Eric Weinstein: The State of American Science, Breakthrough Coverups, and the Danger of Physics

we have become a f***ing nation when it comes to science. - You were called a friend-scientist. - And keep saying, "Friend." - Yeah. - I totally disagree with the narrative of the field. I want to blow a giant pole in Civil Rights Act. The stagnation of physics may have led to the survival of the human species. When we make this jump, the world will become unrecognizable. - I'm doing all of you! - As your wealth grows, have you noticed how much more complex things get? - Between investments, tax strategy, and estate planning, managing it all is a full-time job you didn't ask for. Creative planning can help. Their coordinated team of investment managers, CPAs, and affiliated estate attorneys can do much of a heavy lifting so you don't have to. Creative planning, where wealth works together. Go to creativeplanning.com/allin. - Eric Weinstein, mathematician, physicist, economist, PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard, National Science Foundation, postdoc, Owen R. Fellow, and Harvard, published a proposed mathematical framework and speculative unified field theory called Geometric Unity in 2021, formally with thealcapital, podcast, host, and guest. Welcome to the All in Interview. - It's great to be here. Now, where are the besties? - They declined the opportunity because this is an extended science corner that-- - Can't believe that Jason has-- - Turn tail and ran. - No, you and I, I mean, just for the audience, you and I both happen to be in DC right now. So we're in a rented studio during this interview, but good timing. What brings you to DC? - Opportunity, I'm really excited. I'm meeting with the Department of War and took the opportunity to stay a couple extra days, been talking to director Kratzios over at OSTP and the White House Science Advisor, fantastic meeting, been talking to Jay Batacario as an old friend over at NIH, about to talk to Jim O'Neill, who's hopefully coming into NSF, and really just taking a look at the first major proposal to reform American science since then of our bush at the end of World War II. So this couldn't be more exciting. - Did Kratzios tell you that I just interviewed him on this topic? - No. - Okay, well, I did. - Okay. - You guys are old colleagues, right? - Yeah, yeah, Michael's great. And so he, that came up. He said, "Here I am in this new role." - Yeah. - I guess I was sort of worried at this report. Obviously he's filling huge shoes. And I was worried that it was gonna be a disaster. And I was stunned how good it was. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but never is. And then I told you that. And you said that, "Well, you and I had been talking and that you'd been conveying a lot of these issues to him." And I feel like he's really grown into this role trying to become a student of the American Science Project. And I couldn't be happier at hearing him say things like, "We know that we don't know everything. We're just at the beginning. We're just getting started." So it looks like a great blueprint. - Government-driven science has played a fundamental role in the success of the Republic. At least over the last 100 years, last 50, 75 years. Prior to that, there's an argument to be made in science and you golden age that Kratzioth published and that others have been making. I've heard you make it that science has really stalled in America. Can you make that case for us now? - Well, it's a question of which science has stalled. So one of the great things about what Michael's saying is that science is a big place and it's not being done in one way. So what I really think is the biggest, if you wanted to sort of fly over and give an idea of what's at risk, it's the absolutely courageous science that we can afford to do as a rich, ruggedly individualistic nation that no one else can afford to do. And so, more or less, when I see us doing incremental research and doing things that are incredibly careful with low variance and calling it excellence, I get depressed because my feeling is is that what we should be taking on is the bets no one else can afford to take on. It's also the case that our chief geopolitical rivals, China, has a problem with freedom and quite honestly, freedom is a weapon. It is a serious advantage that we can afford to look at ourselves and say, we don't do everything perfectly. And we wanna know the truth. I wanna know whether Fauci killed 10 million people. I should be able to investigate that as a virologist, as an epidemiologist, I should be able to get answers and go through the process of justice. When we have a situation in which our scientists are hamstrung because the conclusion is known ahead of time. We limit our own ability to use cowboy science to drive the rest of the world. And quite honestly, we're giving away our biggest advantage, which is the middle finger. The American ability to say screw you to a supervisor tells you what is true and what isn't true. The young person should be able to say, hey, I think my field is going in entirely the wrong direction. And I'm willing to bet my career on it. Don't interfere. - This was always the biggest question for me is where were all the skeptics? Where were all the scientists that are supposed to question the dogma during the lockdowns, during COVID, during that pandemic? And I talked to Kratzeos about this when we did our interview that if everyone in the room agrees on something, it's probably wrong. Like there has to be some degree of skepticism, but particularly because the fundamental basis of science is to ask questions, interrogate, generate evidence, generate data, and then draw some conclusion and ask your next question. But it's almost like the asking questions stopped. Where did that come from? It sounds like you're saying it's because folks were hamstrung socially, was it economic? What is it that happened that not just in this pandemic, but just broadly, are we seeing this happen more in the scientific domains where everyone kind of aligns around one thesis, one dogma, and you're not going to get funding. You're not going to have friends. You're not going to get colleagues to work with you. You're going to get chastised if you ask different questions or ask whether these assumptions are correct. This is the question. Now, let me just answer it. This is that we created the scientific precarious. We created a world in which professors cannot afford to go against a consensus. Now, the problem is consensus. Because if everybody agrees on something, you shouldn't need a consensus. There's no arithmetic consensus. Do we have an arithmetic consensus that 2 plus 3 equals 5? No, it just is. When I hear the word consensus, I get very, very nervous. Because a consensus is usually an artificial agreement achieved through pressure. The Washington consensus is some sort of a thing where we're all going to go in a particular direction. And if you don't go in that direction, you don't have a job. So when you ask, well, what happens? My question is that the Jay Bhattacharya is the perfect example of what should happen. You have a guy who has a PhD in economics and an MD. And he went against it with the Great Barrington Declaration. Now he's the head of NIH. I knew Jay when he was called a fringe epidemiologist by this loser Francis Collins. And his sidekick, who is probably our bio-weapons, are Anthony Fauci. Now if I say Anthony Fauci was probably our bio-weapons are, that's going to strike all these people, particularly on the institutional left, is, well, that's conspiracy theory talked. So my question is we signed a couple of agreements in the '70s, Geneva Convention on Bio-Weapons Treaty. We have a cryptic system. Somehow we chose, in that case, a mysterious Ukrainian British zoologist received huge amounts of money through a hippy-dippy charity called the Eco Health Alliance money from like DITRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. So if you start doing things through covert operations, the problem is that scientists can see right through covert operations. If you have great tools, you know, if you say I wasn't at the scene of the crime, I said, oh, well, but we have a hair follicle. And I can pretty much tell you where at the scene of the crime. That's how powerful science is. So now you have this different problem, which is that you've got all of these B minus policy people in Washington, particularly in the covert community, not the intelligence community, but the covert community inside the intelligence community who don't want kick ass independent scientists because they're telling stories and narratives that are easily exploded. So right now, we don't just have a problem with good science. We have a problem with good journalism, right? They also have to fall in line with the giant narrative. It's a bright narrative. Exactly. So there are times when you have to-- when the US went to war, Roosevelt was in a wheelchair with these leg braces. And there was a general agreement that we won't report on the state of the president's health. Well, we had the same thing with Biden. Biden was undergoing some form of dementia. Did anyone think to ask a leading geriatric neurologist look, examine his gate, examine his speech patterns, and tell us where is he likely in his cognitive trajectory? So if you're trying to tell a lie that's important structurally, you really don't want scientists exploding it. And I'm not arguing with that. We shouldn't have been honest about what We were doing at a new maximum. go boys school from 1940 to 1945 because science was creating the most powerful weapon ever seen on planet earth. For those not aware that's the Manhattan project. Absolutely. So what I'm trying to say is that right now, you're not taking those people who stood up and making them the president of a university or the chairman of a department. You're not giving them a chair. And I just gave a talk on this at Jordan Peterson's Arc conference. You haven't reinserted the tiny number of people who stood up. You haven't rewarded them. My question is, where's my third home for