so did string theory, before being a dead end. He can't do all the work alone to make predictions. Even if he is right, it's a tremendous amount of work. He needs the science community. But he also won't trust it, because of his experience with the politics of publications. He needs to jump over his shadow and find allies like Sabine. Because he's an outsider nobody should give him the benefit of the doubt - so he needs to give some actual predictions and solve problems. That is what Sabine is saying. I wish him the best!

i cannot like this comment enough

that language is called mathematics. he's a mathematician. that's how mathematicians talk about complex geometry.

@@shaunhumphreys6714 Stephen Wolfram is arguably the better mathematician and he also laughs at Eric's mumbo jumbo.

@@jesperburns Wolfram kind of laughs at everything though. He's not a humble man.

@@billlyons7024 Very true but I was responding to a thinly veiled argument from authority, with someone who has authority on this subject. Sabine Hossenfelder also scoffs at Weinstein, if you like her better.

😂😂 Brilliant!

She has hosted a critique of _Geometric Unity_ on her blog by two individuals who: 1. didn't wait for Eric's paper even though they knew it was about to be published 2. published their response to his speculative eight year old Oxford University lecture 3. misrepresented his work in progress that aspires to be a _Unified Field Theory_ as being a _Theory of Everything_ 4. criticised it for not being a _Theory of Everything_ 5. misrepresented his equations of motion, leaving out 195 of them so it only works in a one dimensional Universe 6. misrepresented or misunderstood that his concept of the Observerse includes space-time (they think it does not) 7. criticised his theory for not making sense as they can not see how to get from the Observerse to space-time (space-time observes the observerse) 8. changed his notation from what he used in the lecture so their critique of his work was obfuscated to anyone wanting to critique their work 9. changed his theory by 'complexifying it' because they thought it needed to be and they were helping him out because they thought he had forgot to 10. criticised his theory for being complexified (in the way they had just changed it) as it doesn't fit within an uncomplexified structure group 11. overlooked an important slide in the 2013 lecture which showed that it was using a complexified structure group 12. gave interviews questioning whether Eric was a "crackpot" where they admitted to not having read his paper since it came out 13. gave whiteboard explanations explaining what was wrong with Eric's theory based on their flawed critique of it, where all of their four concerns were invalid as they had guessed what might be in Eric's upcoming paper (chiral, space-time supersymmetric, uncomplexified) and guessed totally wrong (non-chiral, optionally non space-time supersymmetric, complexified) even though they had had ample opportunity to read Eric's paper and realise their critique was entirely flawed 14. ambush Eric on DISCORD and try to trip him up about what he knows about the Seiberg-Witten equations he did his PhD thesis on 15. use Eric's wife's work in a RU-vid video without credit, annoying Eric 16. publish another critique of Eric and his wife's work, this time of _An Extention of Intertemporal Ordinal Welfare to Changing Tastes: Economics as Gauge Theory._ by Pia N. Malaney and Eric R. Weinstein. 17. chase down sceptic Michael Shermer, who Eric has spoken to, and get him to arbitrate a discussion about what is wrong with _Geometric Unity_ (nothing at all that he has thus far alleged, besides it is a work in progress), instigating for this on Elon Musk's X 18. no criticisms have come from the second anonymous critic who we are meant to suppose coauthored the response paper, but it could be that this second critic is actually a sock account being run by one critic seeking to gain fame from being seen to tear holes in Eric's work based off his misrepresentation of it, which means he has gaslit a lot of people who were curious to read Eric's work and have been dissuaded because they trust the joint authority claimed by two authors who could well be one person (who knows _Quantum Field Theory_ but not _General Relativity_ ), bolstering his credibility by having a coauthor who people will suppose has the expert knowledge in _General Relativity_ to be able to critique Eric's elaboration of it to 14-dimensions after mixing it with _Chern-Simons theory_ despite him never saying anything in the way of a substantive criticism about the _General Relativity_ aspect of _Geometric Unity_ in the response paper or in the two and a half years since Eric published his, which they apparently still haven't read other than to check §8 and do CTRL+F to search for "Spinᶜ(4)" expecting that its absence would conclusively prove something when other authors represent this with different notation.

Check out my one on one interview with her on the channel ! Let me know if you want her back

Have her back she keeps things simple and for what I see tried to be objective

Once I see prof dumb dumb skip the video..

She’s wonderful and keeps it real

Indeed

Ya sure you did

@@vitorschroederdosanjos6539 you just described 90% of my side projects 🤣

Yeah I'm not sure why he isn't publishing his work in an open and public forum. Put it on github.

He is a conman

@@Shelmerdine745, if that is true, I want to Physics community to get to whatever the truth is. If they do not, then Sabine's criticisms of the Physics community are not strong enough and then everyone loses.

9999tech The good physicists are not debating on RU-vid, they are researching and writing papers. Weinstein is just spreading conspiracy theories not matter what you ask him, totally paranoid narcissist. Runs in the family, unfortunately.

@@Shelmerdine745, no, I was in no way referring to RU-vid, but the science world, papers, conferences, etc. Sabine has a problem with "good physicists" and their decades long lack of real progress and spending 10's of billion on the next collider, which is wasteful since it will not reach the necessary eV levels to see new things which will be useful. Her points are valid. Sabine does not have a problem with Eric, since she spends no time focused on him.

