Eric Weinstein: The Theory He Kept Secret for Four Decades (Geometric Unity)

Why are you nervous? I You're formidable Sean Carroll doesn't make me as nervous as you do and he's hostile and you're not you've arrived I'm nervous for the right reasons because we're actually gonna have a conversation and I never have a conversation What is a core idea of geometric unity that if people knew more about it? It would get them as excited about GU as you are That despite the fact me answer great question first of all I Believe it is the only claim Of a theory that starts from essentially It's close to nothing as you can in mathematics to try to derive everything we see And because we see a world that is complex and baroque like the standard model and general relativity That process of development and unfolding has to be fairly lengthy Just the way human development from a single fertilized egg is And I think it would get lost and I think what you did Beautifully is to show that just because something has a simple starting point doesn't mean That the theory remains simple this concept of writing something down on a napkin that represents the entire world Skips many steps of what you're really trying to do is to understand where you are who you are And I think the fact that it starts basically from four degrees of freedom and A tiny amount of sectoral information like which spin structure is active and how many temporal dimensions do you want? That's it. That's really the only starting point for geometric unity and the only comparable claims that I know of would be Garrett Leesey saying let's start from the most complicated simple lead group possible Peter White saying let's start from SU4 and We'll question out by SU3 Cross you one to get the electro strong group and then we'll try to figure out how to get an SU2 from a wick rotation inside of a projective space or Stephen Wolf from saying maybe this all comes out of a very simple Cellular rule and I don't think that any of those Have actually gotten to the point where they can make the claim that that's a That's a logical train of development. So to me that would be one way of answering the question another way of answering is how much do you care about the actual Particles of matter that make up everything like do you care about the up-work-down-cork electron tau particle? Do you care about these symmetries of nature? Where is this crazy SU3 cross SU2 cross u1 coming from? Why are the three generations? Why is this chiral and therefore asymmetric? left-handed right-handed are different and I'm I guess one of the things I'm astounded by is the way that those questions when I was 17 were on the lips of every theoretical physicist and Through whatever process we went through starting in 83 84 Those questions got relegated to not particularly interesting or relevant questions, which I think If you told me that you could get physicists to stop worrying about three generations the famous who ordered that problem in Isidore Ravvy I Wouldn't have believed you So two notes Number one you contacted me 48 hours ago and said you're coming to Toronto I Normally prepare for a podcast weeks in advance mentally and then also just studying like the psychologically and then studying so This is a teaser podcast which somewhat assumes people have watched some of the geometric unity iceberg so that we can go into some depth As for greater depth that will be in the non teaser which will be I don't know how long from now, but it's upcoming And I'll I'll come back to Toronto for it because I can't tell you How much that is? Impact like the first time I'm having a real conversation About a real thing with another human being that I've spent my entire life talking about to myself and myself for long The second note is that that first question about what is the greatest idea about geometric unity or some core idea that what would you what would be Impressive I think was yeah, right comes from Richard B. Heel fun pronouncing his last name correct me He has a fantastic YouTube channel place it on screen. He's the one who did the the Higgs particle Recently and did a spinner video recently so plenty of this will be me also reiterating what you're saying so that I can ensure that I'm following along and I'll try to make sure you get your act back like TCP IP Okay, let's see How would you summarize GU simply? Okay, now let me let me put a caveat to that yeah again on screen I'll put a link to this video where I talk about the perils of explain like I'm five else you don't understand it I have a video where I say there are three factors here much like there's cost speed and quality in the business world very often There's a there's a trade off many many things whether it's human relations or Pedagogy or business or whatever it's here's three things the feeler essential choose any two sure exactly So I think for teaching yeah, it's succinctness Accuracy and simplicity So if you want something that's simple and accurate it's going to take quite some time. Yeah, so that's say an algebraic geometry textbook It's actually quite simple because it starts from something rudimentary, but it takes a semester to go through Right if you want something that's accurate, but succinct you sacrifice simplicity and that's what sorry. Yes, accurate, but succinct You sacrifice simplicity. Yes, so let's say What is the standard models gauge group so you can say it's S.U.3 cross blah blah blah, then you can say it's modded alba Z6 Super succinct. It's not quite simple So anyhow, I'm asking you to sacrifice some accuracy now. Okay. Oh really because it that would be great To tell G you in a simple and succinct manner A Life begins as a four manifold Which Begets Very failed. Yeah, so someone said that in my explain like I'm five videos for four geometric unity I use the word engendered. Yeah, and they're like what five year old knows the word engendered. So let alone manifold Now we're not aiming at the five year. Okay, here's the here's the thing you most people Why do they care about fundamental physics because it's existence? You're here in this miracle place. You don't know what you are. You don't know where this is and you want to know Like God's thoughts and that's the thing where when we talk about crisis and physics or whatever and people say well What about condensed matter? Well? That's not the part that scratches the philosophical itch of who am I where am I what is this I want to know before it's all over Right, so the key thing is we are waves in a medium the medium is called a bundle It's a very strange thing that you are a wave and nobody told you what the name of the medium is you'll have an entire your entire conversation about the ether and Like the bundle is probably the right concept of the ether you know and instead for some reason they stopped minting new words after ether so we're still discussing the ether and we're not discussing bundles So if you're a wave in a medium The universe is a newspaper story you want to know? Where and when who and what how and why where is space when is time put the two of them together you have space time Then there's the who and what those are the bosons and fermions that make up the matter in the case of the fermions and the force and the other field in the case of the bosons So you have matter acting on force and force redirecting matter Which every way they chart they're interacting and then how and why is what we would call the equations and the Lagrangian and So that's a pretty good idea about how to remember how a physicist thinks about reality at the deepest level Tell me where it's going on tell me what the equipment and the players is are and tell me what the rules are and what the consequences are So basically geometric unity says that we have this wrong Not wildly wrong in the sense of I can't connect it It's very connected to what I'm claiming and what Einstein was claiming are that with the authors of the standard model declining But the first thing is that the arena is not space time. It's a different kind of a gadget called a bundle and One thing you can think about it is that there's sort of two spaces in a bundle not one space and That gives you a little bit of an opportunity to say maybe if you if you're going to sacrifice accuracy. Let's go for it The quantum is happening on a 14 manifold And the classical is happening on a four manifold and they're not on the same space. They're not native to the same space So a lot of the attempt to say that you have to quantize gravity or which slit does the photon or electron go through and the double slit experiment, all these things, come from the fact that you're trying to answer a non-space-time question in a construct called space-time that because Einstein sort of wrote down the rules around 1913 through 1917, sometimes with Grossman, sometimes in rivalry with Hilbert, that story has confused us. It's like having a Mercator projection of the world on your wall and starting to think, "Well, that is the world." No, it's a distortion. Einstein distorted the world for his time and geometric unity asserts that ultimately, if you want to not look at the map and you wanna look at the territory, you have to keep putting in a new map until finally in the end, and the reality is its own exegesis. There's no tool to look at it. So geometric unity says, "You're not living on one space, "you're living on a relationship between two spaces." And in that relationship, you put the quantum on one space, the classical and another, which decreases the amount of conflict between them. It also says, for example, that the classical world is by far the more important of the two worlds than the quantum. How did it say that? So look, I wanna riff with you differently than I can riff with anyone else. I'm in the rare position where I'm talking to the only person who has actually talked about one of the great revolutions of our time that actually happened. When you did that show with Eva Miranda on geometric quantization, you took one of the three great developments in physics after the standard model, and you made it publicly accessible with Professor Miranda. So what is in this situation? Isn't it amazing we had a revolution called geometric quantization, and there's no trace of it in the pop? The public doesn't know, but for your channel that it exists. And if you wanted to say it in a really funny way, it's the Hamiltonian dynamics. One way of there are two ways of basically figuring out the consequence of a rule. If you use the Hamiltonian formalism, it self-quantizes. There's a thing called a simplistic form that generates how the world develops. And what we didn't realize is it comes from something else. It's the curvature tensor of a connection on a bundle over something called phase space. So we had this concept of phase space to figure out how classical physics develops. And classical phase space, births and bootstraps, it's own medium for quantum waves. So once you know that, and it's not perfect, but just we're sacrificing a little bit of accuracy to say something like dramatic, meaningful and punchy. If I tell you the classical theory, you have to figure out the consequences of it quantum mechanically. But the quantum fetish that you see is kind of weird and wild. Yes, there are systems that don't appear to be the quantization of any classical structure. But the standard model is a classical theory that then gets quantized. And in some sense, it bootstraps its own quantization. Once you give, like you'll hear physicists say, once you've given the Lagrangian or the action, everything is in place. You just question a figuring out the consequences. Well, if that's true and the action is classical, then what do you mean that you're so focused on the quantum? So I guess, look, it's embarrassing, but I just think we have a quantum fetish. And we have a tiny number of people convinced everyone to repeat the same statements about, well, you know, the world is quantum mechanical. So if you say, I think the classical was more important, they don't hear that as an informed statement. They hear that as you didn't get the fact that the world is quantum. You still think that you live in a classical world. Or for example, the fact that, why does the classical world dominate? Why are we confused about the quantum world? Why isn't it evident that everything is quantum? It's fine-man voting. Have I ever talked about fine-man voting? No. Imagine that you have 10,000 people lost in a featureless landscape. And they're trying to figure out which way to go. And you've got one cult of like 1,000 people, right? So a small group of people, they all agree. And you say, we're gonna take a poll, we're gonna add up, we're gonna point in different directions. And then whatever the sum of the direction, we're going to average out by the number of people. And we'll go in that direction at that speed. Well, the key point is that everybody who's not in the cult is pointing in some different direction. And that's randomly going to average out to going in no direction at all. Except for the cult, and they're all going in the same direction. So in fine-man voting, the classical thing contributes a much more coherent picture of what should happen. And that's why the classical world dominates even though it's a minority perspective. Okay, why can't you say that the action itself is not classical? You have an action, you can interpret it in two ways. One is a quantum way, then another is a classical way. You can do that. That the action itself is not, or the Lagrangian itself is not classical. But this is Logomach. We're arguing over words rather than substances. Okay, let me be, let me be semantically clear. Okay. You can get classical observables by taking the action, or you can get quantum observables by doing something else with the action. And the classical one just looks at a small part of the action and says, okay, this is where everything is happening. And the quantum one actually looks at all of it. And so it has more information, the quantum one, sorry. The quantum one interprets more of it. I'm a little bit confused because they're both local. The quantum picks up more information because you're looking at it at the wave function over the entire space. But what actually happens with the observable is that you have a function, and you can either measure the function at the point, and then multiply it by the quantum wave, or you can take that function, differentiate it to get a one form, stick it