standing up? Where's the ability to put my kids? You know, I want to put three kids through school. I want to participate in the security and the prosperity that we provide to everyone else. And this is the key issue. You've created the American scientific precarion. That's one of the reasons where you have such strange political affiliations where you don't have balance in the professor. You've got this incredibly dangerous situation where we are not participating in freedom. And I will say in particular, theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the only profession to have lost free speech because of something called restricted data where I am not allowed to put pen to paper to write down a physics equation. If in any way it affects nuclear weapons, well try doing really good physics in a way that doesn't affect, you know, hadrons and nucleons. It's impossible. So you have this threat that somehow the law, I'm not even protected by the first amendment. But I want to go back to your point about incentive. So when you say I want to have a third home, what you're saying, just to, I'm going to do the Eric Weinstein translation here. But you're saying as a professor, I have to fall in line in order to gain tenure in order to get a grant in order to get the the chairmanship role or whatever the fellowship I'm looking for. If I don't fall in line, if I'm fringe, if I say things that are non conformist, is that the right kind of way to heterodox. If I choose to just go against the orthodoxy, right, I believe that it was insane to take the idea of the Wuhan Institute of Virology off the table when it came to the origin of COVID. Insane. It was clear then. When you said that, you were called a fringe scientist and you were chastived and labeled and outcast and therefore you lost access, you lost jobs, you lost income, there was much that was left out of the equation for you because you asked questions that were heterodox. I came up with a set of equations in differential geometry in 1987 and I was really treated incredibly badly. Those equations took over my field in 1994 and there was never an attempt to go back and say, wait a minute, we just brutalized somebody who got things right and very early. By the same token, it's just a very simple process. You're not allowed to want better for your life. You're supposed to be humble. True scientists don't care about money. True scientists don't care about security. The reward is the work, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's all of this absolute drivel. The fact is that we are providing your security and I say third homes to be deliberately provocative. I used to say second homes and I'm done with that. You're dealing with a level of prosperity in a world in which the genie coefficients are blowing out. It's almost entirely due to the technology that is derivative of science and the scientists are not participating. So what you're doing is you're creating a collectivist mindset because we can't get paid. We can't win. If we get things right, we're out. When did this change happen? Because did we not value and prize heterodoxy, heredicism, outlandish ideas? The origin of science, the origin of great innovation, which arguably America is still the global leader in today, arises from what initially seems heretical. It seems like an idea that is farfetched unrealistic, not going to happen. But all it takes is one out of ten of those things to be true. Ultimately, the envelope is pushed forward and we find ourselves in a new frontier. Science should follow the same formula as entrepreneurship in the sense, technological or industrial kind of alternative roughly. Where did things change and why? Is this just the natural course of Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber wrote this manifesto where he talked about over-socialization? Is that ultimately what happened here? Is it social media played a role? Is it just that this is the saturation of social systems over time? So was there a deliberate, external effort? The one thing you didn't recite in that list of things. You didn't mention my being in the physics department, I guess, at Hebrew University, MIT, postdoctoral fellowship. But the most important one is that I was the co-chair, co-PI with Richard Freeman of the Science and Engineering Workforce Project at Harvard in the economics department. Because I was worried that we had been losing this and there's a very crisp answer to this. Between 1965 and '75, everything went wrong. And it's basically from the beginning of the Medicare Act of '65 to a controversy over something called man, a course of study in 1975 that ushered in peer review and the control. But if you wanted to really pinpoint it, it really '69 to '71 is particularly brutal. And what happened was the MIT physics department, I think in 1969 in the spring, walked out in protest of the Vietnam War, including people who had been part of the Manhattan Project. And the government took one look at this and said, "Okay, you are wobbly. We can't trust you. We have a very complicated cryptic agreement with our physicists in particular. You are the most dangerous, most deadly, most intelligent, most successful group, along with the mathematicians. And we've relied on you. And now we can't trust you because you're not rowing in the same direction that the country is rowing with the war because you're joining the protest movement." What happened was, is that immediately the MIT instrument laboratory, which I think was where a lot of the government money was being funneled through, was taken outside the university and turned into draper labs. And the Mansfield Amendment in '69 '71, named after Mike Mansfield of Montana, said, "Okay, the military can no longer fund Blue Sky Research inside of our university system, unless it has a direct military express military purpose." That was the disaster. Because what the military had done is they said, "Look, we want you guys fat and happy doing Blue Sky Research, which is what you think you should be doing. We trust you guys. We just want to know that you're there for us when we need you." So the military was our best friend. Now that was uncomfortable, because quite honestly, you have a huge pamphlet of different ideas inside of high energy, highly dynamic science project. If you don't have communists and fascists in the same department having tea together, something has gone wrong. Because scientists are very extreme. Ted Kaczynski wrote a marvelous story, for example, called "Ship of Fools" about a bunch of people overly concerned about political correctness on a ship that then runs into an iceberg, because nobody's actually paying attention to the running of the ship. They're having questions about. I didn't even know this. Oh, yeah. Everybody should read it. Now, of course, I'm not pushing people to a mass murderer. However, it's theoretical to acknowledge Ted Kaczynski. But the point is that scientists are weirdos, or at least many scientists are weirdos. And if you're not going to deal with truly dangerous minds, I don't even know why you're suiting up for the science game. So where do those minds go? If they're not enabled or allowed into the institutions, the establishment, the machinery of science in America, are they still around or their brains just blunt it out? And they're only allowed to say certain things? Or are we taking great scientists and reprogramming them and missing all the alpha? Yeah, you're missing the alpha. And it's funny that you should say that because that makes it like alpha male or the alpha in investment theory, right? Both works. Yeah, I also do freestyle rap. Really? Yeah, well, sometimes. We'll talk later about that. Yeah, cool. Well, mostly what you're doing is you're spaying and neutering your best minds. But the other thing is, is to look at palm or lucky. Okay, that guy looks to me like a scientist. He's a reverent. He's got a crazy shirt and he builds things to kill people, right? Now, if he was in a physics department, he could not easily be that guy. But if you wanted somebody who's in still in science who looks to me like a great scientist, I would point you to Nima Arkhani Hamed. Incredibly charismatic. Brilliant is the day is long, completely uncompromising. Did not go in for the string theory fatted at a deep level, even though he's sympathetic to many aspects of it. Do you guys even know that he's there? And he's the best of us currently, and he's still not that old, you know. My feeling is that there's pretty much been a giant decrease in our effectiveness. And I know why when you kicked Jim Watson out of Cold Spring Harbor which he built, what are you doing? You know that Mark Tashney, as in his mid-80s, Guy wrote a genetic switch on Fave's Lambda and one of the most brilliant irreverent people. You know, at some point I think I send a journalist to him and the journalist came back with his tail between the leds and said, "That guy's insane." Well, Eric Lander was the White House science advisor, Kratzios' role. I think his picture isn't up on the wall because he's sort of an uncompromising difficult to deal with guy. What am I feeling? I hate to say this. This is tough. You know, if you ever saw the movie Whiplash. I love it. One of my favorite things. Okay. Well, there's a reason that that guy has the best band. You know, he's not handing out tissues, and I don't mean to be mean about it. I don't want a brutal place, but like, this stuff is pretty unforgiving. What's the solution to morass, stagnation? What do we do here to try and catch up again? What do we do here to restructure? Is it about funding? Is it about people? Is it reprogramming? I mean, how do you get out of a social circuit that's fully programmed? Great question. I mean, really great question. Let's just be provocative and throw some stuff out. National interest waivers. I want to blow a giant hole in the Civil Rights Act so that we can have teams that are not constantly afraid of HR. What is the Civil Rights Act do that makes it difficult for individuals to do what they need? Well, you know, in science. My closest friend from college, we