Lol yeah. I hope he at least makes an effort release a review on his theory. Start from the basics, and make the tools available, then explain the theory. The way he formulates his Unity theory is so confusing. There are better ways.

Let's not forget the ptolemaic astronomers, who spent decades fine-tuning those epicycles. Sometimes the echo-chamber needs to be shattered by fresh ideas.

If Smolin isn't getting along with Eric then that's a major red flag. Smolin hates string theory and wants a beautiful and logical grand unified theory. He went out of his way to support and develop Garrett Lisi's multi-dimensional E8 theory and should be the exact type of person that would help Eric.

@Sean What you just said is an argument from authority and an invitation to group thinking, which is what Hossenfelder is cautioning everyone about, so she wouldn't agree with you. I agree that Eric could do a better job of explaining his theory to someone who doesn't yet have a physics phd, but having many decades of peer reviewed papers is merely community approval of previous activity. It doesn't guarantee that their approaches to current problems are correct.

@@cosminstanescu1469 Not an argument from authority. That *might* be something that was in play if Weinstein actually had any argument, whatsoever, to present, after years of stringing his marks along with the pretense that he does. He’s just buzzwords and fairy tales, all the way down. Every nut on a street corner has a “theory” about how the universe works, and if it gives your life meaning to pretend that their specific views on PHYSICS are equally valid to people who have actually spent their lives doing the work, and, yes, acquiring hard-earned credibility from their peers, then good luck hiring some random goof next time you need your plumbing fixed.

also, cuts of video, in scientific discussions, even when they would not lead to loss of information, are extreamely annoying.

This totally. Super awkward man

"We're gonna have to leave it there."

The A L G O R I T H M!!!

Why 10. Think about it.

@viralshield that’s the problem. With Sabine and her fans. There’s nothing in the world that’s wrong with genuine skepticism, but you can’t just become a preacher fo the orthodoxy either. Sabine needs to remember science and the nature of our understanding is always changing.

@viralshield you are treating science as a religion and Sabine as your preacher .

That's tongue in cheek for her lol

@@guyincognito8440 I highly doubt you understand anywhere near the level of math/physics they do, and to just claim someone is a con man, is just ignorant and irresponsible. And this kind of dogmatism is what is precisely killing academia.

I bet you don't understand even half of what they're talking about.

@@sombra1111 more than realise,

I think he should publish it on github.

But then he actually have to be held accountable for what he says

You can read his thesis, you just have to ask the university for a copy, which is what I think he wants.

he is in the process of doing the arxiv paper.

Tentatively April 1 2021 as announced by Eric on the Lex Fridman's Podcast of February 23rd.

Thanks that means a lot!

I'm not like a genius or anything but I have an MS in applied math and I'm doing a second MS in computer science. During my math years I took physics courses all the way up to Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics. I have no fucking idea what Eric is saying. Which is really amazing because the only reason this guy is famous is because he is basically a youtube "science popularizer", much like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, etc... all of them brought physics to an audience of non-mathematicians and non-physicists. Except there is a HUGE difference between Eric and the other people mentioned. 1) Eric has ZERO academic accomplishments outside of getting a PhD. 2) Eric, for some reason, cannot fucking explain anything to anyone. His only talent seems to be that he can mystify people, who haven't taken a high-school level course in calculus, with big math words.

@@xAssailantx supposedly if you knew these big math words, would you say the same? if you wouldn't know, why are you quick to judge? should he approach your curiosity with Simple English? how and when do we reach the complexity of a universe by doing that? it is obviously true that the complex ideas require complex vocabulary because the human cognitive span is limited only to a certain length of coherent thought. and btw, I think I've just answered why scientists seek beauty and elegance. there is no other way to grasp it and maneuver between the folds of a theory if it weren't simple enough. these things are already at the edge of what human intelligence is comfortable with. this is quite clearly the true reason why it is easier to pretend to do physics than otherwise. the rules of the game are very discouraging for the true thinkers. even you are doing this with this comment, and for no particular reason. I'm not claiming that Eric is inventing a language, at least when it comes to consensual mathematics, but even Tolkien had to invent his own languages to express himself better. but as with anything with life, it's a life's work to then try and describe this language to disinterested conformists like you, who wish to do everything by the book, and expect a paycheck for repeating the same thing over and over.