into a subplactive form to get a vector field, throw the vector field to a connection, and use that connection to take a directional derivative. So one of these ends up as the position operator, one of these sort of ends up as a momentum operator for the p's and q's in the underlying co-ordinatization of phase space, but that process of promoting a classical observable, which is just like some number, I don't really think that that works exactly because the function is defined over the entire phase space. So in a certain sense, even if you're thinking classically, you're working over the entire space of possibilities in both cases. The only thing that's different is the state of the system is seen as, naturally looking at the entire space, whereas in this other case, you actually imagine a physical situation in which only one part of it is relevant at any time. - So in the classical case, are you saying that because we use a variational principle that we're seeing all of the space? - In a certain sense. - Well, look, you're defining an action or a Lagrangian on the entire space, and then you're defining observables that you wish to measure. So you're thinking about for the space of all possible initial conditions, if I then measured the system, and units of time later, I believe I would be sampling this function at this point, and it's the point part of it, that is narrowing things to a single point, whereas a state that is distributed, every wave is a wave and a medium that's distributed over an expanse. - So what I meant was that if you do some variation principle, you say, okay, let's take the extreme of that. - Yeah. - Only that for the classical case contributes to an observable. - Yes. - Whereas in the quantum case, it doesn't have to just be that single part. - Well, again, the variational sounds more Lagrangian than Hamiltonian. Hamiltonian sort of says, I don't need to know about all that. I'm just going to start from here and move. - Where you can, the genre map, no? - Certainly. - Okay, so if you're lost, don't worry. This is just the beginning. I have some other questions. - If two friends talking late on a Friday, so. - In GU. - Yeah. And again, I'm just going to assume that the iceberg is out on people of Washington. So you and I can talk instead of having to cover GU. - Put the link in the. - Sure. There's a Frobenius inner product that's introduced. - Yep. - Why the Frobenius inner product? Presumably there are other inner products that could have been used. - In fact, it's not the Frobenius inner product. It's the trace reversed Frobenius inner product. And the only reason it's trace reversed is that we don't have a grand unified theory of the observed world that uses spin seven cross SU2, which would really be spin seven cross spin three. All right, one of the problems is that the typical description of the Patisse-Lom theory that we've discussed is that that theory is usually presented as SU4, Cresc SU2, Cresc SU2. And it's not that the field doesn't know that that's equivalent to Spin 6, Cresc, Spin 4. But it is meaningfully different because it pushes you, how you call something, determines how you think about it. This is a very human thing. And it really is Spin 6, Cresc, Spin 4 because G-U, and I don't know that you and I have even had this discussion, is a machine that could also accept a 111 space time or a 115. Any multiple of four dimensions with one of them taken as time results in a G-U. Why would a 111 work? Sorry, did I say 111? I meant. 711. I meant a 117. No, I'm messing you up now. 1111. Yeah, no, why? It has to add up to 12, 12 is a multiple of four. Uh-huh, okay. No, I did it right. Did you? Yeah. Doesn't have to add up to 14? Just a moment. Don't go anywhere. Hey, I see you inching away. Don't be like the economy. Instead, read the economist. I thought all the economist was something that CEOs read to stay up to date on world trends. And that's true, but that's not only true. What I found more than useful for myself, personally, is their coverage of math, physics, philosophy, and AI, especially how something is perceived by other countries and how it may impact markets. For instance, the economist had an interview with some of the people behind deepseek. The weak deepseek was launched. No one else had that. Another example is the economist has this fantastic article on the recent dark energy data, which surpasses even scientific Americans coverage, in my opinion. They also have the chart of everything. It's like the chart version of this channel. It's something which is a pleasure to scroll through and learn from. Links to all of these will be in the description, of course. Now, the economist's commitment to rigorous journalism means that you get a clear picture of the world's most significant developments. I am personally interested in the more scientific ones, like this one on extending life via mitochondrial transplants, which creates actually a new field of medicine, something that would make Michael Levin proud. The economist also covers culture, finance and economics, business, international affairs, Britain, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, China, Asia, the Americas, and of course, the USA. Whether it's the latest in scientific innovation or the shifting landscape of global politics, the economist provides comprehensive coverage, and it goes far beyond just headlines. Look, if you're passionate about expanding your knowledge and gaining a new understanding, a deeper one of the forces that shape our world, then I highly recommend subscribing to the economist. I subscribe to them and it's an investment into my, into your intellectual growth. It's one that you won't regret. As a listener of this podcast, you'll get a special 20% off discount. Now you can enjoy the economist and all it has to offer for less. Head over to their website, www.economist.com/toe to get started. Thanks for tuning in, and now let's get back to the exploration of the mysteries of our universe. Again, that's economist.com/toe. That's in the, that's in the, in the total space. I'm saying the input is a one in a three. Uh-huh. And that be gets you the 14. Okay. Now the next one up is, okay, I see what you're saying. It is one in seven and then it's one in 11 and then it's one in 15 etc etc. In each one of those, there's a Patisse Salam analog. In each one of those, there's a standard model analog and in each one of those, there's a spin 10 analog. And an SU5 analog and in all of those cases above one comma three, the Patisse Salam thing is a spin, cross a spin. It's not an SU, cross an SU. So it's meaningfully spin six, cross spin four. I don't think I've ever had a chance to, to, you know, basically everything is always that this goddamn explain it like I'm five level. So we never actually get to anything interesting. That's a great question. That's what determines which for beanie is inner product. And you know, you want to have something fun. If you watch the Oxford lecture, I screw it up. And I know that I'm screwing it up. And why is this? It's because like, look, I don't think people have a clue, Kurt, as to what it is like to work completely on your own. They just don't, they, trying to remind yourself, if you think about how much you've forgotten about G.U. I bet it's huge. Right. Right. And then you have to refresh and, okay, I'd forgotten all sorts of stuff I'd already done. One of the things I forgot is that you end up with a three comma seven metric on the fiber, which can't work. And so while I'm giving the talk at Oxford, I'm thinking, I know this works, but I have to be honest that I'm coming up with three and seven and three. And right at the end, I say, are there, are there things left to do? Certainly there are. In fact, you have to get somehow. Sure. I'm trying to be honest. But I'd forgotten, oh yes, it's the trace reversal of the Frobenius metric. Now most people don't know that Frobenius metrics even exist because they've never, it is not typical in an entire career in mathematics that you had to induce a metric on the space of metrics. Well, the space of metrics isn't even talked about much. I mean, I think it's not, it's not never discussed. It's just actually, there's two different ways there's a language problem. Do you mean the space of metric sections? Or do you mean the space of point wise metrics? So certainly the space of metric sections is very much discussed. Point wise metrics has never really been focused on. Now, if you say something like that, I guarantee you somebody will pull out papers from 1957, price to it looked at this. Who knows what? I don't know. But most people never induce a Frobenius metric in their lives. And so it comes, this is one of the taxes that you see is that if you do something really different, even if it's not like developing a new, a new collection of mathematics, people have an idea of I bet there's one or two or maybe three changes from what we usually do. And G.U. says, I accept the standard model, I accept general relativity, but everything we do is slightly wrong. We call, we call Patisse along by the wrong name. We have the wrong grand unified real forms of the group. SU five is really SU three comma, SU three comma two. So 10 is really spin 10 and spin 10 is really spin six comma four. Like the amount of wear and tear on the mind to hear somebody say, no, no, I accept all these things, but we've, we've minorly got everything shifted. I think it's a huge barrier to entry and G.U. Anyway, you asked me of why the Frobenius metric. I don't think you, there are many different metrics. I think they're exactly four metrics. If you don't add a parameter to figure out how much trace to how much traceless you want. And other with it's only plus or minus one, there are precisely four metrics you can define and only four metrics you can define. And two of them are consistent with experiment and two of them are ruled out by experiment. And the two obvious ones are ruled out by experiment. The trace reversed ones remain in the game. And I, you know, it is kind of fun because Einstein forgot to trace reverse the reachy tensor. And you know, it's like, if I could recapitulate anyone's mistake, that would be the one I'd recapitulate. So the observer's, is it the same as the metric bundle or is it the tangent space of the metric bundle, the tangent bundle to the metric one? Well, the observer's is the package. And here I was thinking actually a little bit about growth and deep. Where growth and deep replace the concept of a variety with the concept of a scheme. I don't want to say that the total space is the observer's. It is the bundles and the relationships and the pullbacks. Like it is the package that is the observer's. Okay. So think about if we can, but I love the fact that you trust your audience. So let's trust your audience. Take a, take a page from object-oriented programming. In a class definition, you've got member variables and you've got bound methods. So that's like stuff and stuff you can do with and method and it's, you've got nouns, you've got verbs, you've got stuff and you got things you can do with the stuff. So that's what the observer's is. It's two spaces with a fiber and sections connecting them and then it's bundles on top of them. And if you wanted to talk about like the shift in perspective from Einstein, most of what we're going to do in GU takes place not on X4 but on Y14. Mostly we're not dealing with the tangent bundle on Y14. The way Einstein dealt mostly with the tangent bundle. You're dealing with the spinner bundle on Y14. Mostly you're not dealing with the Einstein Hilbert action. You're dealing with this new action that has homology to both the Einstein Hilbert action and the turn Simons action and additional components that you've never seen. Yes, homology to both are analogy to both. Sorry, you want to find the biologist use homology to mean similarity. Right. And so somehow I was in the wrong part of my head. and yeah, has similarity in analogy. - I thought I missed something. - No, but it's very interesting. I always tell people that if somebody has a meaning to the word ham, puts a meaning to the word Hamiltonian, you know that they're in only one field because it means one thing in civics, one thing in physics, and one thing in biology. 'Cause Hamilton is a great name in human history. So yes, I didn't mean homology in the sense of algebraic to call it. - Okay, let me tell you some of my gripes when I was going through GU. - I knew this was gonna be a good shit. - And then I'll tell you some of what I, and then I'll ease the wound. - You're negging me. - Yes, great, great. In part, one of the reasons I made the iceberg was so that I could understand GU and also try to explain it to someone else who if they have a differential geometric background, they could understand it. So mathematician or physicist. So when I was going through the paper, there were some terms, this is why I think there's, this is one reason I think there's a communication gap. - Please, okay. - So going through the paper, there were some terms introduced which were not used again like invasive fields versus native fields. They were introduced on like page six and then I did control F, 'cause I'm like, did I miss something? And this is like in films called check-offs gun, when you're reading something, you wanna know it's leading somewhere. - Yeah, yeah. - So then it takes up working memory. Okay, so there was that, there was something you just did right there with object oriented programming. You're like, okay, let me give you an analogy, and then you go into object oriented programming. So in the PDF, I believe you give an analogy, you're like, if you don't know what sections are, think of indifference curves in economics, and then I'm thinking most mathematicians and physicists don't know what indifference curves or for full-eations, I think that's what it was. So then I'm like, you wanna stay in someone's field like if you're explaining to them, not jump outside and assume their competency there. So for instance, if I said a fiber bundle is like the entity class component in video game architecture. People are like, what the heck are you talking about? - Yeah, but I don't know how to not do this. - Okay, well anyhow, so I was, sorry, look, this is wonderful because I'm aware that I do this. I'm sorry that I do this. It's not like, - I say this as a friend, I'm not trying to, this is not a gotcha. - I don't feel it's a gotcha. I think that to be honest with