have a group of three, two Jews in a Muslim. And the Muslim is constantly teasing the Jews about, you know, you guys all the banks, the newspapers, and we took a joke with him about him being a terrorist. Now, that is not a model I can explain to anybody. But we've been, you know, incredibly close since 1982. My claim is that you don't understand how high agency people actually form type cohesives of social units. If you have the HR department saying, you know, Eric, I understand you. You are making an inappropriate joke. Scrooge. Get out of here. Who are you? And what are you doing in my lab? Let me call security. Why do I need a note from my mommy and daddy to do everything? I'm not saying be horrible. I'm saying you don't know enough about the culture of greatness to be my HR department. That's sort of what I'm saying. So like, I'm just throwing out a provocative idea, which by the way, I'm a Democrat. I'm sort of a Democrat from the JFK school, rather than I don't think I would join. I don't know. I don't know what you would be today. Well, I'm staying in the party. I'm a nailhouse Democrat, you know, nail houses that house that you build them all around because the person won't sell. I'm not leaving the party, but my party has gone insane. My feeling is, if we were really who we say we are, we'd be making common cause with the Republicans I met with and saying, let's get on with it and reform the system together. And if you want to brag about how you made America great without us, you can go screw yourself. What my feeling is is that I'd rather work with you, make America great and then fight over the credit later. That's how you work in a war, you know. So my first recommendation is throw out the civil rights act. No, not throw it out. Hook holes in it because you like the intent of it. It's the letter that's arbitraged against the intent, which creates this sort of collective thinking. You can't do great work without hyper individualism and without rugged, hyper individualism. And so my feeling is that that's not an iron randian thing. That's not a conservative thing. It the issue is that I consider myself left of center and there's no one more individualistic than I am. So what you need is I need not to have peer review. Peer review is a fake story that was retconned into science. It is no, you can look it up on Google Engrams. Your quote, space, peer review, space, close quote, and you'll notice that there's really no mention of it before 1965. And the reason for that is that the Medicare Act made the government the major payer for medical procedures. The government said, well, why are we paying for all this stuff? The doctor said, we don't want you having oversight over our decision making. So our peer, we will peer review each other and started a Utah clinic. And then it wasn't until 1975 when fiscal and social conservatives attacked the NSF over something called man, a course of study, or make us. And as some for some reason, the NSF grouped in anthropology as a science. I think that's a mistake. I think what we really need is we really need very hard sciences separated. And my feeling is the weaker scientists should go form their own organization and stop using our credit card because they're destroying our credit limit. Those are social sciences and soft sciences versus hard scientists where there's an industrial end point. Well, that's not a question of an industrial end point. I mean, I think that's another thing that's really screwed up is that science has become synonymized with biomedical, which it isn't. And science has become in the conservative mind, something that the market can do well when it's like did no one take econ 101 because the, you know, on the first day of school, they're supposed to tell you that markets work really well as long as you're not in a category called market failure. And if you miss that day, you say, well, markets are perfect, then they can price everything. But anything that's inexhaustible and inexglutable, which is exactly the definition of science, can't be priced by a market unless you create an artificial market. So I can't tell you how disparaging, you know, this is if I've been kind to the Republicans, here's a place where I'm going to be cool. You can't have morons who do not understand that markets cannot see everything. There's a reason that we pay taxes for an army and it's a technical reason. It's not a, we think that's a good thing is that if market, if you could make the army exhaustible and excludable, you wouldn't need to pay for it with taxes. So that your tax dollar has to be used for things that the market can't reach. Homotopy theory is a great case. When I say homotopy theory in the science discussion, people say, well, what is that? My response is, well, you don't know. It's an incredibly important part of mathematics, pure mathematics. I don't know that it has any industrial applications. But you go after homotopy theory and you're pulling out a Django block from an incredibly important ecosystem that you don't understand. So my feeling about this is I'm going to inject a PhD perspective into this conversation because what the PhDs are doing wrong is that they're staying out. Trump to them has cooties, they don't want Trump cooties, so they don't show up. And now, okay, well, if they are not going to explain to you why we need homotopy theory and we need to tax people and to pay for it. If you administration is not hearing what they need to be hearing and the people that are supposed to be saying it are not showing up to the administration. That's right. And it's completely dysfunctional and quite honestly. But by the way, the statistic I gave Kratzios is, nature did a survey of 2,000 scientists, the readers nature being a scientific journal that's wisely read and by the scientific community and six. And by the way, not pure reviewed until the 70s. Right. And 6% of the readers poll voted for President Trump, 85% or something, Kamala Harris. And then there was an undecided group. But I think it speaks to your point, like Trump is deemed to be so anti-science. The institution of Trump is deemed to be anti-science, but there doesn't even want to be an engagement. Let's assume that you detest Trump. Okay. Let's assume that you think Trump is the devil. I just met with Michael Kratzios. Great. I wanted that role. I put my hat into the ring for that role. I didn't think I would get it because I wasn't willing to pledge sufficient loyalty to Donald Trump to happen to go to Michael Kratzios. I was very nervous because he's not coming from a PhD background. What an unbelievable growth in that role, the guy understands. I don't know all sorts of things. I'm here to learn. Tell me what I need to know. And if no one shows up to do that totally, you're going to avoid you deserve exactly what you've got, because I think Michael is trying to do absolutely the right thing. I know Jim O'Neill very well from the Peter Till University coming in at NSF, Jay Bhattacharya absolute gem. If you can't work with these people, is that their problem or is that your problem? So arguably this, and sorry, let me just go back to talk about markets and I'll make a libertarian argument. If markets work well for driving economic value and those who are good at that participate meaningfully in that value creation, there will be wealthy people and those wealthy people will see the value of mathematics, the value of pure physics, the value of astrophysics and cosmology and they'll fund it. Jim Simons didn't he fund quite a lot of research. Jim was a genius with detailed knowledge. knowledge of pure mathematics. So if you have, you know, you're a milliner as a guy who has a background in quantum chromodynamics, if you have more of those people. And there are point is, and I'm not trying to argue with you about it. But my point is, shouldn't the market work regardless, that they'll see the value of the science that you're identifying, they'll identify it, capital will flow to that research. It will get funded somehow. There's a lot of independent institutions out there that get capital, and is, or is that not sufficient for the landscape? And I'll also state like, you know, one of the statistics that I brought up with Cratsios, which he published in his book is that over time, we have seen a significant decline in the effectiveness of dollars deployed against scientific research in the US that 80 fold the client in return on every dollar invested in government research. So I just want to throw those two points out there, like, is there not private market capital that will find its way to solve these problems? And isn't the government getting worse over time at deploying capital and driving returns? And I might be giving you a t-ball here, so I guess, or, or I feel like I should have, I should have gotten high on cannabis in order to even take that question on. I don't believe any of that first point, and it's, I knew Jim Simon's decently well. Jim was the kind of guy who could do that, but even he didn't understand my last conversation with Jim Simon's, I was trying to explain to him how the trans-Simon's transgression interpreted as an action functional is the only rival to Einstein Hilbert, and that effectively he will find if he pursues this, the trans-Simon's and Einstein Hilbert aren't an equal playing field as daughters of the ultimate theory. He didn't know that. So partially the issue is that it is so difficult in my area to know what's going on in the adjacent area. I just got off the phone before the podcast with my good friend Edward Frankl, who does algebraic geometry, whereas I would do differential geometry. It's very difficult for us to communicate even though those fields are adjacent to each other. So, yes, if you happen to have an algebraic geometry who's a billionaire, and one who's a representation theorist, another one who's interested in, oh, I don't know, category theory, you could do it that way, but this is completely insane. Okay. We should fund government, it has to be the basic funder of these things. The next part of this, the right people representing the decisions