Think you are right with this one. I am doing a PhD in Mathematical Physics, so I have at least a rough understanding of most of the stuff Eric is talking about. I think he vastly overestimates his own efforts and capabilities, seeing himself as a misunderstood and excluded genius, and he is very happy to dish out lots of criticism to the Mathematical Physics community. Meanwhile what he puts forth himself as a "theory of everything" is at the moment at best a rough sketch of an idea and obviously at that level, many ideas can look pretty clever. It's certainly not unnatural to think like he does, that gravity using curvature tensors and then gauge theory doing so as well, hints at some idea where maybe it all can be formulated as a gauge theory or all in some kind of unified framework. A lot of the (mathematical) physics research is at least related to such ideas, including the string theory mainstream that he hates so much. He is just very set to contrast himself of the "mainstream", while I feel like the kind of stuff he does at best falls into the same issues we've been seeing in said mainstream, with a kinda focus on maths over physics. And then some of the ideas he sketches out that he thinks warrant further investigation have been investigated quite thoroughly and were pretty much dead ends. It's just that his "theory" is not nearly fleshed out enough to have even encountered major technical problems. I honestly am frustrated with the fact that he is even invited and played nice with in this discussion, since he really doesn't bring much to the table at all. He is just good at delivering a bunch of smart talk with a very overconfident attitude, name dropping various concepts from Mathematical Physics, while also somehow slamming the Mathematical Physics research that exists. Tbf he does put forth some legit criticisms, e.g. how the research institutions kinda developed a life on their own, where research direction is more determined by internal politics than by efficacy, but other people (e.g. Sabien Hossenfelder) present that criticism way better, and can point at least towards something akin to solutions, while his proposition seems to be that everyone should just listen to him, because he is (by his own assessment) a genius.

@@xAssailantx I think he is so popular because he is getting people to question our reality, intentionally or not. I don't know whether his goals have anything to do with the breakdown of the social/economic/political realm and people realizing how things there are not how they have seemed to be either. Is it more about getting people to think about all-encompassing esoteric, mystical/religious, meaning of life - nature of reality & consciousness things, as well as the sciences?

To me on the other hand, what Eric says sounds like the only adult in the room (except Lee). Only him is pushing the envelope, being serious and exploratory here.

with these guys your critique winds up on the bottom of the list.

I don't think this was a critique

@@MacNif Bingo

Eric , keep researching and trying to understand. I spent the past 10 years trying to understand, im still researching every day.

Mmm salad sounds good.

Or old lady haircuts

Aww, you’re just saying that…because he’s so, so much smarter than you. There, there.

Truly

Or weird moles

Eric Weinstein is a crank. Either accept it or just be one of his zealots.

@viralshield The heck you mean he can't finish a university semester? The guy has a phd in mathematical physics from Havard, also he has promised to publish written copies of his theory this year, we will see if he delivers on that, but the reality is not a lot of people are knowledgeable to understand GU, takes high level math that certain physicist don't even get to, and deep knowledge about quantum field theory, the average person's basic understanding of QM and GR are not enough to help them understand GU.

@viralshield You clearly have no idea what Mathematical physics is, and what do leftists have to do with the quality of the phd program?

@viralshield never read such nonsense , he has a maths PHD from Harvard , God almighty there's some lunatics on RU-vid.

@viralshield you are the one who couldn't understand it. which isn't an insult as a lot of people wont understand it that's fine in my book. It was your ludicrous claim that was very funny and complete nonsense. Read what you wrote , it was completely silly and childish . If you aren't even man enough to admit it that's fine . Keep saying a man with a PHD from Harvard in maths couldn't pass an exam at a decent uni. You make yourself look silly.

Well, Eric makes it clear later on. Where it leaves the rest of us is to bankrupt our societies giving particle physicists whatever toys they request, no matter how astronomical the cost and how unlikely and minimally beneficial the results they might achieve.

😂

@@DrBrianKeating It's always a bit cringey to me when people on these podcasts feel the need to state that they're a PhD. It doesn't really matter to a youtube audience, and just comes off as a bit of self-congratulatory elitism (even to those of us who also have advanced training). You can have no degree and have great ideas, just as you can have many degrees and shit ideas. So let's hear about the ideas, and let them stand on their own merit. I'll be more impressed when I'm intrigued enough to google you, find your academic background, and be impressed that you were humble enough to not need to mention it.

Who has multiple PhDs though?

Agree 100%. But this wasn’t my branding or graphics.

@Mr. H My point is, a PhD doesn't qualify you for anything. You can have one and still be a complete idiot. (And plenty of great ideas in history have come from non-specialists.)

He'll never do that, he can only make up word salads to confuse people even more. He's a crank.

Eric only published his draft because everyone (more importantly Joe Rogan) pressure him. Eric likes the attention he gets from bashing String Theory but his theory isn't any better. I am not a physicist so perhaps my opinion is worth anything.

Eric contributes very little to ideas, his contribution is words. He obfuscates and complains.

Φυσικός είσαι ρε τρελέ;

Check out any of their RU-vid channels.

Stay tuned for some introduction content on black holes

There are a lot and a lot and a lot. They will guide you to your own personal interest. Eventually. It’s big enough for everyone.

From a non-Platonist philosophical perspective his manner of thinking is very attractive.

The second sentence is too much for me to take

He has nothing to back it up, he just think that it's like that.

I watch his portal thing over time I reckon he is pretty humble and likes to raise others up. I reckon clever people can always come over pompous and sometimes indeed simply are but there's more to everyone usually 😉

He speaks in so many analogies while describing his mathematics that it makes him impossible to understand. Save the analogies for literature, just speak in mathematical terms while talking about mathematics. It’s like every sentence Eric speaks must contain 3 analogies and be able to win a game of scrabble.

These people are like sculptures with no knowledge of materials.

Science is a public investment. You have gotten your money back many many times over. Why are you complaining? Was living in flea infested mud huts really that much fun?

@@lepidoptera9337 no one is entitled to anyone's labour, it doesn't matter what profession you're in. That's slavery. If your physics isn't immediately marketable, then raise capital privately or raise the money yourself working a job.