you, if I can play with it, you and I are both facing the same problem, right? I watch you across different fields. You're not just the physics guy, you're also in the consciousness space. I think that you're pretty responsible about all sorts of things. I have no idea how it is that we bridge this. And partially what I love that you're doing, is you just throw things out. You try your best to make them understandable. You try to save them clearly. But the person has access to chat GPT and GROC and you know, claw at all these things. These are great tools. Okay, so use them. And by the way, if you're convinced that you and I are bad explainers, you've picked the long time. Because you can sit there with one of these AI's and say, make this make sense to me. And the AI can't do it. - Well, if people watch this video that I have on, I don't know what the title is currently 'cause we keep changing the title, but at one point it was explain it like I'm five, okay, dokey, that was the original title. And I think currently it's the, this is hurting popularizing of science, something like that currently. It's this whole explain it like a five and give me the whole, the, give me the simplistic explanation. So if you watch, okay, so then someone may say, but Kurtz, what about these videos from Wired where a mathematician goes through something at five different levels? So then I give a specific example with Emily Reel, a professor of category theories known for being the top category theorist. She's been on the podcast before as well. On infinity categories. So this was her explaining infinity at five different levels. And actually if you watch it, what she does is she explains something about infinity, like something that's unbounded to a nine year old, not a five year old. - Okay. - Then she explains Hilbert's hotel to someone else. - Right. - So then she explains cardinality. And then she explains the axiom of choice and its equivalences, but the point is that by the end when she's speaking to another professor, she's speaking about infinity categories, yes. And also how you can construct proofs by looking at one space is some domain and the target space is a proof and that's what a mathematical theorem is. And then okay, so now if you look at it and you're like, okay, was that explained at five different levels? No. It was just tangentially concepts related to this that was explained at five different levels. - Because the internet has its own, weird intellectualism that is horrendous. I mean, let's just be honest. - What do you mean? - When I'm wrestling with a guest's argument about say the hard problem with consciousness or quantum foundations, I refuse to let even a centilla of confusion remain unexamined. Claude is my thinking partner here. Actually, they just released something major, which is Claude Opus 4.6, a state of the art model. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's the collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow thinks with you, not for you, whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle problems that matter to you. I use Claude actually live right here during this interview with Eva Miranda. That's actually a feature called artifacts and none of the other LLM providers have something that even comes close to rivaling it. Claude handles interalia, technical philosophy, mathematical rigor and deep research synthesis, all without producing slavently reasoning. The responses are deckerous, precise, well structured, never sick of phantastic, unlike some other models, and it doesn't just hand me the answers. The way that I've prompted it is that it helps me think through problems. Ready to tackle bigger problems? Get started with Claude today at Claude.ai/theoriesofeverything. That's Claude.ai/theoriesofeverything and check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. The internet wants to know all sorts of things and it believes certain things. Like one thing it believes is that you can watch a conflict between two people on a topic that you can't possibly understand. And by looking at body language and who's sweating and all these things, yeah, he curbs stop that guy. No. Both of them were wrong and one of them was more polished and you know, if I put my shoulder back, I appear to be more confident in my position. So the internet is making us incredibly broad. It's informing us. It's making us stupid. It's making us smarter. It's distorting our relationships. You know, like I'm so glad we're doing this in person 'cause I can't stand doing interviews over Zoom. I didn't coderize at the wound. So allow me to say something. Sure. What struck me about geometric unity? At first I thought it was extremely convoluted. Just my impression. I hadn't gone through the material. And then as I started to go through it, so firstly I encountered new terms being introduced which that was something that I tried to overcome in the iceberg to explain it in the way that I would explain it 'cause I wouldn't do your paper in the way that you did your paper. Maybe I screwed up. I'm open to it. I tried to put some order to it 'cause it was a collection of results like slime mold, but in a positive minute. Like many arms. So I tried to put some narrative to it. It's difficult too, but I tried to. What struck me was that it's remarkably simple. I remember I said that to you and I thought you'd be angry at me. The highest compliment you could possibly pay me because I know how hard it is. Look, curp. If I'm honest, I've failed every year for 40 years to communicate this. And I wanna say also that I make it my living to go through different people's theories of everything. And sure there are shortcomings. There are shortcomings to every theory of everything. There are shortcomings. A laundry list to string theory and string theory has been around for decades. It takes tens, if not hundreds of minds, to solve a particular problem. And it's not even clear if it's been opened and shut. There's loop pantographies and some blah blah blah blah blah. I haven't seen such novel ideas from a single theory, from a single person, sorry. Ever. And I don't know if anyone else will tell you this, but what you've done is remarkable, man. - I don't even know how to be with that, to be honest. - Look, thank you. Like one of the things that's just hard. - Look, I'm not trying to compliment you for the sake of complimenting you. - No, no. this as an endorsement that this is the correct theory. I think this is I'm saying this is fantastic. I don't know who else will say that to you. Well, look, you know, part of what I wouldn't stay with anything for this long if I didn't believe in it. So I really believe in it. I believe it is the answer. And I don't want to be with that. It's a very weird thing to say, you know, and to have to promote something. And I look at the distortions in myself, you know, very often when you meet somebody who's got a history of trauma, you can see that they're trying to stop the things that have gone wrong to begin with. There's this wonderful interchange in Kung Fu Panda, where Ube says to Shifu, "We often meet our destiny on the road we take to avoid it." I couldn't understand why does the world not see flakes of this, right? One flake of GU made it into the world. And that's what's now known as cyber-witten. Now you have to be very careful. There's two separate things that make up the constellation that's called cyber-witten. There's the cyber-witten equations, which I was what I'm talking about as a flake of GU. And there's cyber-witten theory, which has nothing to do with anything I know how to do. That's just some wonderful thing that Nadi Cybergan and Witten came up with. But the equations occurred around 1987 at Harvard as a flake of GU. And this is something that I don't know that I agree with in your treatment of GU. GU happens at two different layers. The first thing you do is you do the Einstein-Darok portion of the theory. Once you have the Einstein-Darok portion of the theory, there's a second Lagrangian in an action that gives you the Yang-Mills Higgs in addition. So that's something that probably you and I could work through. And maybe I'd learn something from you. One of the things I believe with you is you're not just curating. You're actually in there working on the theory. So what I would say is that when I flake that off at Harvard, it was referred to as insufficiently nonlinear. And what's worse is that my point about it was this is an Einsteinian equation. It's not a Yang-Millsian equation, right? Because there is no derivative in front of the curvature tensor, it belongs to the Einstein sect. Now because all of Donaldson theory and self-duality in Einstein's was trumpeted as self-dual Yang-Mills theory, people didn't understand what part of speech it was. So I was having an argument with people like Roman Jockew at MIT. And I would go around and talk to people and they would say, "No, no, you don't understand these equations. I understand that they look physical to mathematicians, but they're really only Einstein's sector equations." But people couldn't hear that I was actually questioning that. Like isn't this really an Einsteinian concept? And it sort of predates something that I'm hoping to see a Kirch-Jane-Mongol treatment of, which is the double copy problem, which is the relationship that was discovered through amplitudes between Yang-Mills and general relativity. It was entirely unexpected. In a certain sense, Einstein is a square root of Yang-Mills, but it's not Einstein that's the square root. If the thing that replaces Einstein is the square root of the thing that replaces Yang-Mills Higgs. And so when I flaked this off, there was no interest in it. And what's more, it just got me into trouble. So I was being punished for what I thought was great work. After this was rediscovered by Nady Sibirgan and Ed Witten around 1994, and I was in the lecture at MIT where Ed Witten puts this up and says, "There is a replacement for Donaldson theory." He didn't say what it was. And I believe Alan Newtson, who as I recall, was seated below me into the right as I faced Ed Witten in the audience, said, "In the Q&A, do you want to tell us what these equations are?" I think he's now a professor at Cornell. This is a detailed loss to history. And he writes these two equations. And I think, if I recall correctly, he used phi rather than psi for the spinner field. Because another thing I've been told was that I had violated spin statistics. And since I was talking about a classical theory, I had no idea why anybody was telling me I was violating spin statistics seven years earlier. Okay. There's an entire story that nobody knows about Harvard and Cambridge, Massachusetts, having a very dim view of Princeton, Massachusetts, Princeton, New Jersey. And the thought was, we worked very hard at Harvard to get great results in Donaldson theory. Washington tells us after the fact, yeah, yeah, we know all this stuff from quantum field theory, but it's always like taking credit for work we've already done at Harvard. And a very dramatic thing happened. I don't think I want to tell this full story here right now, where when the lecture is finally given, it's on. The title of the lecture is "Witten's Magical Equation." I think there's no S on the end of it. Now there were two equations. So it was like weird and cyborg was nowhere on sight in the title. And the professor at Harvard, three weeks later, who was giving this lecture, was the most dramatic lecture I've ever seen. It's like his entire life's work changed in an instant by equations that he had called insufficiently nonlinear. And he said, if Ed Witten hadn't told us, I never would have believed it. He looked directly at me afterwards after saying that because he had said, no, you don't get it. You think this is Einsteinian, this is Yang-Milzi, and this is not enough nonlinearity and the squaring of the spinner. You can't just replace S U 2 by U 1 blah, blah, blah. So that was like really dramatic for me, which is that a flake of this theory could change the world. And it was clear that it was a flake of the theory. And there was a conference afterwards at Princeton. Well, what is this new set of equations that then was called cyber-Witten after that lecture? And I asked to speak at it. It was ludicrous. Why should you speak? It's like, because those are my equations. It's so hard to say it. People say, well, do you want credit for the credit? No. Do you want them to be called cyber-Witten? That's fine. But if somebody, if there was justice in the world, the thing I would love to be called, them to be called, is the insufficiently nonlinear equations. Because that's what they were called for seven years. Anyway, look, that experience taught me that I can't interact with this system. You do great work. You hand that work to the system. And the system thinks nothing of assigning the credit to somebody else. And that matters because that credit was supposed to be health insurance, the ability to raise children, to buy a home, maybe even a second home. And when credit is reassigned in their academics, it's very interesting. People have this whole act that they do. Who cares who gets the credit? The only thing that matters is the underlying subject matter. And then they fight tooth and nail to get credit after saying that. And they have names for this stuff. It's called the Matthew Effect. If you go to Washington, D.C., and you talk about the problem that older people are stealing credit from younger people, are reassigning names and who knows what. They say, "Oh, it's just the Matthew Effect." It's like, that's just the casting couch in Hollywood. You're like, you are talking about rape or some sort of very serious coercion. Yeah, it's just the casting couch. Well, in academics, it's called the Matthew and the Matilda Effect. The Matilda Effect is that we don't credit women with results if they raise it. Colloquially known as he-peating. So what is the claim? I know you want to, perhaps save it for another time, is the claim that Whitton or someone close to Whitton took those equations from you or independently came up with that? Absolutely not. Whitton is brilliant as you could possibly be. Those equations probably came from Nadi Cyberg. Nadi and I have talked about this. Nadi said, "I never understood what the big deal at the equations was." To this day, he still doesn't understand or at the time, "No, I think he doesn't understand. I think he's a physicist." Look, I