are where we should be funding, what we should be funding. Correct. And that's what we did previously is that we sort of had slush funds, and the very good people had money. Somebody years ago, I was at a conference in Beersheva on physics, and people were talking about where they were going to get their next job, and this old guy comes up to us and says, "I just pity all of you." Those were the American. And I said, "In what way?" He said, "You know, I never applied for a job in my life." He said, "Sorry, what do you mean?" He says, "If you were any good and you needed a job, you talked to one of the people who was high up in the field, and they got on the phone, and by the time they got off the phone, you had a job where you needed to be." And so, my claim is that when you have administrator types come in and say, "Well, we need is KPIs. We need to drive this on a data driven. I want to know what the translation is." Do you even know what ROI is, or is it just what you can measure? And so, my claim is a lot of what you want is you want these people on retainer. So whenever you have a real problem, you call up the Jasons, and it's stocked with the most terrifying intellects you can imagine, and we can get to work, and we can solve your problems. But if you're saying, "Why should my tax per dollar go to whatever you find interesting?" Well, if I can pursue what I find interesting, and when you call me up, I'm going to be very friendly to helping my own country, my own nation. I'm going to feel positive about that. If you tell me you should work on this, because this thing is what drives the ROI. My feeling is, do you just not understand science? Do you imagine that your technology mindset is the same thing as my scientific mindset? You want to get paid. I mean, I've spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley. I'm not nearly interested in having a new McLaren, as whether my name is going to be discussed 10,000 years from now, if humans are still around. And I say that, because Jim Watson just died. My good friends, is it worth saying it, Raoul Bott are now dead. Those are people whose contributions will be discussed 10,000 years from now. Can you say that about almost anyone who's doing software as a service? Hard to say. As I used to say, what's the difference between Grecia Proman and Ron Proman? In the modern era, the question is, who's Grecia Proman and 1,000 years from now, it's who's Ron Proman? My feeling is, is that we have our own toys that we care about, we care about our history. We care about different things. It's not unreasonable to want to dacha and to want to be able to check into a four seasons and to fly business class, but we don't need a corporate chat. That's your stuff. So treat scientists like the rock stars that they should be, will be otherwise you're going to lose them. You're going to lose that talent. You're going to lose that moment. I'm going to lose. Protecting nature is often labeled anti-grove. The Conservation Fund disagrees. They believe protecting land, wildlife, and outdoor access goes hand in hand with economic opportunity. For 40 years, they've moved with market speed to protect at risk land while supporting local communities. With 9 million acres protected across all 50 states, the Conservation Fund is proving that they deliver lasting outcomes that benefit communities and nature. Learn more conservationfund.org. When you say slush funds, the way the funding process works in the modern era is grants. You apply for a grant with a very specific set of objectives, and that's what the capital is going to be used for. To your point, earlier, grants are typically approved if they're lower beta, which means more predictable in terms of the outside. So we're appropriating modern portfolio theory to science. To science. Love it. Yes. Well, I mean, that's the way it's been operating. It's my argument. It's been, and does that not miss the opportunity to take crazy high beta bets, and not just bet on the idea, but bet on the person? So crazy high beta bets. Yeah. Let's do an example. Yes. Imagine that I have a 1% chance of curing all cancer. Right. Should you hire me? Well, 99% failure is pretty expensive, but the benefit of curing all cancer. The government is incredibly rich. And when you're incredibly rich, you can afford to take different bets to maximize your outcomes. The problem is that the government co-invested through things that are poorer than that. So each department says, you know, we can't really afford, we don't get that many appointments. So we're going to go with somebody who has a very high probability of succeeding at a very modest outcome, and then we're going to start lying about how important that is. You'll notice that if you ask people, how's your field doing? Everybody says, it's never been a better time to be a particle theorist. Well, it's a terrible time to be a particle theorist, right? And we can't say that. And it's funny because, again, in portfolio theory, if you have a balanced portfolio and part of it starts succeeding and part of it's failing, what you usually do is you take money out of the thing that's succeeding and put it into the thing that's failing because otherwise you get too much concentration in the portfolio. What he's ever thought about any of this stuff. And so what you have is you have people who don't even understand modern portfolio theory and don't understand market failure, designing things. It's really important to know basic market theory when we don't. Yeah. So if we fix that, do we fund individuals versus ideas? You know, this is the other kind of word more. So the whole story, I gave this example to Kratzio, Stuart Butterfield, worked on this project for a couple of years. He was down to three million bucks, all the VCs put money and started nearly failed. And he calls him up. He called up Ben Horowitz. He just told the story recently. He said, "Hey, should I give the money back? This project didn't work." But by the way, we've been doing an intra-accompany communication tool for our engineering team. Maybe I could pivot into that. He's like, "Yeah, keep the money. Do that. I trust you." Yeah. You pivoted it, turned into slack, sold it for $30 billion. The idea being that you back the person, not the idea that the great people, the great entrepreneurs continuously evolved, continuously build, continuously pivot. I mean, here you are with Zach reinventing that company again and again and again. And if you find the up-and-comers, is there a way to find the individual that are emerging in their fields? Oh, yeah. And you fund them for a period of time, or is this a portfolio theory again where you say some bets are on an idea. Some bets are on people. And you know, the people bets should be long term and fully funded. Right. I'll give you the magic formula that gives you an idea of how difficult this is and how tricky you have to be. Tell me who the established leaders of a field will block, but will not short. Fun that guy for now. Because if you're not willing, I mean, if you want, I'll say this with my own main theory, if you are willing to short either geometric marginalism or more importantly geometric unity, I want to dance with you. Because I want to take your house. I want to take your retirement. It would be my absolute pleasure to destroy you in the market. That's not what happens. It's like, well, we want to block him. But we know that he knows a lot of stuff. And we know that we haven't really read it. And, you know, there's something about something we say, look, you're 99.999 percent going to fail. And I say, care to formalize that. Well, I'll bet you $100 that by next year, you haven't gotten full acceptance. That's not what you said. You said that you'd be willing to put up your house to win a dollar from me. And I want to do that at size. You know, so my feeling is, come at me, baby. That would be fun. And let me tell you something. You also listen for things that no one is willing to say. I am on record as saying that the smartest man in the world today is Edward Whitman, brilliant, unbelievable. The guy drove the radical physics off the road and off the cliff 42 years ago. Nobody else is willing to say it. So question is, is the one person who noticed that nobody's gone to Stockholm that the standard model has not changed the recent conference in string theory, supposedly the only game in town in fundamental physics. Go to strings 2026 website. There's a list of all the talks. There's a search engine put in these following words, electron, hadron, higgs, lepton. There's no physics in this. They're not talking about anything that could hurt a foe. They're not talking about the physical world. I was at arguably the world's leading physics institute. And I said, who are the smartest people here? And I was given three names. Two of them were pure theorists. I talked deeply with both of them when I got to the point about how to advance the standard model, which is our notion of all the particles you see in this room. Both of them said, I have no interest in the physical world. And I said, well, you're the two leading professors that are major, are most expansive theoretical physics institute. And neither of you care about the physical world, just openly expressed. This is madness. And you know, I give talks at physics departments. And I've now started non-cooperation with the departments who've asked me to come and talk, but will technically deny me a talk. So for example, I've given talk a talk at the University of Texas Austin, but I'm not allowed to say that the talk occurred in the physics department. Really? Yeah. I gave a talk at the perimeter institute in the skyroom. It is not a talk. Eric is answering questions. I gave a talk at the University of Chicago in the Mississippi. This is because your talk and your persona is viewed to be fringe and outlandish. Keep saying, friend. Yeah. I totally disagree with the narrative of the field. I just out and out say that when physics in 1983, physics made sense in 1984, it did not. It was very stark. And it was like overnight, more or less three people, Leonard Saskin, David