Eric_Weinstein_Rambling.md 7.3 KB
Can we create anything in the world with only 4 parameters?
4 parameters bootstrap themselves -> example of Escher sketch (Hand drawing itself)
Can a piece of paper and 2 hands create a piece of work?
This is why the theory of everything is so difficult to work with.
MC Escher had an idea of a strange loop (Dougle Hoffsetter) depiction of something that can't happen, but can be conceived of being able to happen
The Theory of Everything attempts to do this.
What is its criticism?
- In 1 year, Eric Weinstein saw only one critique. It was done by two guys, one of whom is anonymous, and he refuses to deal with anonymous critics. 3 basic criticisms:
2 are inferrential (imagining that he is doing something that he may not be doing)
The mostastounding thing about this paper is that it showed that what eh put out a year ago is understandable:
They got from the lecture what the basic setup of this theory is.
Joe; please boil this down for someone who doesn't understand Physics
Eric:
Jamie, go to pullthatupjamie.com Collection of videos in support of geometric unity:
a team of people helped put this up including Brooke Dallas
The greatest insight of hte 20th century:
Furnire Tensor - Curvature influences how we measure length Einsteinian metric for 2 dimensions: HEdge Clippers (two rulers) 2 dimensions of ruler and one dimension of protractor
The idea: Einstein took curvature and fed it back into the space of rulers and protractors to say how those tools would warp to define gravity. That is a visual depiction of the Einstein field equations. The key point: Einstein said you have to get rid of the Bio Curavture and readjust the scalar to put it into a space that we can understand. Eric Weinstein says he thinks in pictures and not symbols.
If you zoom out of this first example: Eric can't talk aout curvature tensor analysis:
Eric: what I'm tryin gto do is to say we dont' need to talk about this, because I just want to show this to you as a thank-you. The courage to take the slings and arrows is what he is making himself open to.
Eric invites people to peruse his work of art: A complete story of who we are and what this place is. The Universe. Everything.
Eric didn't stop asking WHY so it lead him to theoretical physics. All the things around us are understandable but they are locked in a system of symbols. Those make our eyes glaze over.
Light in this room is tied to a U-1 principle bundle.
A gauge-theoretic concept that no one has ever mentioned to Eric - > you can buy U1 principles from amazon for 10 bucks. What the hell is that thing? We can't really describe it. Wants to show people visually, without symbols, like this water-wiggle. Something figured out in the 1970s that the light in this room comes from seeing this world as though it has a water-wiggle structure.
You can rotate the water-wiggle thing. G-action -> group of symmetries -> playing with the symmetry of a donut and producing some cylindrical transformation.
Spend an afternoon with a water-wiggle and you will walk away understanding what gauge-theory is because there will no longer be a symbol separating one's understanding of the concept.
Water wiggle structure: circle at every point that we can't perceive (in space / above space) that can be rotated. 4-dimensional cross-section of a wiggly structure
water wiggle structure -> something we know about because of Maxwell equations -> unify all the forces that we know about
subsumed into one equation (MAxwell's Equation)
There is a circle which rotates at every point in space and time that you can't see. And this is necessary for all the forces of nature to make sense.
In essence: the photons that we see are the levels from which we measure a derivative (rise over run above the level) The level we see is the photon, and the thing we differentiate is the electron. Electrons are functions and photons are
Partial-differential equations: how photons zing off of me and then hits your eye so we can see each other
Waves in collision with each other -> interacting
the waves have to itnerecat in a partial-differential equation Derivatives are determined by levels Those things allow us to define the equations for waves which we are
The theory of everything: talk about a medium, waves in the medium, and rules for how the waves behave in the medium
This is a theory where 4 dimensions birth a situation where we have all these different forces of matter which create the world we experience
How did all these things cometogether to create all this diverse shit
That's what this is about
What he believed was that we'll never take the time : let's spend a day rtalking about this shit and do a bunch of videos
We spent hundreds of hours making these videos to show you what these concepts are.
With artists and imaginationg we can actually show the world what these structures are -> draw what these are with a water wiggle => doing calcululs on a water wiggle. This is what gives us light and electromagnetism. What keeps electronos bound th eprotons inhydrogen atoms.
Gauge potentials _> visualizable - in videos.
Experts will have thei day and piss all over this. And be angry etc
but afterwards, the ideas herein contained can change the world. How did this place fill up with all this crazy stuff when we assume there was nothing to begin with. What's the minimal amount that we can draw everything else out from. This is a crazy story.
The story of development -> how something births itself -> is what this story is about
Materialists : nothign other but protons neutrons electrons gluons
If I wrestle with the problem and there's not a lot of room for magic, then I become d efacto materialist. Is this something that can be avoided? is it possible to speak of matter without being a materialist?
in 1963 scientific american: "Schrodinger was led into error because he put too much weight on the particulars of his experiments. The essence of his idea was so beautiful that if had embraced that aspect of it, rather than the mathematics, he would have gotten further with it. Whenever you throw things away in service of beauty, you fuck up. but the people who threw up the 4 laws about everything else in the world: Ultimtaely, humans can't throw out the scientific method -> would we do that in the service of beauty? yes
if there's something wrong with what I say, because I have an idea and I say we're going to sell skulls to Native Americans
That's an instance of an idea, the general ide abut might be let's go into nbusiness and sell but teh initial instance of every great idea about the world has been wrong
look at Einstein getting shit wrong in the beginning of 1900
When dirac created the theory for matter -> anti particles electrons vs protons
Dirac gave us un incmoputatble theory for matter that we couldn't use for 20 years -> the instance of great ideas with many flaws
Yang and Mills came up with the generalization of light equations -> no mass in their equations -> could not suppress beta decay because of the lack ofthis information, which made their equations wrong -> but their concept was new and beautiful and true, after adapting pther known things to it later
Dirac said -> don't look for something with no errors -> it will take more mature instantiations
Do dogs stare athte sky and flowers and sigh and think that these things are amazing?
Well, Dogs are fascinated by smell -> they see beauty with their senses
Subjective experience of beauty