will say some serious things. It's not really clear what Ed Whitton is. I think that's fine. I don't need it to name it. But when you say Jackie Chan is an actor who does all his own stunts, you're totally missing it. Jackie Chan is a stuntman who does all of his own acting. So far as I know, Ed Witten is the world's greatest differential geometry who does all of his own physics. Right? The math is really the impressive stuff. The physics has never gotten to the same level. And because that's so counter-narrative, one of the things that's really important in academics is that there's a single official narrative just the way there is a single blockchain. There's consensus about what happened, who did it? We all know that it's sort of not right. But we agree to officially talk about a story. The story is completely wrong. And that's one of the reasons why you can't really do this from podcast space. You can't contradict the official narrative in the journals. There's so much that's just wrong. And Ed Witten did not steal this. Nadi Cyber can I bet also resolve this. When Nadi Cyber got $3 million for the breakthrough prize, he and I encountered each other at a San Francisco fundraising event for the Institute. And this is a very dramatic story. I won't tell the whole part of it, but we hugged it out at the end. And we accepted. It's like, I don't have a beef with Nadi Cyber grid with them on that front. The problem was that Harvard had a very clear perspective. And that is we do incredible nonlinear analysis. That's why we get the results. It was a morality play. Because we do better nonlinear analysis than anyone else. We get better topological results than anyone else, including Donald Sidney. And the point was, no, you guys landed in the new world and you built an entire city, the first site that you found and you built it in a swamp. And that's why your lives are so difficult. Just go over there and you build your city and everything will be fine. And they didn't want to hear it. And then when they when they realized how wrong they'd been for a decade, then it became like this rush to credit the great Whitten who is great. And by the way, cyber Whitten theory, which I have no claim on whatsoever, the equations yes, the theory now. I don't know whether anyone fully understands it to this day. I mean, it's an unbelievable achievement. I didn't have that. I really saw it as general relativity. And part of the one of the most uncomfortable things about geometric unit partially why I've held things back and haven't handled things great. In the end, it'll become very clear where the cyber Whitten equations came from. They came from Einstein, not Yangtzehls. About holding back with geometric entity. Have you thought about publishing it on the archive? Yeah. I tried to get access to the archive at some point. And I think I can't remember how I'm publishing access. Do you mean because anyone can access it? Oh, yes, right rather than read. I think at first you could and then you needed to have a dot edu. And you know, I was like, why should there be a dot edu requirement? It's like we don't serve Negroes here. Oh, really? I know that sounds fine to your ears, but doesn't sound good to mine. As Muhammad Ali and the Dic Gregory said, that's okay. I don't need to. Then I think I interacted with Paul Ginsbarrag and he said, no, no, this doesn't apply to you. We'll get you a special exemption. And then I was like, why do I get a special exemption? And a friend of mine just got his paper that I read turned down by the archive. There are people, there's a string theorist on the archive committee who says, no, no, you can't post. So I think people have this idea. Why don't you just submit things? It's like maybe you don't understand the critique. You haven't, you haven't succeeded in over 50 years moving the Lagrangian, a fundamental physics. Do you understand that part of the critique is the way peer review works, the way credit is apportioned, the way disputes are adjudicated is the problem. Your culture is decaying. You were no longer the people who were able to do the standard model. You've accepted such a degraded state in your culture that your institutions are repugnant to me. I don't, I don't apply for your grants either. I'm trying to, I would love for G you to be evaluated with my H index as low as it could possibly be. I could have an H index of zero. If I could do this with no PhD, I'd love that. But everybody pays lip service to, no, nobody cares where it comes from, nobody cares about it. But everybody does. Everybody's just, we're just, we're a deeply hypocritical culture, which we don't realize we've abandoned science, we've abandoned mathematics. We have, where we used to have the scientific method, we have what might now be termed the academic method. What's the impact factor? What's your H index? Who cares? What's, what's girdles? So the answer is I'm not, I'm not against sharing it, but I'll tell you what will not happen. I have a joke that I tell what's the difference. People have to say, why do you say that's a work of entertainer or that you're an entertainer? I say, okay, what's the difference between a professor of physics and an entertainer? An entertainer has rights. I reject wholeheartedly things that other people have never even heard of. There's a concept called restricted data that exists nowhere else in U.S. law. Do you know about it? No. The 1946 and 1950, I'm going to say something that's going to sound totally crazy. And after I'm done saying the totally crazy thing, go ask chat GPT whether I was accurate, put in the portion of the transcript. I like doing it. It's a great new thing. In 1946 and 1954, we passed the Atomic Energy X. And if you couple that to something called the 1917 Espionage Act, there is a question that occurs, which sounds totally outlandish. Can you be put to death for doing theoretical physics? Well, you've ever heard of the zone of death, theory, and Yellowstone National Park? No. Some legal scholar figured out that there's a sliver of Yellowstone that is not in Wyoming, but is in Idaho, where no one lives. And if you committed a crime on federal land in Idaho, where there is no one living, you would have to impanel a jury from people who lived there. So you could actually commit murder if you could lure somebody into the Idaho portion of Yellowstone. It's an unexploited vulnerability and our legal. So this day? Yeah. I think so. I don't think anyone's done it, but I think it's actually been used as a trope in like movies or something. Okay. Here's a crazy one. Most physicists do not know that if you do any work on a napkin, that could possibly influence a nuclear weapon, it is automatically que classified without anyone in the government choosing to que classify your work. And this is technically known. You can look this up in a search engine as born secret. Okay. If you seek que classified material without a que clearance, that can be viewed as treason. And you can be put to death under it. So if you combine 1946, 1954, atomic energy acts, which have a provision against free speech found nowhere else in the law. And I can't believe you're not warned about this when you start when you sign up to do physics. Chatship T told me yes, it is technically possible to execute someone for doing theoretical physics correctly. If it creates any change in the theory around nuclear weaponry, because you're seeking a que clearance document without que clas. So my claim is I don't think the average physicist has a clue what physics is, where it's been, what the national security architecture is around it. I don't think they know that the department of energy is really the department of physics, right, which was created out of the end of the 70s in the Carter administration because yeah, if physics is serious national security and if you fail at it long enough, you just think it's an academic subject. But this is so dangerous. This is so powerful that we go to a movie called Oppenheimer and we see like, oh, there's Feynman, you know, there's Beta, there's Teller, yeah, all those guys, you know, wiped out two Japanese cities. This is no joke and we don't connect it to what we do because what we do do doesn't work. This is what I call nerf physics. I don't know if we've ever discussed this. No, but I want to get back to it. So you you wanted access to the archive, right access. They said you need an E.D.U. email address. They then said, well, we'll make an exception for you. And then you didn't want that 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Why didn't you want to publish on the archive? I did. Everybody wants to start. Look, everybody starts by wanting to play the game right. And then I did. Suddenly, I'm missing my work. It's attributed to somebody else. I was like, oh, my publication would, I triggered that system in the 80s. So my experience isn't the same as the professor who says, oh, you submit stuff. Sometimes it gets rejected. You take it to another journal. Of course, there, you know, times when you want to submit something to, let's say, have pH, have pH and they tell you, no, no, that's really have pH. So the idea is it's kind of annoying. It's a little bit cumbersome. It's bothers. Sometimes somebody gets more credit than you think they should deserve. That's not my experience. My experience is totally different. My experience was it's a secret world that has all sorts of ways that it works that aren't advertised. And if you talk about it, you're treated like a crazy person. But I can point, I'm like one of the world experts on what doesn't work in academics. And what I've seen is, oh, you know, a good friend of mine in the last two weeks had a paper, PhD in physics, not accepted no reasons given on the archive. It's like, what does it cost you to store this on the archive? Oh, no, no. Didn't, didn't say it's bad. Didn't say it's wrong. The system isn't what you think it is. It's never been what people think it is. There's some sort of an agreement not to talk about it. Like if I say peer review has not existed back to the beginning of the Royal Society. Outside review has, peer review hasn't. Peer review is mostly a response in 1975 to something called man a course of study. It originally comes out of Utah. And it has to do with the great society programs, which in the mid 60s are past that makes the federal government the main payer for Medicare. And so what it really was was a defense by the physicians from having the government pry into their pricing. Because suddenly the government was paying for everything. It was the peer says you're not good enough to supervise what we do in medicine. Okay, let me just finish it out. Sure. If you have the belief that the system works pretty well, then I understand you completely. You want to know why aren't you following the rules? Well, my point is it didn't work well when I tried interacting with it repeatedly over and over and over again. If you do something different enough, you get a very different experience. And that's sort of what I'm trying to say, which is like I tried, I believed, I got burned. Why is it that I have to go back to the same casting couch, to the same director to be put into a movie? No, I'll start my own studio. I'm not going into that office. I'm not going to play that game. I'm just not going to do it. Now, if you told me, hey, we've heard you, you want to make sure that you understand that credit matters to you. If I'm the only person in physics, the credit matters to, I'm happy to say that on camera. Everybody else credit matters to. It's the lifeblood. It depends whether you know, can you afford to have another child? Can you afford to be in the same city as your spouse? How is it that that doesn't matter? It's academics and physics is suffused with a totally insane level of duplicity. Of course, credit matters and it should. I'm not playing with people who are that disingenuous. They only, how often have you heard this? The only thing that really matters is the truth. Please don't bother me with with sociologists. Yeah, I had a terrible experience. The number of people who had terrible experiences is insanely large. We could do an entire channel that every week featured a different academic horror story. Yes, the people who remain in the system have agreed to say, oh, it works pretty well. No, it doesn't. Clearly it doesn't. So I have the internet. I have a very large channel and probably the most followed mathematician on planet Earth. And I will forever pay a price by not wanting to play the game with people who stole something from me. By the way, I highly recommend looking at Alexander growth and deets rejection of the Crawford prize where he says I won't participate in the culture. I will not take money from a culture that now believes that it theft from young people is absolutely acceptable to the profession. So I'm with him. So my understanding he said that after the university started accepting military funding and he was extremely anti-military. He was a guy with a certain kind of integrity who I think got driven mad by having that integrity. Let me just be honest and forth coming about a very crazy sounding thing. Imagine G.U. is right. Let's go on that branch of the decision. If it's right, this is the most crazy dramatic story anyone's ever heard. It's dramatic, scientifically, it's dramatic personally. It's a big deal. If it's wrong, none of this is true and I'm living in a Walter Middie world that's fine but it's not like I'm not aware of that. My goal is not just to benefit from this but I wish to help out science. I wish to help out many of the people whose names are not on their results who are not employed currently after having done great work like Doug Doug Prasher and Green Florescent Protein. Terrible story. My goal is to break pure review. My goal is to open the archive to anyone credential so that there is no committee sitting over it. My goal is to get the national security apparatus to come out of the shadows and say, look, this is serious business. We need to classify this. We should have fights with them about what should be open, what should be classified. I wish to change science and get it much closer to what we think about with the scientific method with norms of collegiality and decency to each other where we are progressing in the science. We are not a medieval theological debating society about angels and heads of colabiao, pins and all that kind of nonsense. This is broken and I refuse to be referenced