Gross, and Edward Witten drove the field in a totally different direction. And now the achievement of this has not been any advance in our knowledge of the physical world, but it has been something that no one knew was possible. You take the field in which Edward Teller and J. Robert Oppenheimer and Richard Feynman and Stanislav Oolong created the most terrifying weapons from SU-3 Cross U-1 gauge theory. And you've made it safe. It is now safe to do physics with your geopolitical rivals. You can invite your friends from China to come and become graduate students in your department. And you will fill their heads with things about ADS, CFT that couldn't hurt a flaw because there's no physics in it. So the question is, did I. Is this a secret program? Go back to 1983. Wait, so we drove off a cliff in 1983. The question is, if it's someone say, "Hey, let's drive this off a cliff." Well, this happened before. Do you think that there is some community subgroup set of assets, set of projects that are happening somewhere on Earth that are making advances in physics and have been for the last 50 years? Great that you asked that question. That would be crazy, wouldn't that, David? Can you imagine if there was like a secret place that was making advances in an important field of physics and people who were studying physics outside of that place were being stymied? I would find it hard that it would be kept secret. Okay. What happened in 1940 is that something that you've never heard of called the reference committee was established inside of the National Research Council. So, when the neutron was first hypothesized in 1911 by Retha Ferd, it was then discovered in the early 30s. A woman named Least Meitner came up with the concept of the chain reaction, which was then proven by Fermi at the University of Chicago with something called Chicago Pyle 1. Thereafter, a guy named Wright, BREIT, formed something called the reference committee inside the National Research Council so that if you submitted a paper on chain reaction physics to a journal, it got shunted into the National Research Council and they would return it to you saying unfortunately, you know, these results are really preliminary. We don't see this as being at the level of the journal. Please revise, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Now you've resubmitted it. It's still not going. You don't know that this thing exists. This is how people outside of the Manhattan Project, outside of the White Badges, treated their colleagues who weren't allowed inside the Manhattan Project. So, let's at least agree that from 1940 to 1945, there was a review process, which destroyed the ability to earn a living. If you were doing chain reaction physics and you weren't invited into the secret group. Yes. Okay. The question isn't, is that nuts? It's clearly not nuts because I know that this actually existed and happened. Question is, did it happen once or more than once? If it happened more than once, the question is, what is the analog of the boys school in New Mexico? What is the analog of the White Badges? What is the analog of the reference committee? And you have a theory? Yeah. Okay. If it's happening, I've said that the leading candidate would be Renaissance technologies on Long Island. I've heard you say this. Yeah. But surely there. Let's look at the cover story. Okay. The cover story would be, you know, we are so good at trading that we don't even allow people who know markets into our firm. We only hire people in directly relevant subjects of physics, like particle theorists, like differential geometers, like machine learning experts. And we have a very strange thing that we have a very close relationship with the Brookhaven National Laboratory. And by the way, there's a middling university right next door, who happens to be absolutely world-class historically in the exact subjects that would be relevant to doing next level physics. Okay. So in multiple fields, medalists, and US News and World Report never ranks this as like one of our great facilities. Even though if you look at the people who have passed their State University of New York and Stony Brook, it's unbelievable. Yeah. To me, that looks like Fort Mead when it was still no such agency collecting way too many number theorists. But Eric, people have come out of that place, that workplace. I know one or two of them. And there are no such stories at some point. How do you envision that some number of them, some small percentage of them, would leak some information or some set of facts if that were to be true about some of this advanced physics work going on. Or they would be probably more innumerable returns realized from that than perhaps there have been. I'd not saying that I know that that's true. My point was, you know, try to try to be careful. If you said, Eric, that sounds preposterous because to be entirely honest, the concept of Los Alamos, which was published in 1944 by a journalist named Jack Raper in a Cleveland newspaper, he broke the story. Nothing happened because what he said was crazy. he said there is a secret city with a mayor who's supposed to be the next Einstein, working on a doomsday weapon and the town is so secretive that nobody knows what's going on inside it. So my claim is, is that I'm doing the Jack Raper thing and you're doing what happened to Jack Raper? Well, clearly there's only one person saying that and he's nuts. - Well, in both cases I could show up and start asking questions and interrogate and see if I can find somebody. - Yeah, I'm not saying that Renaissance technologies is that I am saying you have a secure campus with a story that makes no sense. - You know markets. Do you have any idea how much the Medallion fund? - Oh yeah, yeah, I know. 'Cause again, my friends who were there, they get to leave their money there and then the returns continue. - They get to leave their money there is not what happens. - Okay. - They closed the fund to all but internal money. - Yes, yeah, that's what I mean. - You know, another interesting story was-- But if you leave the firm, you get to your capital can stay in a Medallion fund. - So my claim to you is-- - Yeah. - Jeffrey Epstein had a story, which is that he only accepted a billion dollars or more invested with him if you gave him power of attorney. These things tend to have some reason that no person outside has money and gets to ask questions, right? So Jeffrey Epstein did not run a hedge fund. He told me that he ran a multi-strategy FX hedge fund and then he needed a 727 because it had a trading for and he filled it with the Acheva students because they were the only ones you could trust. He was extremely specific about using trend following mean reversion and carry is the three strategy. I think he didn't say, he said, he didn't do any gamma trading or options trading. That was a lot. It was a cover story that was burned and then he became disgraced financier and then he became tax expert Jeffrey Epstein. You're looking at a fake world with cover stories that fail over. If you remember the old Get Smart one, would you believe a thousand special agents are going to swarm this, I find that very difficult to believe. A hundred policemen, you know, not true, but it's Maxwell Sward. Two boy scouts with a sling shot. This is fake and my claim is, I don't know what's going on at Renaissance, but Jim Simon's is an absolute genius. Hardly distinguished in that. We have many and I don't know anybody who's ever gotten close to these returns. I don't know any information about what that thing actually did, does claims to do. And I'm saying it has very close relationships with a talent pool, Stony Brook, which is not acknowledged and an all national lab. Go back to 8384. - Yeah. - And assume we did not go into this quantum universe that we looked at. - Quantum gravity universe. And we're in a different universe where we have a sense. What does that physics look like today? If we progressed physics, help an audience that's a generalist audience. Understand a little bit about what it means that if physics didn't stall out. Before I do that, let me just ask this question. Some would argue that physics has played an important role and maybe it's not fundamental and that might be your answer here. In advancing things like semiconductor manufacturing, technology, advanced lithography, material science, we've made tremendous progress in our capacity to drive compute and that's led to this moment today where we have these tools that we call AI. And all of the underlying advancements in chemistry, material science physics got us to this moment today. And that we have made progress and it has been applied and that would be one argument. And so maybe tell me why that kind of misses the point and then we can talk a little bit about kind of what would the world look like today if we didn't go off track in 1983, '84? - Great question. Let me try to engage that and then feel free to redirect me if I'm not answering the question. In the theory we have of, which I'm gonna call it the frontier model which combines general relativity and the standard model of particle theory. We know certain things that we can't use. We found out that there were three valence quarks inside of every proton and every neutron and nobody has ever pulled a valence quark out of a proton or a neutron in isolation. Something called infrared slavery and screw the woke for not saying we can't say the word slavery, infrared slavery, deal with the boys. You have a situation in which there is no industrial application. We've known about it since 1968. So sometimes you don't get to use something for an extraordinarily long period of time. But what happens if some advancements maybe we're never gonna pull a quark out of a proton? Maybe it's impossible. What if there are other things we might be able to do? Head physics actually advanced. So for example, in the mid 1970s, the two gentlemen called Abdus Salam and I forget Patee's first name. So put forward the Patee Salam model. I believe that the Patee Salam model would be found to be the correct first order grand unification above where we