It was !!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5gmtAeqRs14.html Sabine is a boss!

@@DrBrianKeating Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nnkvoIHztPw.html

"I think that's what a lot of people can for"

And Peter Dinklage too!!!

Agree with much of what you're saying. Sabine is the better communicator but Eric is the one who at least talks about physics in terms of (tangible) geometric deformaties, where objects get their material of existence from the material that normally forms the grid itself. At least if this is what he means, than thats correct and a great beakthrough in thinking. With respect to financing , I agree that Eric is a bit naive here. More money is not the solution , it is the problem. 100 years ago, fundamental physics used to be the realm of the few. It was not a great career choice and often involved finding sponsors for their passion to examine the true genesis of all. Fast forward to today we have literally 10's of thousands trying the same in government sponsored academia. Some may be gifted, the majority statistically will be mediocre at best. What is their main concern? To keep their bread and butter and still have a job at the end at the month. What is the biggest threat to them? Actually FINDING the solution to fundamental physics. If the fundaments are found, they can all pack and go home. No more budgets, prestige, prizes, nothing. So there is a MASSIVE incentive NOT to find what you say you are looking for. If anything you have to tout that fundaments are exponentially more complex then thought (which by the way is a contradictio in terminis). So no, anybody with potential and who is on to something will be sidelined, silenced or moved over to DARPA where they are far more advanced in their knowledge than these talking heads....Again...I like Eric's view, no-nonsense posture , but he is off on the politics behind academia.....

Let me summarize what you just said. Eric is talking out of his ass mostly. He does this on almost all topics. The bluster never matches the threat.

Because he's the host?

Where?? Can you please give the time stamp

​@mr.greengold8236 58:58 Sabine tells Eric he needs to be able to communicate better with other physicists. He claims that academia is against his theory but no one knows what he is on about. Yes String Theory is a dead end but his theory is no better. He has publish a very rough draft and on the opening page he mentions he hasn't been practicing physics.

It is a glue that brings everyone to the table. Grab your own take and go. It’s the same thing they all are doing.

Eric has brought his own theory of everything to the table, think it called Geometric Unity. I know he seems upset by a lackluster response to it. I find it interesting, but like all the major theories of everything that people have put forward, they are so detached from the world that we can scientifically probe, it is hard for me, and many others more qualified to judge, to get excited about. Eric may have a grating personality, but I have a lot of respect for many of his opinions. I support his rather crazy idea of detonating an atomic bomb on the Earth's surface somewhere. He believes that the world needs to be reminded of just how destructive one bomb can be.

I bursted out LAUGHING lol

But he's not a physicist, sooooooooooooooo..... he can play in the physics sandbox but not have to play by their rules (at least in his inflated head).

@@chuckschillingvideos I'm so glad you trolled. Eric is a master math guru. However, Eric has no fucking clue about physics. Hey like to act like he's physics badass, but he has the skills of a fucking 20 yr old. It's fucking embarrassing. Especially for us that love him.

Like a string theory?

No, she's the reincarnation of feynman.

More like Schopenhauer

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean lol.

@C hrist I can actually somewhat see the connection here. I have no clue what she has to do with Nietzsche.

@C hrist I don't really see in what way even that would connect to Nietzsche. Just a weird comparison lol But Wittgenstein? Yeah I can kinda see that.

Please subscribe and hit the bell!

Great points

There is an idea in japanese aesthetic tradition called wabi- sabi that I think reflect what you've pointed out. In some sense is the idea of finding beauty in imperfection. It can be applied here 👍.

Beauty of complexity comes from the perspective. A good perspective locates hidden order in chaos, that’s why a photographer is needed to simplify/beautify a messy room by cutting out the order with a frame.

@@diegocolomes Snap! I was gonna comment the same thing!😊

Her problem is that her criticism is cheap because she doesn't have anything constructive to offer in return. You can read her own papers, if you wish, and you will find that she circles the very same drains that she criticizes. She doesn't have new ideas, either.

@@lepidoptera9337 In science, you don't need the alternative because may be we don't have enough data to do anything yet. If you just try to give an alternative, it's just pure guessing and in that case, the idea has a large possibility to be wrong. That's why people try not to jump the gun in science

@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 You don't need the alternative to be credible if you acknowledge that the problem is the available data from nature. That is not what she does, though. She keeps bashing her colleagues, including the ones that are much much smarter than she is herself. That is her mistake. Don't make the same one.

@@lepidoptera9337 the ability to call and explain BS is invaluable to science. As is refusing to add to it.

I’m amused that Eric Weinstein chose toilet paper tubes in attempting to explain himself. Perfectly appropriate.

He is.