to a system that can't buy a base hit in 51 years, 52 years. It doesn't work. Why do I care about my colleagues' opinions? If they're not leading physicists, the leading physicists of today are not leading physicists. There's no proof that they're doing physics. Like Frank will check, I recognize him. I talk to Frank. In general, we're not really doing science anymore. I don't want to spend our time on this. I want to talk to you about three generations. I want to talk about SU-3, Cresc-1. The problem is that somehow the only people who know what those things are, are the survivors suffering from survivor bias in a system that doesn't work? So more or less 100% of my seated colleagues are people who got through this system without raising much of a fuss about something that obviously is unethical, not civil, not collegial and doesn't work. So yeah, I'm happy to be wrong, but the problem is that it sets me up in this absolutely monotonous pattern of opposition. Eric, why are you so arrogant? Eric, why are you so forceful? Oh, only because I'm opposing 10,000 people who are all in lockstep, who believe the same things and aren't getting anywhere. Yeah. So I'm confused. Please. So if you are willing to publish on the archive before and you still have the trauma of having credit taken from you and so on, but you were willing to. And then there was this conversation that you don't have an EDU, but you could also get an EDU just by emailing Harvard. No. Any of the places? No. No, there's something called post.harvard.edu that they stopped accepted because that meant that you were an alum but you weren't active. Interesting. There's a game going back and forth. Okay. I think you should have Jacques Distler on your podcast and ask him these questions. Let's, I'd rather do science. And then you said that there's no proof that these people who are dealing in fundamental physics for the past 50 years have are doing anything related to physics. Then what if someone said, okay, but what's the proof GU has anything to do with fundamental physics? Well, this is the thing I was trying to talk about when you deftly steered me away if I may. There's something I call not even remotely physics. Now the acronym for that is Nerf physics. So you can tell how many safeties are on the gun and how far you are away from doing it. Does your theory put dimension 4? in pride of place. If you're working in dimension three or dimension ten, if you're not highly focused on dimension four to begin with, that's a strike against you. Do you have one temporal dimension to begin with? If so, you're doing real physics. If you're in Euclidean signature generally speaking, you're not doing real physics. Do you have SU3 somewhere in the structure group of your model? If you're only using SU2 or U1, you're not wrestling with quantum chromatinetics. That's a strike against you. Do you have three generations of fermions, which is a feature of our world? That's an artificiality. No, no, I'm only worrying about one collection of fermions. If I look at this sheer number, does your Higgs field value itself in the adjoint representation of your structure group? That's not what the real Higgs field does. I could take a new metric and we could pass an AI over it and say, "How many papers?" One last one I forgot this is, "Is your work phrased in the language of geometry and bundle theory?" If you just take those things where I would imagine the average paper would be a four-dimensional manifold, one-time dimension, SU3 would be included. There'd be three generations of matter. And it would be phrased in bundles and connections in geometry. I believe essentially the number of people working in actual physics approaches zero and that that is a decidable proposition as to whether I'm right or wrong. I believe essentially physics has stopped at its most fundamental level. And we can just test it. So if you're out there, do me a favor, write a script that uses AI, regular expressions, and checks papers, ingests, PDFs, and checks. How many of those safeties are on the gun? I don't want to work in ten dimensions before I get to four. I don't want to work with no-time dimensions. I don't want to work if SU3 isn't in the picture. And I don't want to pretend that you can do this without bundle theory. I believe that effectively no one is doing physics. Full stop. Now what if someone said that this metric that you came up with with six or so criteria, that your theory will fall through that sieve? So it stops other theories? Because they didn't satisfy it. Yours goes through it. No, you're starting from the wrong premise. The standard model and general relativity. We all accept. I think if you don't accept them as effective theories governing our world, you're really not part of the serious conversation. I think Sean Carroll is exactly right about that. He said it on your show. He said, "You have a theory. That's great. Well, I have a theory. My theory is called the standard model. I heard those words from him." Why is the standard model his theory? That's just how he said it. He didn't mean that he developed it, but he did sound a little bit like Colonel Jessup saying the blanket of freedom I provide is something you Lieutenant Kathy should be grateful for. Okay. Is the standard model after the Wu Yang dictionary in bundles? Yes. Is it on a four manifold? Yes. Is it one comma three? Yes. Does it have three generations? Yes. Does it have S U3? In other words, the theory that we all agree goes through that sieve. We all agree on the standard model. It goes through the sieve. I'm not coming up with something that selects my theory. I'm saying that any theory that is trying to go beyond the standard model and general relativity will have these characteristics. Okay. And by the way, if I'm wrong, let me just look right. If I'm wrong, write the script. I'm happy to come back on the show and say I was wrong. What I was going is that there are other people who have their own checklists and it tends to be a checklist that their theory passes. So for instance, Wilfrum may say something like we have to explain why these laws, not any other law, we have to explain observers and his theory purports to solve both of those. So he says those are the most important. So I find that when I'm dealing with people in the special place of theories of everything. I'm engaging in special pleading. I took the assignment to be going beyond the standard model means going beyond the standard model. And I took going beyond general relativity to mean going beyond general relativity. And I took the idea that it should be on an napkin to mean it should develop from very few assumptions. These are things everyone repeats and no one follows. We all talk about the scientific method is we don't follow it. We talk about what attribution should be we don't follow. It past laws we don't know that they exist. We're living in like loony land. And so what I'm doing is I'm saying I see your collective fictions. I have collective fictions of my own. It's not like I don't understand what a collective fiction is. I'm not going to get any science done if I live in your collective fictions. So my claim is I took those. That's a core set of assumptions. If you have additional assumptions. I understand that. But I'm claiming that nothing passes even those. Like for example, G.U. is not phrased as a quantum theory. So what do you imagine the quantization procedure to be for G.U. ultimately? It's a little confusing. It's not so confusing if you think about it downstairs on the base space. The big problem is that it's not one. The difference between zero temporal dimensions, one temporal dimension and multiple temporal dimensions is enormous. Zero temporal dimensions, you're an elliptic theory and you have access to a T.S. singer and all the great stuff that comes about. If you have one dimension, we know a lot about Hamiltonian dynamics and development and initial conditions. Problem is if you have two or more temporal dimensions, you're in something called ultra hyperbolic equations. Very few people can think in two or more temporal dimensions. G.U. has several things. This is something that is a great pleasure to be able to talk about. What am I critical about G.U. That's not a question that I get much. I didn't ask that, but I'm curious to know. I'm glad you asked that of yourself. So for example, I don't know how to deal with ultra hyperbolic equations. So if I think upstairs on the 14 manifold, there are no initial conditions because that's a co-dimension one concept. Really what you have is boundary conditions. And now, good luck. I think I had to be told that the cow-sheet problem was well posed in ultra hyperbolic equations. That's something I. This is not stuff I know. So it's a good example. If I'm not. The entire concept of physics is that I have an initial state. When that mean there's no koshi horizon? I don't. I believe that they are well posed, but I don't know. I don't know how to push Hamiltonian dynamics in multiple temporal dimensions. Is the bundle trivial? Which bundle? The metric bundle. Depends on the topology. Well, the reason I say that is causing G.U. there's a global section. So you can't take a global section unless the bundle's trivial. There isn't a global section. You're talking about the metric section? No, no. That was a thing that you actually cut. It's fun because I now get to actually have a meaningful argument. Didn't we agree that there are patches on which there's only a connection defined on the tangent bundle? And then where you're doing observations is where you have the metric defined. And that's one of the ways in which we get around some of the quantum gravity problems. Okay. So. Let's go, man. Because just like you've forgotten much of G.U. or you have to reintroduce it to yourself, same with myself. But. Thank you for saying that because when I say things like I forgot aspects of this, this is like a city where you don't remember what your work is from 17 years ago. It's stored in some piece of paper you can't find all the kind of stuff. Yeah. My recollection is the PDF has Iota, which is a local section. And then it has Gimmel, which is a global section. But I'm saying that the existence of the Gimmel implies that the bundle's trivial. This is interesting. This is a problem I never had before because occasionally I would have to do a refactor of the theory because I realized that the. The notation was cumbersome or conflicted with something. There were only so many letters all the kinds of stuff. So then this was my other critique, Hebrew. So there are other letters that are used not much by mathematicians other than in cardinality, Hebrew letters. That were used in G.U. so. And then there was some that I chose to keep in. And if I was to introduce this to a friend, a fresh, I wouldn't use the variation pi, which was funny because I called it variational pi, which in math there's something called taking the variation. And I didn't mean that. I know. - So you made an error and the thing is is that the error is now immortalized in the video. - But the point is-- - I put in a pause to emphasize that. And also the point that I left in-- - Please. - The different notation because it's my understanding that you implemented that notation to honor certain people. And I don't have that same relationship to those people so I don't honor them. Even though you're honoring, tramples your explanations. It's that communication gap I mentioned. - Pi is my wife. Zeta is my son. New is my daughter. And I'm Epsilon. And so I wanted us to be together. - It's also that's a humble view of yourself to give yourself that to the law. - Look, I'm the Rody for a group of superstars. - Epsilon is usually diminutive so that was the joke. - Yeah, I'm uncomfortable being here. Look, I'm sharing that with you. But it's very important to me that some jerk doesn't come in and say, "We're gonna change all the notation." I was like, "No, these people suffered for this theory." And I'm gonna make sure that we're gonna write their name. We're gonna burn their names into the theory. And by the way, the Hebrew letters, it matters to me too. You know, I come from a tiny, tiny community that is always in danger of being wiped out for reasons that we can go into, but it's a scary thing. Yeah. I can make it worse. I can call the base space harrets for the land and the total space hasha, no, I'm saying you ask me a question. I'm to answering it because I'm proud of my people and to be honest with you, the Tao homomorphism, which is not just the gauge group being included simply, trivially into the first factor. The Tao comes from the Hindi concept of being terra or slanted. - Hmm. - Right? So I didn't say that. But at some point, I had a Devnogri character. And then I found that people just really didn't like it. And so I said, that's too bad because I run out of letters regularly and I'm very proud of our family's Indian heritage. And so I wanted to honor India as well as I wanted to honor Jews in Israel. So yeah, that's a personal choice and I get to make it and I'm pretty unapologetic about it. So I'm sorry if you have to learn Gimli and you have to learn how, if it's pretty painless and it's over quickly. - What else have you not said about G.U.? - So great. One of my beliefs about G.U. is that G.U. gets a lot of its power from the fact that it's willing to consider killing forms that are not positive definite. - Yeah. - How do you deal with fun-bounded spectra? - Well, I don't know. What my claim is is that we don't know how nature deals with it because we're shielded because of maximal compact subgroups. In other words, what is picking out spin six cross spin four as the Petite Salam model is maximal compact inside of a different real form of spin 10 than the S.O.10 theory. So in the S.O.10 theory, if you ask, "Well, what's the maximal compact?" That's just the whole group. But how you're getting somehow from the D-5 Dinkin diagram down to spin six comma spin four is that nature is saying, somehow I'm going to handle this indefinite killing form. But I'm not going to show you yet because you haven't gotten that. So I'm just going to show you the compact subgroup to which it is broken. Okay, that's totally different intellectually, completely. From saying, "No, nature can't do that because this will lead to problems and cause out." No, nature's not listening to what you can do today and what you can't do today. You also have a, well, how do you do a fineman