are. Problem is is that it has something called SU4 rather than SU3. And SU3 is what generates the force. It keeps all those protons from running away from each other inside of a nucleus because obviously like charges are want to repel. That's why we were able to take out two Japanese cities in 1945. This is that we got control of the strong force and then that allowed us to use the electromagnetic force to generate completely destructive power. But it didn't destroy protons and neutrons. What happens when you have SU4? Is that you see that the electron and the neutrino are the fourth color that we associate with the upcork and downcork, which make up protons and neutrons. You could have a weapon that rotates upcorks and downcorks into the lighter leptons that disintegrate matter. You could have dark chemistry. Dark is not the right concept. It's really decoupled matter. Dark matter is decoupled matter. Neutrinos are essentially dark matter. They're barely detectable in fact. They don't interact. Well, they do. But very, very weak. Very, very weak. Only through the gravitational and weak forces which are the two incredibly weak ones and gravities so weak it's not worth it. Enough neutrino is concentrated. Well, but here's another, here's a possibility. If you rotate a neutrino into some charged particle, you can send it through the earth. Just explain what you mean by when you say rotate. What does that mean? So these neutrinos are the subatomic particles. They don't really interact well. But what does it mean to rotate them? Well, let's take. And I think a large amount of the energy produced in the sun is neutrinos that actually come out. Like if you actually matter as far. You and I are being irradiated by billions of neutrinos. The only reason that we're not dead is that they don't interact with their atoms. Well, they barely interact. Once in a blue moon they do. So at night, the sun is streaming this through the earth. It's passing through a hole. But when it gets to us, it keeps going. You can shoot it through what it is, a light year of lead and very rarely. What happens with the rotation is in this internal sense. So it's kind of metaphor of rotation in this abstract place, which leads to a neutron. If I put a neutron on the table, and we just sit there and watch with a half life of something like 17 minutes if I get it, it'll turn into a proton. And this is called beta decay. Because what came out is is that people saw an electron scream out of the neutron. And that's why a neutral particle became positive because the negativeness went off in the electron. So just to be clear for the audience, a neutron can turn into a proton and release an electron at the same time. Yeah. But that turned out to be the wrong model. Because what it really did is that there were three quarks inside of it. And one of the down quarks-- so a neutron is down, down, up. So a down quark led off something called a W minus, which is a forced particle, not a matter particle. And then that thing decayed into an electron and something else. The only reason we determined that there was something else going on is a little bit like accounting. If you have a really good accounting system, you notice that the envelope from the tail is a little light. And you say, OK, according to conservation principles, somebody has been messing with the model itself. And that turned out to be the neutrino. And so what happens is that a neutrino and an electron have the same relationship as an up and down quark. And you can transmute them using these W particles. The danger of this is that when you have more force particles than we know currently, things that are to all intents and purposes stable now might not be stable in that new regime. So you could disintegrate a mountain, potentially. If SU5 is present, SU4 is more stable than the SU5. I don't think SU5 is relevant. But what I'm saying is, if you think about physics, think about boom, boom, and zoom as an easy way to keep track of why this is our most terrifying and most amazing subject. Boom is weaponry. Room is energy and zoom is propulsion, computation, and all the cool stuff that we get to do. So if you want to think about it, you've been denied for, let's say the standard mile, got finalized more or less. 53 years ago. For 53 years, you've been denied new boom, room, and zoom. And potentially, the stagnation in physics may have led to the survival of the human species. Because the boom is so terrifying. I can't tell you whether that's true or not. But it means that you don't have any room and zoom from the new stuff that could have occurred. So we have to be honest, I want the zoom in particular. We could probably make the case that no one on earth got there and everyone has aligned around the distraction, the disinterest and the pursuit because of that absolute risk. Because if someone did actually make advancements and they could access the bigger boom, yeah. It would be game over already. I mean, there's no such thing as more absolute power that would give an individual or a group the ability to leverage that in some way to their kind of infinite will and I don't agree with this at all. Great. Okay. So I spent two years indoors being how did to be vaccinated because of four amino acids being spliced into spike protein of coronavirus. Now, my guess is that that's pretty easy. Right. Is it think about it? You need 12 nucleotides to code for four amino acids at the exact right place in spike protein. And that's enough to shut down earth. This is high leverage science. And my claim is before we decide that what we want is let's get back to kicking ass and taking names. Let us at least pause and say most people are ignorant of how much power is present with a little bit of scientific knowledge as a marvelous scene in breaking bad where the protagonist named Heisenberg takes what appears to be crystal math and throws it in the office of a psychopath named Tuko. And Tuko says, well, like, what the hell was that that caused that massive explosion? I forget whether it was lead A side or mercury, fulminate or one of these extremely volatile compounds. Do you have any idea how easy it is to make black powder? I asked modern audiences. Nobody knows that it's 75 percent salt-beater, 10 percent sulfur, and 15 percent charcoal. The anarchist cookbook has gone out of discussion. The power of science, the leverage of science is so profound that we should at least ask the question, what if you had nuclear weapons that didn't require centrifuge? What if there are easy things to do that high school students could do? You remember this guy who scavenged the emery seam in smoke detectors to build a working reactor and I think it was Brooklyn. Okay. Well, nobody thought. Collect 218 smoke detectors and you can have a working nuclear reactor. So my claim is that if you want to think about Walter White as a paradigm, you have to go back to something called the United States versus Progress, the Progressive Magazine in which the Teller Ulaan designed for thermonuclear weapon was put forward by a publication and the government said, no, no, this is restricted data. We need prior injunction. This is the most dangerous piece of geometry. This is Stan Lum's work. And the whole idea is that if you're going to use a fission device, chemical shell compresses subcritical fissile material to create a detonator out of an atomic bomb, how do you get that to compress a rod or something into a fusion device? The only thing that can reach that tertiary stage past enough is light. You have to figure out the geometry because the detonator is going to rip apart the entire assembly if it doesn't get. Now, that secret got published. And the only reason the government didn't go after Howard Morelin is that we stupidly declassified all sorts of pieces and shards of this and he went to the Los Alamos library and he pieced it together. So my claim is, if you don't know the story of John Aristotle Phillips, the substandard physicist who in his Princeton PhD thesis is the Princeton mascot, said, look, I'm not very good, Freeman Dyson. I want to use the fact that I'm not very good to do something amazing. Tell me whether or not you will let me come up with a plan for an atomic bomb. Freeman Dyson said, I will give you no help, but I'll tell you whether it will work. So the substandard physicist put together this and he submitted his junior thesis. And I forget whether it's page 24, but that thesis is not in the library and the government removed the page that has the plan. The fact is that this stuff is readily present and we've never seen an atomic weapon used since 1945, mostly if we don't use this power. But if it turns out that it's easy to do, and by the way, if the US fails, but they're on, you're going to see a proliferation of countries acquiring news because we trusted the US, but you've got this. You are the world's policeman. Petro dollars aren't petro dollars. They're violent dollars. The US was supposed to have the violence needed to secure the oil and the oil backs the money. We're watching the disintegration of that regime in real time as the US goes through its Suez moment. You know, whether you think Donald Trump should have gone in to Iran or not and I happened to think that he was courageous and did something we should have done in 1981 or 82 or something. We have to win. We have to win because if you have a world that decides that there is no world's policeman, everybody's going to want their own nude. And you can go back to the Tom Lehrer song called Who's Next and you'll find that more or less you're going to have a world in which you can't figure out the game theory because it's no longer dyadic. It's multipolar. Imagine a world beyond nukes. What does that world look like? So what else is there beyond the boundaries of what at this point is almost a 80 year old technology? Sure. And again, I go back to the 83 story. We're making advancements. Did we stop making advancements? And if someone else is China going to make these advancements and what does that look like? Is that what UAPs unidentified aerial phenomena are? Because you've