Lol. True

He obfuscates, to enthrall the naive, _who can't differentiate gibberish from intelligence._

eric weinstein absolutely won this discussion hands down. when he was on like podcast shows, he has explained geometric unity more simply than that, so i understood most of Weinstein's explanation of geometric unity after his joe rogan podcast, tat least i understand the space-and dimensions part, not the particles part as that was not discused in the podcast. but talking to physicists he probably felt he could be technical. what he forgot is as an almost pure mathematician,they can talk in such an abstract way, that normal physicists do not understand them. this was the case in weinsteins final comment where he gave an extremely complicated purely mathematical description of the space of geometric unity, sabine did not comprehend. i think matt probably understood it. sabine is all she cares about is quantising gravity. i can solve that right now. gravity cannot be quantised. all the other three forces were quantised really really accurately-so we have QED, QCD, QFD, for electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak force. gravity isnt a force.gravity is negligible at quantum scales, or atomic scales. wanting to know the gravitational field of an electron. it's barely anything. so it's not important. if you have a black hole singularity, then you have alot of curvature of a small amount of space-producing either a spacelike or a weak singularity-the latter is likely for a rotation kerr blackhole in the latest computer simulations of them. so that produces the most curved space in the universe. it curves space so much, because so much mass in such a small volume means maximum curvature of spacetime that dimensionality allows. so forget quantum gravity. we want to look inside a blackhole at the singularity, and it will be a kerr type black hole and a super mssive one for sure. we would try the one that is best for survivability. and be looking to exist a supermasive fast spinning kerr black hole weak ring singularity into another universe, or another galaxy,. bit of a suicide mission but there are people out there willing to do it. train a deathrow inmate as an astronaut. so basically in smaller volumes with more mass, you get greater curvature of the spacetime. so this is still general relativity not quantum theory at all.stop applying particle theory to spacetime. relativity is violated otherwise. and the invariance of the lorentz stuff has been tested now below the planck length and so the relativity holds even below the planck scale. spacetime must be continuous not discrete otherwise relativity id violated.,which is impossible. so there is no quantum gravity. there is gravity, which is always expressed by general relativity. ring singularity of a kerr black hole is not quantum. it is small but non quantum sized. that you get extreme rotations in four dimensions so time and space switch their roles with space becoming one directional and minkowski found mathematically that time acts like space except with a factor of c, the speed of light in vacuum, and a factor of i, the imaginary number √(-1). increasing your motion through space decreases your motion through time, and vice versa. (Mathematically, this is where the i comes in . in minkowski diagram speak, which is in worldtubes or worldlines, in flat space you have inertial motion of a particle which is basically a default state-this is unaccelerated motion, and newton's laws of motion still apply there. the worldline for the inertial motion next an accelerated particle-this is a deformed worldline and represented as such by a deformed or curved line on the spacetime diagram. now a third possible worldline is formed in the case of gravity, which is curved space, where we get a curved worldline but it is not deformed. in flat space that is not possible. but space with the ricci curvature tensor is curved spacetime, it's pure geometry-shapes. a particle's worldline in a gravity well is going to be steeply curved like going down a valley. what eric weinstein was talking about is the unified field theories in einsteins time, which were not the theories of everything of today, and that is the tradition which weinstein has returned to. it had no'thing to do with quantum gravity. they were geometrical theories.spacetime specialists and mathematians who exceled in geometry knew that. kaluzas attempt to get electromagnetism by extending einstein's general relativity and minkowskis spacetime to five dimensions is the kind of work weinstein is doing. it's in that tradition of the twenties and thirties. smolin mentioned cohl furey-i've been following her avidly-her work on division algebras -with reals, compelx numbers, quaternions, octonians, these number groups correspond to dimensions and to parts of physics e.g. special relativity. the point eric weinstein was making to sabine is the standard model is hollow. we dont know why it is as it is. sabine doesnt care about this. but science can and does need to answer why. she just wants to do the basic 'shut up and calculate. but the true goal of physics is to find the why is it like this? we answered why there is gravity, and we were not content with newtons universal gravitation that only calculated the amount of gravity generated by masses, and therefore in simple cases could calculate the orbits of celestial bodies to a good degree of accuracy. the why answer was-spacetime curved by alot of mass to form a gravity well, like a valley, and you are actually moving along a curved spacetime path when under gravity, which is every day on earth. sabines philosophy of science is hollow. weinstein also explained these are not TOEs. these are more like the old unified field theories of Einstein's early career. higher dimensions has always been thought to be a thing. ive myself re gone over the very beginning of modern physics. from maxwell onwards, to the michelon-morley experiment, the birth or relativity, the early atom models, the precursors to string theory-such as the kaluza and kaluza klein five dimensional manifold explanation of the electromanetic force, as motion throii this is why sabine is such an unimaginative physicist. we do not know why the standard model is based on the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)/Z_6, and not some other gauge group. Even given that gauge group, the standard model does not specify why it uses such a long, apparently arbitrary, list of particles to represent that group. The standard model does not explain why its quarks and leptons are organized into three generations. It does not explain why SU(2) weak isospin acts only on left-handed states. Finally, the standard model does not explain the values of its 19 parameters. These questions, and others, have gone unanswered now for nearly 40 years. mathematicians are the ones who are answering these things-in cohl furey and eric weinstein. btw weinstein is a mathematics research fellow so he is an academic now. plus his phd was in mathematical physics. einstein when working on special relativity was a complete unknown-he would therefore be regarded by sabine and the panel as an ousider, a non physicist. minkowski-einsteins maths professor is the author of spacetime itself, along with the concepts of worldlines, light cones, plus his far more detailed paper on special relativity than einstein, published three years after including famous lecture explained the deep physical meaning behind length contraction and time dilation-that we live in a four dimensional world. and that not only do different people in different reference frames-e.g one person stationary-in inertial motion, and other one being accelerated very fast, they both have their own time, which means they hsve their own space too, so there are many spaces. my only disappointment in eric weinstein is that he didnt include minkowski in the list of his most admired twentieth century scientific figures. but it took a pure mathematician to discover the real spacetime structure of the cosmos. in hermann minkowski, with credit particularly to lorentz and poincare. lorentz would have penned special; relativity instead of einatein if only we've got cohl furey a mathematical physicisdt who again has found the number ten that weinstein mentioned keeps coming up, she found a foundational matrix, with nine numbers corresponding to spatial dimensions, and one that behaves as a time dimension. weinstein again with ten.