integral? Nobody knows, right? Unless it's very restricted. Okay, but you're using it. You're using a bunch of analogies. Who said, "I can't go into technical debt and say, I don't know how she's going to quantize this theory. The reason I have it is a classical theory. It's not that I don't understand anything about quantum theory. It's that almost certainly the physics community is mostly confused. Of course, you can have an indefinite group. We have spin one comma three that we're forced to deal with. And if everybody understands the rest of the theory, I hope that one of the biggest, one of the most important agendas becomes, okay, we've got to learn to deal with an indefinite killing form. Let's get our best people on it. Right now, we write an occasional paper like Widdens written on this. So that's an early supergravity theory. So you have gauge that we're non-compact. They did some close-up though. But it was still non-compact. Yeah, there's that. On the multiple time, and I think Stephen Weinstein, philosopher who does physics at perimeter institutes, ultra-hyperbolic, there's, it's like bars, two-time physics. So if GU is right, what it should do is to say, look, Eric took on technical debt in order to do this thing. Let's pay it back. And that's, by the way, that's normal science. What does pay back, do you mean solve it? Do you know what technical debt is in computing? That's again, one of my, yeah, please explain. So sometimes you do something that is kind of not right while you're coding. And you say, okay, well, I'm taking on technical debt. I have to fix this somehow. But right now, I'm just gonna do this now. And then-- Being expedient? Sort of. Yeah, it's just like a stopgab measure that you have to go back and fix. Okay, yeah. So my claim is that one of the ways that things have gone horribly wrong with critique, I think most of the critiques in physics are not critiques. And what you see is there's a huge difference between saying, let me understand you first, let me steal menu second, and let me give criticism that is constructive third. That is normal to me. And by the way, I actually weirdly modeled this with Terence Howard. Let me see if I understand you in your own terms first. Let me put your best foot forward relative to my community, the math community second. And let me give you criticism only after I've done those two steps. Yeah, I don't think your real genius is GU. I think it was making sense of Terence Howard in real time. You know, Terence is a perfect example of, we tell everybody, everybody can be a scientist. You can learn this on your own. We don't care about credentials. And if you ever try that, we're just gonna laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh. And I think it's terrible. And I'm still friends with Terence, and I will tell anybody, Neil deGrasse Tyson totally missed the fact that Terence took a regular tetrahedron and spanned the affine group, which is a six dimensional group with six almost regular pentagons arbitrarizing the difference between 108 degree internal angle and a 109.47 and change angle inside the vertices from the center of a tetrahedron. Genius move, lots of stuff I think is garbage, Terence laughs and laughs and laughs at me saying that I, he's like, you talked about the baby in the bath water. You know what? Where colleagues, where friends, I don't think he's a mathematician. I don't think he's a physicist. I think he's got some great ideas. I think he's got some good ideas. I think he's got some lousy ideas. We don't do that. And I think it's really important to talk about this, but I do wanna get back to the science. What we do is we pretend we, we, the community of academicians, if you come into my office and you say, hey, I've got a really crazy theory and I want you to listen to it, take it seriously and give me feedback. We're sort of, we know we're obligated to do some of that. We first, we find out we're incredibly busy. So the person who's incredibly busy is then playing ping pong and the lounge and doing all sorts of other things. The next thing we do is we try to find the critique which causes us not to have to listen ever again. If I can just find one flaw, we can dismiss your theory. It's not how science works at all. And there's a question, but did you ever steal me in the theory to begin with? I think the first, I think the GU went 41 years. Without ever being steel man. Like, that's impossible. I could steal man, Garrett Leasey, Peter Lloyd, Strang Theory, Luke Quantum Gravity, all of them. In general, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour to get the gist of an idea in this world. It takes much more as you know to fill it in. But I take as almost proof that GU is really interesting and different in that there are no steel man of it. It's just a portrayal of a crazy person talking garbage on the internet, which is not, can I say it's not true? It's false. There's so much there and simple stuff. Now I was just meeting with Lee Smolin at his home in Toronto today. I said, you know, Lee, one generation of standard model fermions is just the pullback of a vile spinner properly understood from the space of point wise larynx metrics to the four dimensional manifold. And I started talking about something else. I said, did you hear what I said? I want to talk about GU. Yeah, let's do that. Something I endeavor to do with this channel is to understand the theory of someone [BLANK_AUDIO] point where recapitulating it back to them is met with agreement. And only then do I think I've apprehended it. And so when you're saying that that should be the first step, I whole hard to the agreement. I hope you felt like I didn't misrepresent G.U. I hope you felt that I didn't misrepresent G.U. Because, you know, to be honest, keeping something alive while wanting to be open to the serious critique, wanting to make sure credit isn't taken away at the same time is not wanting to interfere with the sensitivity. It's impossible. There's no way of solving this puzzle currently. What's interesting is that we're talking about a group of people who have appointed themselves the border collis of academia. And anytime somebody starts to stray and say, I want to self publish, I don't really think that this is the correct story, whatever, they slam that person. And that person is pushed back into, well, clearly you're a self promoter. It's like, really? Have you looked at what your university has put out in terms of PR releases with the Lausy research, with the huge claims, et cetera, et cetera? Have you once talked about the problem of the leading people in the field, totally misrepresenting thing? There are certain tells that they're not even aware of that show you that they're not interested in the underlying subject matter. What they're very interested in is we've got to make sure nobody arbitrages the flaws in the system. And I'm here to arbitrage the flaws in the system because they are flaws in that system. Now when it comes to steel manning, that's a really special moment because you get a chance to see whether the person has not only understood something but added something. And that's one of the things that I got out of your treatment of G.O. I think that there are places where you say wrong things. But then you know what? There are places where I say wrong things. And what isn't true is that when you say something wrong, the theory collapses. Or if there's a flaw that you weren't aware of, or there is a flaw that you were aware of that the theory collapses. This is part of this different academic method which says, the outside world can't tell the difference between a colleague trying to be a colleague and assassin trying to destroy something or steal it. There's a horrible phrase that I learned in graduate school called "Grip and Swipe" where the ideas you complain about something and say it's incomplete, it's flawed, it can't work. And the idea is that now you know as much about the theory and if you can fix the flaws, then it belongs to you. It's one of the reasons I'm an entertainer. I'm not an academic because there's no such thing as "Grip and Swipe". If I release a version of a song and it could be improved, it doesn't become that person's song without dealing with the issue of copyright. I don't know if copyright will protect you. I don't mean copyright really legally. It's an unexplored area of the law. Oh no, no, no. I mean in the math sense, if you publishing something related to math, claiming it as an entertainer, I don't believe copyright covers that. Well, you know, there was a point where John Stewart reported the news by saying he was reporting the fake news. He would say, "And now the fake news." And then he would say real things that weren't sayable on CNN or NPR. I'm an entertainer. Let's leave it at that. Let's get back to GU. Okay. So I want to know what is GU. Now I know that's an odd question to ask someone after I've investigated it as long as I have. But the reason I say that is that I've heard you say more than once, can't recall where. So I can't place the citation on screen, but it was something akin to look, "Direct should have had the convictions." Courage of his convictions when it came to predicting an antiparticle to the electron. Okay. And the reason was something like he proposed a theory, actually he proposed a specific instantiation of a theory. So you take something here that's a theory, a theory, the theory, cloud, reify it, and then this gets disproved. And then you say, well, the theory itself has not been disproved. So then that can sound like from the outside as hedging. Like I'm going to put forward whatever GU is. Someone could find critiques. Then I can retreat up here and say, "But what GU is has not been disproved. You've disproved my explication of GU." So what is GU? Like what is it that you see is up here? Sure. What makes GU GU such that if you were to see it in the wild, someone would say, "A wild GU appears." This is such a great question, Kurt. I really appreciate this. You've ever seen the zen of Python? No. There's this thing called the zen of Python, which tries to reduce the Python programming aesthetic to a list of 24 zen columns or 26 or whatever it is. You know you're in GU where you replace the inhomogeneous Lawrence group with the inhomogeneous gauge group. You know you're in GU where you spend most of your time on a 14 manifold rather than on a 4 manifold where the 14 manifold is constructed from the 4 manifold. You know you're in GU when there are no internal symmetry groups. You know you're in GU when the Higgs field comes out of an ad-valued one-four. You know you're in GU when you begin with the 4 manifold. Use it to construct a 14 manifold that behaves like a 3 manifold. You know you're in GU. Just a moment. So you're referring to transcinus there? Yeah. There are two beautiful Lagrangians that are incredibly different that both result in Oilo Lagrange equations where there's a curvature tensor. Then you called me out on this very well. I really appreciate. I often say that something is a projection operator. You point out that it's a contraction operator which is quite you were correct. I'm wrong. Cool. Yeah. My belief is that Einstein was the first person to really relate a curvature two form to an implied gauge potential by taking his contraction operator to get the Einstein tensor capital G mu nu from the remod tensor. That thing, there's two branches. There's a branch that uses the star operator to do this little trick which is called the churn assignments branch. Then there's the Einstein contraction. Both of those results in Oilo Lagrange equations with the curvature tensor with a contraction that gets you from two forms to one form. That's how you know you're in GU because you're using the equival variance that's provided in having the gauge group. Why are we failing to quantize gravity? I claim their answers to this. There are people that I didn't know about until I started talking about GU called McDowell and Mansoury who tried to get gravity to come out of a gauge theory on potentials. Now there are things I think doesn't work because you don't use the space A of gauge potentials. You work on a group. By the way, there's another one. You know you're in GU when you take Einstein's unified field concept much more seriously than the need to quantize gravity. In GU, unified field means something. It's algebraically unified. The idea is you start with the in homogeneous gauge group and then you effectively supersimitrize it and that is the gauge content. You're doing, I love this aspect. You're doing field content that is an algebraic gadget. Boy, there's so many questions. Okay. May I linger? By the way, we can also do a multi-part series at some point later, but this is the teaser. Effectively supersimitrized. So that was something that confused me before. So my understanding and you can correct me if I'm incorrect is that in the 70s there was supersimetry. Yes. So I forget who invented it in 1971. In 1973 there was Wes's Umino as far as I recall. In 1974 there was Stratti and Salon who created some wizardry or machinery called the Stratti Salon construction could be took in space time and I'll put it a superfield or took in fields and I'll put it a superfield or the Pankarei group. I would say it took in an affine space and gave you a super an automatically supersimetric field theory. So the idea is you didn't have to ad hoc construct an action and then check laboriously that this crazy term cancellation happens up to a surfaced turn. So when you say supersimetry is in your theory, I'm thinking I was thinking space time supersimetry because because that's the only super symmetry that exists in the literature. Totally reject space-time supersymmetry. Okay. Yeah, by the way, what a key point. And it fits exactly what you're trying to ask earlier. Should you call something that isn't space-time supersymmetry, supersymmetry? Like I've never liked the word supersymmetry. I can't stand it. My take will be no. Okay. Now you have a different take. I wanna hear it. All right. Well, one, I don't wanna slight anybody who's like, you know, McDowell and Mancery doesn't work. And I don't want somebody telling you, oh, you're just doing a modified McDowell and Mancery. That's like dismissive. No, they tried something was really good. Had a lot of good ideas it failed. Okay. I also don't wanna take credit for all of supersymmetry just because space-time supersymmetry doesn't work. Right? So I claim that you