recently made comments that you were a deep skeptic on UAPs, but now you have a view that maybe there's something there. There's definitely something there. That's something there. By the way, maybe China. It may be us. It may be a fake story, but there's definitely something there. Based on the videos and the first person accounts. Not the videos. I've never cared about the videos. I've talked to too many smart sober people. Too many similar stories. There are definitely special access programs that are all about this. The only thing that we learn from that works for to keep secrets is compartmentalization. And so we are so compartmentalized that almost no one can piece the story together. It may be that the so-called stove typing is such that we can't figure out what we know because we can't talk to each other. If you want to know what's possible, I could freak you out and it would be super cool and super frightening. But the only thing is is that I'm worried about multi-temporal adversaries. Time travel. Times travel. Everybody says time travel because they think that time can only be one dimensional. But imagine, for example, that you put a giant gun on a rail car. The rail car can only move in one dimension. Now somebody puts a giant gun on something like a tank and you go to the Bonneville salt flats. Now you can move in two dimensions. Now you put it on an A10 Warthog and you can move in three. Those are all spatial dimensions. Why do you think there's an arrow of time? It's because you believe time can only be one dimensional. I don't think time is one dimensional. And if you meet an adversary who has access to multi-time, it's like you're trying to compete with them with an A10 Warthog and you've got your only gun on a on a track except with time rather than with space. If I could sneak up behind you in time knowing you're intent, I mean this is terrifying stuff to me. And it's also like I would love to have this over our adversaries. But I don't want to meet anybody who knows how to do this kind of stuff, not on the level playing field. Let me say another one. The solar system is an escape room. And Elon is focused, was focused on Mars. I said that Mars is a red herring. It's a MacGuffin. Tonight's focused on the moon. He is our only adult so far as I can tell. Crazy and mad as he is. And he uses that to motivate engineers because Mars is barely doable. These are the only rocks that are potentially habitable. It's not enough diversity if we have this much power in these few. Spheres with which we could put atmosphere so some that you could put atmospheres on the Mars and on the moon And you could get back and forth between them with chemical rockets. You'd have three places to screw up We need tens of thousands if not millions of places before we figure out how to civilize ourselves. So we have to get out of here It's too expensive to leave the solar system So my claim is that in an Einsteinian world you're never going to If Einstein is left to be in force, the speed of light is too brutal So you've got an alpha centurion for light years away. I'm back. You do it nearly the speed of light Everything is eight years advanced by the time you get back home. Nobody wants to do that. And that's just the first star My claim is is that we have been too long in Einstein's prison General relativity really begins in 1913 It's really due to Grossman and Einstein not just Einstein alone. I don't why we say that It's not really Einstein Hilbert is really Einstein Grossman But more or less it's 1915 1917 the equations haven't moved they're going to break Because of what's happening in southern Arizona tip peak has this object called desi the dark energy spectroscopic instrument and I believe that it is going to show that That the cosmological constant times the metric, which is how we encode dark energy into the equation is going to break because it's not constant The only reason that you have lambda times the metric, which is this turn Is the product rule if you take a derivative called divergence? You have to take the derivative of lambda times the metric left alone plus lambda times the derivative of the metric of the metric has to banish that term is the only possible term that can go there because of something called love locks theorem if you're within general relativity You're trying to do this geometrically My claim is is that that's going to break We're going to get to five sigma if we aren't there already I'm going to put the news and then we're going to realize that the dark energy the most important generally makes up 60 70 80% of our universe We have the wrong formula for we have no contemplation of what it is Well, I I'm focused on saying I have a candidate formula And I think everybody who has one should come for we should hold a conference and say Who wins who's who's got the best idea? We can't just have Ed Witten patting himself on the back saying well the strength here is the only game in town. It's like 42 years later Come on. This is preposterous getting back to policy. Give me some money and get rid of these people I don't want them reviewing anything that I'm doing. Give me somebody competent to talk to So sorry, let me just go back the dark energy Measurement which we're going to end up having a very high accurate estimation right tells us that the general Theory of relativity and the equations associated with it Are wrong because of the relationship that we see between matter and rotation and movement and so there's something off About that and that we know that general relativity is not the last. We know general relativity is wrong It is a view. It is a it is the map and not the territory. It is a great great model Whoever comes next has to recover it But there is no initial singularity due to the big bang nor is there a singularity in the center of a black hole called the Schwarzschild singularity That's that's where our ignorance shows. We have two singularities. We can't get rid of inside the theory So you have to go outside of it. Yeah, but the thing is it's so perfect. Yeah That nobody can figure out you know sort of in the first four seconds of A physics talk you say let x13 be a spacetime manifold. Okay, it's over. Yeah, that's the sarcophagus and you're already in a ninth-dining and frame of thought And so we know that it's wrong and nobody can figure out how to make it wrong and That is what keeps us stuck here. There's a marvelous demonstration around 2003 at a TED talk of this guy showing a surface and He's got some sort of display and he does this and suddenly everything enlarges and then he does this and everything gets smaller And this is the beginning of a multi-touch gesture called pinch to zoom that we all use My claim is is that we don't realize that pinch to zoom is probably built into the thing that we're confusing for space time So we don't know to do this and When you do that you change the distances so you don't need to break the speed of light So this is just again, you're asking somebody who can't come in To the physics establishment who is in the physics. I am in the physics system This is we're in some sort of crazy world in which people who have radical ideas Can't do the radical ideas inside of the institutions like a radical idea is is that male and female are mostly determined By the SRY complex on the Y chromosome if I say that I can't be in a meeting because I'm a big it Okay, I can't be in a physics department because I don't I think Ed Witten drove the field off of Cliff Nobody says nobody else is saying it clearly the one person who's saying that has to be wrong. Yeah. Now this is the whole thing is that I have the first First paper I think on the danger posed by mortgage-backed securities. Yeah, I think I was The only person to loudly say you don't know whether Biden's gonna make it to November And I think I said loudly. I think that's just four years of dimension dimension When people say something different do you do you force them back into this consensus? Well, that's what nations do and we have become a Dination when it comes to science talk about China. Yeah, from what you know Is China thinking differently about physics is China trying to Recast the paths is China trying to invite Innovative ideation amongst their scientific community or our others. I mean it seems like the West is probably clump together It's China different. Is anywhere different? Yeah, let's let's talk about that first of all France This is historically the world's greatest mathematician mathematical country China Where we're always taught to be you know so scared of the Chinese in math Couldn't buy a base hit until very recently now what they're doing is is that they're looking at us with our absolutely Ridiculous collectivist fictions and they're That they're cycling up to our best people and they're saying are you sure you wouldn't want to be free? You sure you wouldn't want to get paid? Come over to China taste the freedom get paid have fun right and our people are going there American scientists are going to China American scientists Russian scientists All sorts of scientists are going to China for some prestige some money and some freedom And we're going to train them up and they are going to be frighteningly good up until the point that that freedom Involves Tibet Tiananmen Square and Taiwan Are they going to rethink some of these thoughts on The path we're taking in physics. Are they going to be fundamental in how they rethink things? Let me tell you what I really believe on that. Yes, the AIs are going to Change soon Right now the AIs are trained on a corpus that privileges Things like cell nature and science as the prestige journals of biology or mathematics It would be the Invencione is in the Ales and the Journal of the American Math Society These are where the narratives of the fields are held Okay, the trash can is also a corpus Take all of the ideas that have been poo pooed and laughed at And call that the trash can corpus the TC corpus The AIs are going to start reading all of the things that are quote leading physicists have laughed at Look out that's where the discovery and the