@@shaunhumphreys6714 thank you for painstakingly commenting your counter argument. Very valuable.

@viralshield sabine was exposed. Weinstein owned her

@@shaunhumphreys6714 thanks for the read my friend although that was more than I bargained for. Some of that went over my head but love it gave me a bit to think about as I begin this being fans of all the speakers here. Praised be

@@shaunhumphreys6714 are you familiar with the modern criticisms of GU from Tim Nguyen? Gu has some serious mathematical deficiencies, namely an undefined "shiab" operator that Nguyen shows would break the theory with any valid definition.

Lol. Thanks !!

Right? I don't know what they're on about and I'm up because Arsenal are playing Man City tomorrow (COYG!!) and I can't sleep. LOVE watching them talk to eachother it's like watching the Royal Rumble but with PHDs. Might not learn much but it'll make me sleep. The comments are golden too look at all the nerds go! Defending their favourite lambasting the one they hate. Glorious stuff

Because you can wipe your derriere with his theory 😂😂😂

It wasn't above your head, it went by the side of your head because Eric was throwing tons of jargon terms, and people often think that means it's valuable or smart. But a 7-year-old could tell Leonardo Da Vinci what he did after school and Da Vinci would have no idea what the kid was saying, because Da Vinci didn't speak English. Intelligence is not in obscurity complexity. You can watch Richard Feynman's video "knowing the name of something is not the same as knowing something" to see the same concept also. Eric Weinstein never learned this and goes out of his way to try to sound smart through jargon and not answering questions. It's honestly embarrassing and he's a complete waste of time. Both his own and that of thousands of other people.

Feynman lecturers were often aimed at teaching layman simple physics in a fun and exciting way. In one awesome video he said himself that explaining magnetic to any depth is extremely difficult to a person who lacks the theoretical framework. Here Eric is explaining his theories to a group of physics phD. I know it makes you feel inadequate not understand the man but let us not going on the attack and pretend that he is the one with the problem.

Seriously man, they gotta stop putting time limits on most of these. I know peeps are busy but man, this stuff is important to the public.

"10x less smarter" makes no sense. 10% less smart would be better. However, it isn't solely a matter of them having a higher IQ. Let's assume you are average IQ which is 100, then 10% more smart would be 100 + 100 x 0.10 = 100 + 10 = 110. Yet, this does not factor in the panel's knowledge. It took me two years of reasearch to get a gist of an understanding about Eric Weinstein's _Geometric Unity_ as an Art School drop out. Lack of knowledge and patience are more of an obstacle than IQ. Interestingly, 10% less smart than 111.111111 or 1000/9 will get you to 100 IQ. Note, I am not saying your IQ is 100. I just picked that to make the sums easier. I think you may be right. The elephant in the room, which many take for granted, and others mistake aspects of it for other phenomena, is Time. Ganesh seems pretty important, so that might be a clue, as you suggested.

Lee Smolin is a strange fella, but I love his books and his Darwinia universe hypothesis.