will never see super partners of the type that we hypothesize would spill out of the LHC. It's not gonna happen. The concept is broadly, do you want to adjoin to the Lealgebra? Fractional spin fields which have an algebraic pairing that land you in the Lealgebra of the Honest Group? And I do. But the input is not Minkowski space. Minkowski space doesn't exist. It's a fugacity, right? It's an approximation. The space of connections is a legitimate affine space. It is an affine space. It's not, okay, well, we won't ding it and put curvature into it. It's just, it's a flat space. That was always meant to be what the Salam Strathe machined it. Now, I believe that there are supersymmetric theories that don't come from a Salam Strathe thing. But the cool thing about Salam Strathe, by the way, if we're mangling this name, I apologize to the Strathe family. The cool thing about the machine is is that it guarantees you that your output will have good characteristics. And so what I'm claiming is what fixes the number of generations at an effective level at three, is the extension of the inhomogeneous gauge group to include supercharges. Now you call them supercharges because. - Their fractional spinfields that should have commuting rather than anti-commuting products that land you in the spit, look, if you want, you know that informal claim that supersymmetry you're taking the square root of the momentum. G is says no, no, that idea should be you're taking the square root of connections. You're taking the square root of the gauge potentials. That's a powerful idea because the gauge potentials are typically associated with first-order differential operators. So you're taking a square root, not like of a Laplacian, the way Derocht did, but you're taking a square root of a first-order operator. So the thing is is that I don't want to get. The reason I say super symmetry like things is that I notice we have an epidemic of spell checkers. And if you spell like something wrong, they pretend that they can't read it and then it's garbage and that there's nothing. I don't quite know what they're going to object to. There are dimensional limits on spacetime supersymmetry. And then there's infinite dimensional concepts of supersymmetry. And so I don't know if I use the phrase super symmetry, there's this you break it you, are you saying it's a supersymmetric theory? Do you have an action? I don't want to get into that because that's not what we need to do to do GU. But it's the same basic format and I want, I'm trained up. I think what I'm really trying to say is I want to honor the concept of supersymmetry, which I think is a brilliant idea which was terribly instantiated. And if it turns out that this thing works, I want to say that this is its spiritual. I want to actually not take credit for this. I think you're going to find out. Okay, so are you doing the opposite of what was being done earlier with the cloud being instantiated where it's your looking at the instantiation of spacetime supersymmetry and saying supersymmetry exists here as such and I come from here, not down here. But I'm trying not, I'm trying to not obliterate. Yang mill's theory is really non-abillion Maxwell theory. Okay. We didn't do that to Jorok. Or Maxwell's abelian Yang mills? Well, what I'm trying to say is I don't understand, I don't have a clue how churn Simons became churn Simons with without becoming churn Simons Schwartz. Right? Like Schwartz. This guy was there in the 70s. I mean, he's one of the great intellectual feats of all time. So my claim is I think what Yang and Mills did was great by adding that A way J. However, isn't it funny that we don't have a concept like D'Arrak and Maxwell occurred at the same time in quantum electrodynamics? We have a non-abillion version of that D'Arrak equation. We have a non-abillion version of Maxwell's equations. We call the non-abillion version of Maxwell's equations Yang mill's theory. We call the other thing D'Arrak theory is if nothing happened or changed. So this is just like we're wildly inconsistent about who we bury. This is a really interesting point. We have this idea that Einstein was in a race with Hilbert to get to the answer. This is total nonsense. The person who really should get the credit along with Einstein is not Einstein's wife and it's not Hilbert. It's Grossman. Marcel Grossman was there in 1913 and the basic idea of GR of general relativity occurs in that paper. Grossman absolutely got shafted by history. We have particular people over and over again who get shafted like Stuckelberg gets shafted. Right. Just along with the Matthew and the Matilda effects for him who has much, much will be given so that we have attribution magnet. There's also something I've been trying to name for years called the Sudarshan effect. George Sudarshan was one of the absolute giants of physics and we don't honor him. I was visiting with Kathy Fries at University of Texas at Austin. She's in his office. I was just like, oh my God, I'm in Sudarshan's office. Well, how many people recognize how much Sudarshan did because he never gets the credit and never gets a Nobel Prize for all of his great work? So I have no idea why it is that Robert Herman wasn't credited with figuring out Yang-Mills theory was bundle theory. We have this weird thing where we just don't honor things, right? So I'm trying as best I can to be very, very careful about the spiritual nature of the work. The idea to take, once you have the idea that you're taking an analogy with the Pancras group, that Lorentz becomes the gauge and the momentum becomes the gauge potentials. Do you really want to claim, hey, I had this brilliant idea. I'm going to see whether it can be extended to spinners. That's not, anybody would try that. And so the thing is, is that I want to call it supersymmetry like because if it turns out to be right, I want to honor all the people who worked on supersymmetry in the wrong instantiation. And by the way, I also just think everyone should read that 1963, derock article in scientific American because he makes the point that this idea of saying, we will force you to pin yourself to one instantiation and that is your theory. That's like terrible science. I'm starting to clear up some of the confusions I have, go for it. By understanding you more psychologically. No, you see, I haven't, I haven't had this conversation in my life. I see that honoring is extremely important to you. Extremely. And spirit is also important to you. That's right. But I'll also defy spirit in a different manner. So spirit can be spiritual, but spirit in the way that I'm going to speak about it doesn't necessarily have to be tied to that. So you would say it's a battle between Grossman and Erasmun, the battle for fundamental physics, something like that. No, I would say, Riemann and Erasmun. Are you sure? Well, there's Grossman versus Hilbert as the people who might have been given credit for general relativity. That's one thing. So you see it as Grossmanian geometry versus Erasmunian geometry or Riemann versus Erasmun. It's Riemann versus Erasmunian. So why not Riemann versus Whitney or versus Dean Rod? Tell me about that. Well, if both of those were there in the early days of differential geometry, why is Erasmun getting credit when Whitney introduced the concept of a fibro bundle before Erasmun added G actions on it? So I think of these, well, I think of these, yeah, so steam rod, cartan, these are important names. And I'm not fetishistically saying we can do a perfect job with attribution. Whatever we do, If I was given all of the. the time and information in the world, there's no way of naming things that's going to work exactly. So I'm not claiming we should go for perfection, but these gross injustices are offensive to me. So I'm really, I'm trying to say, I'd like to do as little violence as is practical and humanly possible. I can't stand George's wife not being given credit for substructure of the nucleons. If I start giving a talk and I say, all right, we have three valence aces inside every proton and neutron. Everyone will say, you mean quarks, and then they will say, oh, I remember that he called them aces, and that there was a conflict, right? So for example, another one of these, I could give a talk about QCD and the theta angle, and I could say, all right, we've never actually seen higlets in the wild, but the search for higlets should actually be very important. Everyone would say, Higlet? Don't you mean Axion? Then they'd realize, oh, yeah, there was a conflict between Weinberg and Wilcheck. And I believe that Weinberg, who has many things credited to, and graciously agreed to use Frank's terminology. Because we will always remember the names of Wilcheck and Weinberg, I'm less worried about that. I'm much more worried about George Zawag, who's one contribution to physics, the flasting. Ended up with Murray Gellman's. And Murray Gellman was a great attribution magnet, like some of his work really was done by Sudarshan and some by Stucklberg and some by Zawag as well. And so there's a question about conflict, but it's very important to me for personal reason, that those wides of the world are retained and remembered, even if we don't use their language and the Sudarshan's. And we have a problem that there have been very few high-level females in math and physics. In the tiny number of instances where we can prove that we've done injustice to them. And I think Madame Wu and Emmy Nurtre are the two great injustices of 20th century physics. It's very important to me that we honor those people. And so yeah, I have a personal code, personal notion of justice, and I, in particular, just despise the debunking community. There's this background chatter of laughing at people. And I saw that Dundetaren's Howard, and I saw some of the laughter being open and some of the laughter being, no, I think there was a movie or something called The Game where you brought the biggest idiot to a dinner party, and then everybody sort of laughed at the gaffaws and mistakes that the person made at the table. You know, it's this issue about when you see someone drink their finger bowl, because they don't know what they're supposed to do. And that, I probably don't have a rational reaction. I probably have a hatred of people who do that, because whenever I see somebody mispronounce a word, I think, wow, you learn that from reading in self-study. Right. Let me tie in a Weinberg story with another woman physics, Quinn. Helen Quinn? Because this goes into your specification versus the spirit. And the spirit versus the text is also there biblically. You're not supposed to disregard the spirit and favor of the text. You know, we have a division in Judaism between the oral Torah and the written Torah, and there's a word that isn't used often enough in this way. I think petty fogging can be used as the intention of arbitraging the letter of the law against its spirit. There used to be something called a court of chanceery that wasn't just about law in the sense that we mean it now. Was that fair? Was that just the law anticipate how it would be wielded? And in part, it's very important to me that we destroy the debunking community as it exists today, because I think it's having terrible, terrible effects. I think we should care much less about peer-reviewed research, because peer review is actually peer-in-junction. Peer review is what happens when people start talking about your ideas. And I think that quite honestly, there are so many unsung heroes that weren't strong enough to defend themselves early in their career, but I hope that the AI will read a bunch of feces and realize, oh my God, here is the here is the injustice that we did at a scale. We didn't even know what was going on to people who were trying to contribute to a field and were so vulnerable that they could be killed off at the beginning of their career. Please. I'm going to read this, but while I'm peer-reviewed, so what people think is the injustice of peer review is that you minimize type one errors, false positives, at the expense of type two errors. That's what peer review does, and that's what most people think is the injustice. You have a different view, but forget about that different view as Steve already talked about it, what would replace peer review then? To push back on your anti-peer review rents. I like the old system. We ask yourself the following question. If you go into Google Endgrams, you'll find that peer review does not exist as a phrase before 1965. Just doesn't. People don't know that. I show academicians they're absolutely shocked. They're convinced that this goes back to the 1700s. What was the old system? I'm the only person bearing this torch. It was powerful editors making decisions for which they were countable. The double helix was never peer reviewed because it could not be peer reviewed. That was one of the statements that nature made. In order to give this out to anyone outside, which is external review, which was what was present in 1953 when peer review didn't exist, once you see the structure of the double helix, you can't unsee it, particularly because it gives an instantiation geometrically of the source of chargafs rules of equimolar relations between the nucleotides. That thing had to go into press without an outside review. We need powerful editors who do not all agree. In particular, we can't have the only game in town. If you want to hear me get completely crazy and rant, the only game in town was a concept that occurred in the quantum gravity community. It said, "Quantum gravity, there is no quest for quantum gravity. And string theory, M theory is the only game in town to make it sound like the creed of slong." Anyone found trying to say that only string theory, M theory can and should be researched at the most fundamental level. The quantum gravity is the holy grail when there is no trace of this phrase before 1973, '72, is committing a grave ethical sin at a professional level. Something I never talked about before to the best of my ability. To remember, is something that I only heard from Richard Feynman. Richard Feynman somewhere says, "I want to talk to you about ethics, but only professional ethics. I don't care what you're doing your personal life, but this whole thing that we have collapses. If you're not following certain rules, and I see a world in which I see Sodom and Gamora, that's what I see. Now, inside of me, I'm not capable of being the person that I wanted to be. I'm far too