reinvention is going to happen China is going to have a private model and they're going to say assume that the Completely failed the most failed theory in the history of modern physics strength theory and something called M theory and quantum gravity Assume for the moment that it's a red herring meant to distract us It's not our leading theory. It hasn't been our leading theory for 42 years. It can't that the dog can't hunt What was it meant to stop us from seeing? I mean AI will get there the AI will get there and when the AI gets there We have everyone who has an AI that can do this again I'm saying completely radical things because quite honestly. That's what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to have John von Neumann's and Richard Feynman's and Paul der Rocks and it all of these characters and we don't have any of them So I'm trying to say what this sounds like you're all wrong and I'm right And don't tell me that I'm arrogant or that I'm conceded or that real scientist or humbler if you understand something You can explain it to a five year. That's all nonsense. What I'm trying to say is String theory has not been our leading leading theory for 42 years, it has never been the only game in town. And just the way Jeffrey Epstein was never a hedge fund manager. We're not allowed to say this, I don't know why. I want to know, is there somebody over at CIA and the Science and Technology Directorate who would like to have that conversation? Is there anybody over at the Department of Energy who would be interested in not having this conversation? Right now, you and I are having a conversation with our friends, the Chinese and the North Koreans and the Russians. Why are we doing this? Are you so confident that I'm wrong? Given this, obviously, huge amount of knowledge that most people have never heard? Well, I think the question is, can you really distinguish and can you really cage the AI? I mean, at the end of the day, say more. So if the rate of progress with AI is such that and the ubiquity of access and the corpus to your point of knowledge and non-knowledge is apparent to everyone, the AI can be directed from anywhere. And it's probably a conversation about what does humanity look like? And I think that's a conversation with humanity, not with nation states per se. Well, I think what I'm trying to get at is, my model of the AI is it is insane to have pushed out the AI as a commercial product. It's just funny. Let me imagine the scene from silence-- It's just make receipts and linear algebra, I mean. Yeah, it's just inner products. There's a scene in silence of the lambs where Hannibal Lecter is wheeled out on a gurney in a straight jacket with a crazy mask. And there's all these people around because he's so dangerous, but he's very, very intelligent. That's what I think anthropic is doing. Here's your new employee, Hannibal Lecter. He's a consultant. You've hired Hannibal Lecter from a temporary agency and the harness that is supposed to keep you from hurting yourself is all the people around him, the mask, and the straight hair. And we've decided that this military research project is something you need in your home. It's like telling people, look, the Second Amendment just says the right to keep it bare arms. We have this thing we haven't used called the David Crockett, a shoulder-launched personal nuke. Why isn't it available at Kmart with a waiting period? Yeah. Well, it's been distilled at this point. I don't know if that's a relevant point anymore because models have been distilled or the model development has been commoditized and it's been open-weight released and it's out there now. So models are there. Models are here and to your point, maybe those models get pointed at the path of discover novel physics and look at strange texts and ideas and rethink it. It's going to be a hell of a run. I just want to hear your one assessment because I wonder if this is a glimmer. What do you think UAPs are today? Is that really the first window and what's happening? If there's something there, the question for you is, what do you think today UAPs are? Let's answer that question, but let's do it in a debugger and we'll step through it line by line of the code as it executes. I look at you, I'm on a podcast. My first thought is, I know what risks I'm running. If I say what I think, I can tell you which colleagues will not open their doors to me. No, I'm not kidding. When I took a job with Peter Teal, let's imagine that there are only about 125 people I can speak to about my work. I would say 30% of the doors close to me. Just by virtue of the fact that I work with Peter Teal and I don't think he's the devil and he's a close personal friend. Now you're asking me the question of, how many of the remaining doors would you like to close are? It's not just a question. I know how these people think and I know how terrified they are. Let's answer it anyway. If general relativity is really the last word, I think that these UAP UFO things are nation states experimental weapon system. I think that there's been some breakthrough, particularly in the 1970s, sorry in the '60s. There's a 1971 Australian intelligence document where Australia, which was the testing ground for nukes of the United Kingdom started seeing all these UAPs near there, nuclear test just the way we see them near ours. And the Australians revealed that all of our best people, not all of our best people, many of our best people and many of our top institutions. We're doing anti-gravity, technically gravity shielding research. And the cover story was the golden age of general relativity, where suddenly general relativity was hot from the early '50s to the late '60s, early '70s. The claim from that 71 document is no, no. The only reason everybody went towards gravity is that there was interested gravity shielding, anti-gravity, et cetera, et cetera. I don't believe general relativity is the last word. I believe pinch to zoom exists. There's another multi-touch gesture called cheer to tilt and that means that we can leave our solar system, okay? That's great news because it means we can survive. The implication is if we can leave everyone else can come. And given the size of the universe, the odds that we are the most advanced life form is laughable. There's no point in worrying about them. So if we can leave, I think they're here. And I think we can leave. And I think the thing the scenario to worry about is North Sentinel Island that everybody lives in North Sentinel Island is considered a citizen of India. And they don't know the word India. They're an uncontacted people who don't know that they're part of something larger that watches them that does not allow people to land. But if they started sending out radio signals and then they started letting off nukes on that tiny little island, India would not have this paternalistic attitude towards its primitive tribe. So my concern is that when we let off a nuke in 1945 or when Italy became very good at quantum theory with Fermi and I forget what the name of the atomic boys. And there was this magenta incident on most leaning. Somehow UAPs are very tied to nukes. And I believe that a nuke is the sign that you become advanced enough that the next thing you figure out how to do is to leave and traverse through propulsion. We don't realize that yet because we've never seen that happen. But my claim is that almost every civilization before it gets to using the profound propulsion game which is these multi-touch gestures. First let's off a nuke and that we alerted whatever India is in this analogy. We're almost ready to come out and we're so pathetically unevolved that we are a danger to any other civilization. If there's so much power in the next theory, which I believe geometric unity is the next theory, now that will cause a certain percentage of your audience to say, "Oh, it's just self-promotion." As opposed to, no, no, that's what you're supposed to do. If you have a theory, you talk about, yes, I think I think that they're all sorts of things that you can do. I think there's multi-temporal movement. I think that there's dark chemistry. I think that there's dark light. I think that there are two other families of chiral matter left to discover at a luminous level. It's been three halves matter exists. I believe that SU-4, Cress SU-2, Cress SU-2 is the next grand unified theory that we'll find. There is so much more to do that when we make this jump, the world will become unrecognizable. And I believe that there are other life forms in the universe and that they can come and they can visit and I don't think that that's preposterous. I think that we are an uncontacted people. - On that note, I think we have more to talk about in the future. This has been a truly unique, fascinating, and I think for a lot of people in our audience, this is not a typical conversation, but I just want to highlight the importance of hearing what you have to say because I think it's very important that even if something seems not apparent, particularly when things seem unlikely or when things seem outlandish or heretical or whatever term you might want to put onto things, it's valuable to take that in. It's definitely a lot to kind of think about the paths ahead and I'd love to talk more. - I'd love to do that. I'd love to do it with your friends and I also just want to say thanks for having me. It's time for America to lead because there's no other nation I trust, like I trust our people to take care of this planet. We should make common cause with our rivals as fast as we can because the danger of getting to the next level of leverage in a contested situation is overwhelming. It's very important we went in the Persian Gulf and it's very important that the scientific community recognizes that despite their feelings about Donald Trump, we've got four or five individuals with the science portfolio who are much, much better than the PhDs think and before you turn up your nose at this, consider doing what I did, which is to come for a few days to Washington DC and utter the dangerous words, how can I help? ♪ I'm doing it ♪ ♪ I'm doing all it ♪