There have been zero thoughtful critiques of _Geometric Unity_ as the only one thus far published came out before Weinstein published his own paper so couldn't have been a response to it as his paper didn't exist yet in order to do a response to it. This response paper is arguably illegitimate as it is anonymously coauthored. Those asking Weinstein what he thinks of this Nguyen/Anon paper are quite reasonably rebuffed, just as Einstein rebuffed his initial anonymous critic of Special Relativity. Furthermore, Weinstein's paper is an incomplete draft of an initial instantiation. The weakness of the Anon response can be seen in how it focuses on the lack of a formal definition for the "shiab operator" when in truth Weinstein calls this the "SHIAB operator" as this is an acronym that stands for "Ship In A Bottle operator". I'm not even sure Nguyen/Anon realise this. They heard "shiab" being mentioned in the 2013 Oxford presentation and rushed out their half baked paper hoping to demolish _Geometric Unity_ before it even got a chance to be published in draft form. Nguyen/Anon are cowardly, vile, scum. The DISCORD they fled to when ousted from The Portal DISCORD for bad behaviour became quite toxic, and Weinstein is done dealing with them, even though they are the only people thus far to have engaged with his work. He is fine. He can wait. He hasn't even published his full _Geometric Unity_ paper, which he said on the Clubhouse recording he still planned to do in time, and in the draft he says that he will attempt to reconstruct the definition of his SHIAB operator in time as well. Patience is a virtue. General Relativity didn't spring fully formed out of Einstein's mind to begin with from nothing. Einstein had to come up with Special Relativity first, then ignore anonymous critics and a sceptical establishment, refine and redefine his theory to that of General Relativity and finally wait for a cosmic alignment to take place to prove the predictions it made were in line with experiment. There are 69 pages to the draft paper on _Geometric Unity_ and about 10 in Nguyen/Anon's which picks on four percieved faults, one which Weinstein himself admits (i.e. SHIAB), another to do with complexification which Weinstein said Nguyen had got wrong as he was rushing out his critique based off a guess of what might be in his theory, and general harping on about it not being quantised (yet) which is to be expected as Weinstein lacks expertise in that area and this is why he brought his incomplete draft theory out to show people to see if they might want to collaborate on those parts of it with him. You don't get to call Weinstein arrogant for making out he has a final, complete, perfectly instantiated Theory of Everything (when he has never claimed that), and then attack him for not having it be properly quantised as "all TOEs must be quantised to be considered TOEs" (so sayeth Nguyen), whilst simultaneously attacking the paper as if it were a final paper on General Relativity, rather than more like a draft paper on Special Relativity, which could change a lot in its implementation over the course of the next ten years. Nguyen/Anon are grifting for clout as best they can by trying to paint Weinstein as a fraud and take down _Geometric Unity_ as a hoax, when the real truth is no one in a credible position to comment on its potential is in a position to determine its potential as they are all too famous and too busy to spare time to look into it in any detail right now. Nguyen has convinced some autists online that Weinstein is a fraud because he has convinced them that he knows enough about some tiny piece of the _tour de force_ of math it ranges over in its 69 pages is (trust Tim) off in some way mathematically and therefore the whole thing is unsalvageable (when Paul Dirac messed up in the past), getting his rancid trollish followers to harass Weinstein over the paper not already being obviously valid, when no reasonable scientist would expect a paper (even from an academic insider) to be valid when it was as methodologically innovative as _Geometric Unity,_ but would more pragmatically expect a maverick outsider or academic insider (working outside of an established field such as String Theory), to demonstrate potential, not immediately falsifiable conclusions and suggested experiments. Also, the paper does make predictions for new particles with new Spin properties. However, it reads more like a harmonisation of established theories expressed in terms of relativistic wave equations rather than point particles. Methodologically speaking, it is a geometricisation of the quantum, rather than the reverse (i.e. something like Quantum Gravity). This is why I think it is okay that it isn't quantised at its first appearance in print this year, but it isn't okay that String Theory has been around for thirty years and failed to get around to integrating gravity. People need to be more patient, and that includes Eric Weinstein. I expect he realised that his theory would get nowhere if he didn't act now to promote it, even if it was still incomplete (SHIAB operator flaw included). Maybe he thought he would find the old notes for the SHIAB operator in the seven years that followed his 2013 Oxford presentation, but they never showed up, and he now realises he will either have to reconstruct it from scratch or find a comprehensive workaround like Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's Last Theorem when it was revealed that there was a problem with his initial proof. Maybe it is structurally unsalvageable with regards to the SHIAB operator, but there are several other branches where established relativistic field equations are finessed into some harmony which can prove useful to people looking for mathematical tools to wrangle future, related, theories. If Eric was in academia then he could discuss all this behind the scenes for decades and the public would never know of his work until he was close to publishing it, probably with multiple named coauthors. However, because he has been working in isolation his only strategy has been to raise his public profile through popular podcasts and then kinda tout _Geometric Unity_ as if it may be a potential Theory of Everything (with a lot of qualifiers), to provoke an academic reaction to his apparent arrogance. If they dismiss it out of hand then those institutions can face pressure from the public to comment on _Geometric Unity_ as they have heard about it from this scientific renegade. "Why don't you even comment on his hypothesis that the Earth goes around the Sun?" The obvious problem with this strategy that in order for Weinstein to pressure academic institutions / famous theoretical physics to take a serious look at _Geometric Unity_ and help him correctly instantiate and quantise it, opportunistic jerks like Nguyen/Anon crawl out of the woodwork to criticise his theory ahead of the publication of even the initial draft version of its paper. It is kinda ironic that the ArXiV preprint server rejected their paper, when Eric has said so much in the past about the Distributed Ideas Suppression Complex and Gated Institutional Narrative. By the way, please note that I don't think Sabine Hossenfelder or Lee Smolin are a conscious part of this, they are just too busy with their own work to look at it. One possible way forward would be for the mavericks to peer review each other outside of the GIN and DISC. Have it be that Garrett Lisi critques Eric Weinstein, whilst Weinstein critiques Peter Woit, and Woit critiques Lisi once each have advanced their own theory as far as they can get on their own, in a few years time. Really, a lack of patience is the main problem here, and although I am currently unfairly suspended from Twitter because I inadvertently upset someone who identifies as "Hedge gender" who probably wouldn't have the indulgent luxury of being accepted socially as Non-Binary/Gender-Fluid/Liminal/Demiflux as they would likely be fighting on the frontlines of a infantry war, a war which isn't happening right now due to the invention of Thermonuclear Weapons. So, much as I recoil at the idolent decadence of these Queer Millennials, I know they are the social cost of decades of peace in the Western world. So, Eric Weinstein telling Joe Rogan that we need to get off this planet with the aid of post Theory of Everything based technology Faster Than Light travel colonising space craft is both ignoring the general peace dividend brought by Mutually Assured Destruction (Hedge genders notwithstanding), and being needlessly alarmist as a way to promote any and all TOEs as routes to fix this demand for space colonisation that no one but weirdos like Elon Musk seem to be talking about.

@Elijah An Someone already must have done so, otherwise why did it get upvoted?

@@____uncompetative I read it all. Look, what I love is Eric’s willingness to “take a shot on goal”. Good for him. It's unfortunate that substance gets drowned out by the strident internet screed. But let’s be clear on a couple basic logic issues - one author choosing to be anonymous has nothing to do with the quality of the critique. Please don’t insult the intelligence of the reader to suggest that “1+1=2” only if the person writing it is a public intellectual with over 100K followers. Frankly, such an obvious logical fallacy detracts from the credibility of anyone stating it, but you and Eric keep doing it. You know better, so stop it. Also, the ad-hominem attacks are virtually identical to Eric’s ("crawling out of the woodwork", "anonymous internet trolls", publishing the critique before Eric’s paper came out", ...). These points have all been addressed by Nguyen and, again, are a distraction from the topic. I don’t care what came out when. I care about the substance. But I get it - Eric wants to have a conversation among physicist elites - not niche-side discussions with non famous people. But you’ve got to fight some tune-ups before you step in the ring with the champ. As far as the presentation being preliminary … fine. Fair point. Wiles had mistakes before Fermat’s Last Theorem fell, and mistakes are a part of life. Where would the math community be if Wiles were simply derided and said “You failed. Fermat still stands”? The world would miss out on a moment of colossal importance in mathematics. Wolfram has an army of promising young physicists working with his hypergraphs. Who is working with Eric? I wish he had a group of highly motivated young mathematical physicists helping him. But where is the effort? He may be working on patching up Geometric Unity now, for all I know, but I haven’t heard him publicly mention the problems. I have heard him hit the talking circuits touting GU as a TOE (which it isn’t btw, even if he works out the details). I see a comfort in talking about GU as if it were a TOE with little attention being paid to its problems and limitations. Sorry, but that is arrogance. You kind of hit black ice at the end of your post with an off-topic rant (though I’m with you in the insane, anti-scientific excesses of certain previously named social justice warriors). So please, start talking candidly about the deficiencies to win back your audience of people who know better. That humility will pay huge dividends in the end. Nobody likes being bullshitted, no matter how smart the bullshitter. Ftr, I enjoy virtually every conversation of Eric's I've heard and am not a hater. I'm an admirer. But BS never should get a pass. Everett's "many world's theory" was panned shamefully by virtually every physicist luminary in the stratosphere of his day. Niels Bohr doesn't get a pass for atrocious behavior either. (I give up trying to format this reply)

@@arthurrimbaud3414 "So please, start talking candidly about the deficiences to win back your audience of people who know better." Who is this directed at? I can discern only two targets: 1. me => "win back my audience" => those reading this minor RU-vid comments thread??? 2. Eric Weinstein

@@____uncompetative Why is it that you start drawing a parallel to Einstein rather than the the hundreds of other attempts that have failed? The sheer stone-cold probability would find a better home in the latter camp, would it not? ...unless you're going to privilege all of the failed attempts at unification with the same glowing status. "Just have a few kinks to work out. Why is it you use Einstein to smuggle in unwarranted assumptions on credibility rather than what is far more likely - another spirited but "missed shot on goal"?

Clearly, I have little or no tolerance for people who ask complex questions and then lose all interest when the answer cannot be expressed in 2 sentences or less . Rogan was certainly a leader of long format interviews and all too often, Rogan is not acknowledged for this contribution.. But I noticed the difference immediately because I have struggled with this question most of my life. I've found that if a person asks a question whose answer must justifiably begin with "it depends" they will generally not be capable of listening to the answer. Not everyone, mind you. but nevertheless signifixant.

The problem with high energy physics is not that we don't know enough structurally. The problem is that we have too many possible solutions and no observational data to restrict them to a subset that would allows us to hone in on a tighter theoretical framework.

We all of us seem to appreciate some beauty, but I think hope is the best to go for.

If there is surface, is there matter? But when is there not surface? Wallace Stevens liked to say that the only poverty is not living in a physical world.

she is german he is jewish with german backround maybe thats it :)

Oh no!!!

Gate keeping, that's why.

Which hate are you referring to? If it is towards Eric, afaik it might be because he has been touting his approach for a while now without actually publishing anything for anyone to dig into, claiming he is worried about hostility. The problem is, in the scientific world you *have* to expose your ideas to public scrutiny, otherwise ideas can’t be challenged. Either don’t talk about it like it’s the next theory of relativity, or publish. I like Eric, but in this regard I find him very frustrating.

memespace no, People are dying to see the next physics revolution. I know physicists and academia, gate keeping usually is the opposite of what they are about. As long as scientific standards are met of course, which is essential.

@@chrisdistant9040 he did post the Oxford lecture where he explains it on his channel, but a paper would be nice for denser folks like me

Also I believe there's nothing dumb about something complicated explained understandably, but rather it is something that requires a huge amount of intelligence and communication skills.