forceful. I'm far too pumped up on my own ego. People always say to me, "Eric, why are you egotistical? Why are you loud? Why are you this? You're a law. You try dealing with Ed Witten and everybody who came along with him. You're talking about the single most arrogant, insufferable, unethical approach to fundamental physics. A group of people who would murder you in your crib if you so much has suggested the quantum gravity was not the quest and that St. Derey M theory was not the path. My claim is you failed 40 years and you've only succeeded at what the evolutionary theorists have a name for called interference competition, which is something I learned from my brother, where you make sure that your competitors can't get access to the salt licks or the freshwater and the lake so that they all starve to death. My claim is that that particular thing is a personal quest of mine to destroy the theory that came in with the idea that there is only string theory and everything else is just words in the words of Ed Witten. That is professionally unethical behavior. Full stop. I'll read a quote. Please. This is from a lecture of hers. I don't recall what the lecture was on, but I wrote this quote down. This is Helen Quinn. Yeah, Helen wrote a queen. I was saying she was thinking about a student. A student of June, June is famous. It was working out something called source field here. Oh yeah. Which was Julian's way of reformulating fondum, intellectual bananas. Steve, who were fructose Steve Weinberg. Steve didn't like the source theory as the student began to speak. And this was the student's PhD defense. Steve began asking him questions about why source theory was valid and Julian, the founder of source theory was right there. naturally, Julian jumped in to defend his students. This is something Quinn witnessed. So she's just relaying this out of lecture. She said this meant that the student didn't have to explain the theory he was working on, but could focus on explaining his own work. It turned into an argument between Steve and Julian about what constitutes a good theory. I wish I had a tape recorder because having two Nobel Prize level physicists discussing the merits of different types of theories was extraordinary. Julian was arguing that the best theory is one that can absorb all new information. He was talking about a type of theory, a class of theories. Meanwhile, Steve was saying that you need to have an explicit realization so that you can test it and rule it out. Those are two points of views, and I think they're both correct. I think we need to be seen in the context of what we mean when we say a theory. Do we mean a theory or do we mean a type of theory? That is a sophisticated scientist. It is absolutely important that we have the scientific method to get rid of wrong instantiations. And it is absolutely imperative that we have the derock method to keep good ideas where an instantiation has been invalidated. And my private language for this, which is not as exalted as the Great Helen Quinn, is right-freeway wrong exit. The two great ideas of the 1970s were supersymmetry and grand unified theory, and both of them were correct. Right-freeway, we took the wrong exit on both. We drove the wrong conclusion because of the simplistic relationship. And look, there's an entirely different ethics of science that involves who's allowed to take on how much technical debt. And I'll say somebody I don't really get along with very much with is Sean Carroll. And Sean Carroll said something brilliant on your podcast. He said, "I don't really like the demarcation problem to call people pseudoscientists, which is basically to impure their character. On their mind and their sophistication." He says, "I just like to say that things are not good science." And this is great. And then again, I don't think you really realize how much is happening that is happening nowhere else on your podcast, because then Leonard Susskin talking to you about Peter Woyt when you said, "Well, if you don't know these theories that you're claiming don't exist, I would be happy to explain them to you, which has never happened. I've never seen that interaction." So what's amazing then is that you have Susskin on camera saying that Peter Woyt's physics and math is just bad. Now, I really appreciate that statement, because it is so laughably stupid and obviously wrong. Peter Woyt's mathematics, that book he wrote on group representations in quantum theory, Leonard Susskin wishes on his best day that he could write a book like that. Leonard Susskin has written some great books and he's had some great ideas. But he's not what he thinks he is. And to him, the only, this is another thing people don't know about me. I tend to be very polite to people up until there's like one of these transgressions where they just mean or wrong or they do something. I would never have said what I said about Ed Witten if Ed Witten hadn't had misbehaved. If Leonard Susskin hadn't misbehaved by saying that Peter Woyt's mathematics is bad, I wouldn't say Leonard Susskin is not the mathematician that Peter Woyt is. And he's never written a book as good as Peter Woyt's book on group symmetry in quantum theory. You mean rigorously? It's also just poetry, the pedagogy, and the fact that he standardized all of these different concepts. You know, it's like a Jared Diamond writing guns, germs, and steel. You know, there are books, people always ask me like, what's your favorite books? They want to hear Moby Dick or, you know, Tale of Two Cities. And it's like, there's Woyt's book on group theory and in quantum theory, there's a woodhouse's geometric quantization, there's Bess's Einstein manifold. Like these are great books, spin geometry by Lawson and Michaelson. I want the movie rights. These are some of the greatest books of all time. Peter Woyt, nope, who knew that Peter Woyt was one of the great physics expositors of our time? I didn't, I know Peter pretty well. Yeah, I would love to debate Leonard Suscan on that. And by the way, then you asked like, about Eric Woyt's, he said, I have no idea who that is. It's so funny, I'm sitting next to Leonard after talking to him, it's Stanford and then that is Cyber Lecture. These guys pretend that like, you don't talk to them. I have no idea what this is. It's like a, it's a theater truth. I want to know what you think of this classification. Please. There's pop academics, which are those who give lectures to the public, get engaged in popular science. Sean Carroll's of the sort, and Leonard Suscan. Sean Carroll in some of his instantiation is in that world. But there's also Sean Carroll, who came up with a version of Turn Simon's theory, where you violate Lawrence's invariance and you have a vector field that's non-vanishing on four space and you try to move three-dimensional to four-dimensional techniques. So, Michio Kaku is a pop guy, but he wrote this book on string theory that's quite. And also helped him vent string field theory. I know. So string theory has a problem with not being non-perturbative. And string field theory is non-perturbative. So there's a serious Michio Kaku, who haven't seen for years. So like one of the memes is, Michio Kaku is out of, get Michio Kaku in here with me. Like that's a meme in this little physics space. Yeah. Michio Kaku is a serious person and a non-serious person. Sean Carroll is a serious person and a popularizer. Okay, keep calling. So I'm saying there's a pop academic. Yeah. And then there's also the Jim Rat academic. What I mean is the person who's just, I don't want to speak to the public. There's no sense why I'm going to engage in a podcast. I'm just here to do my work. Nima or Connie Haamad is of that sort. Why do I have to engage and he will engage. But he's thinking I'm just going to do research. Although within academics, with two an audience of academics, he's the great showman of our time. Keep calling. What has the reception of G.U. been like? That's different between the pop academics versus the Jim Rat or close door academics. G.U. Well, there's two things. There's G.U. And there's me. Some doors are closed to me because people know that I work for Peter Teal. I'm just going to be honest about it. And there are ideas you've worked for the devil. Never mind that I don't see Peter as the devil. Their point is you work for pure evil. Therefore you are a far right. You're practically a KKK member. Good day. That's one of the reactions to me and to G.U. There isn't. If you look at what, let's say, Stefan Alexander or Ed Frankl or Marcus D'Sotoy or Brian Keating or my hosts at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, they're. If I showed you on my phone, me with all sorts of top tier academics, you'd say, wow. You're clearly having all these conversations with top people, and it's true. Nobody gives it the time it takes. I assume that you've found that even though it's weirdly a simple idea, it takes forever to get some of this stuff across. So the typical thing is if I'm invited into an academic department, they won't apportion enough time. They won't say, why don't you give a series of four lectures? Everything's always an hour. Then you're trying to figure out how to sort of do all of the universe in an hour, which is impossible. At least I don't know how to do it. I would say that there are tons of top academics who are interested in who will talk. Nobody has digested enough of it. It requires, at some point, some top person in good standing with the community will say, I think there's way more here, and that will change everything. I think what you said is key, some top person. Because it doesn't matter if it's a person, there's a hierarchy. So one of the reasons Peter White has not looked favorably upon in the string circles, generally speaking, not because his critiques are invalid, but because they think who are you to be saying that? It's very interesting because first of all, whether you know it or not, would you agree that Peter White's blog is the most red blog in all of physics? I'd say he's top two. Okay, what's the other one? Sabine. Okay, so both of these people are known to no physics. Now, I agree and disagree with both of them as humans do. But lots of people read Peter White's blog for the physics, not for the critique of string theory. Note there's also Scott Erison's blog, though it's not exactly a physics blog. It's more about quantum computing. I spoke to Peter White, Sabina, and Scott on this podcast several times on the links are in the description. And They won't admit that they take Peter White very seriously. So we have this very weird thing about people sneaking off to go read not even wrong. And then say, "Well, of course I frown on the negative view of physics or this low level of understanding." Obviously, Peter White is a very serious mind. And he's a PhD physicist. Who the hell is trying to get away with saying this guy is an idiot? It's weird. I'm sorry, I get emotional because it's like you're benefiting from the blog and you're lying about your colleague. Sabina, everybody knows what her before you get to what she says should or shouldn't happen. She's talking about the crisis in physics that Sean Carroll denies is happening. Wouldn't it be logical? When have we ever seen the top people as thought about from inside the field interacting with the top critics? Effectively, almost never happened that every time something like that happens. I was on a panel with Brian Green. I told the organizers, "Brian Green will drop off of this panel." And immediately, Brian Green drops off of the panel. And then I said, "Okay, I've come all the way to England." And so that Brian can phone in from his office. And then I said, "Are we going to set an empty chair?" "Should we talk about the fact that Brian Green is going to vanish from this?" I think the taste makers occur for a reason that we don't like to talk about. In our time, there arose one taste maker. And I can tell you this because when I went and talked about GU, and this is probably no longer true. But GU has been around since '84, '85. It wasn't as complete. But the core idea is we're forming that. Whenever I tried to talk about it, people would say, "What does Ed say?" If you talk to Ed, what's Ed's thought? And I said, "Well, what do you say?" Ed was so dominant at that point that no one wanted to venture an opinion unless they find themselves on the wrong side of the world's greatest intellect. So you weren't getting 100 different opinions. You were getting 100 different people trying to guess which way Ed would go. And that's unhealthy. I'd rather say what I thought and find out, "Yeah, Ed's right again. I'm wrong." But that's not what happened. What happened was as we created a world that was afraid to disagree with the top person. And Nima has been incredibly kind to me. Invited my son and I into the Institute of Advanced Study to meet with him. And he just couldn't have been more constructive and a better advocate for physics. He's our top. In many ways, Nima is our top guy. He stayed true to actual physics. I think all of his theories have ended up sort of wrong. I could be wrong about that. But he's honest and he's genuine and he's trying. He's a great shaman. He's a great advocate. Brilliant is the day is long. Toronto product. Right, right. Yeah. He was a U of T with my brother. Yeah, he said this thing to me. He said, "It doesn't really matter where you go. It just matters that you solve lots of problems. Solve as many problems as you can and enjoy life doing it." By the way, Nima is also perfectly happy to be heretical. Like Nima will talk about negative energy in the Casimir states and negative mass and the Casimir effect. All of these wonderful things. And that's not at all. There's a very small number of people who achieve top status outside of St. theory, M theory. And Lisa Randall might be one. Nima would be another. So this thing was absolutely brutal. It was V burn actually and the double copy stuff, even if it came from St. theory, somebody who needs to be promoted. Yeah, when you ask, like, what's the reception? It's not what I would expect. I just gave a talk at Hebrew University. And the first thing I say is, here's the formula for the dark energy. I write down a formula and I say, you know from this new desi experiment that if it continues, there isn't the cosmological constant. It's variable. And it's already a problem that the cosmological constant would be so many orders of magnitude lower than it should be. So what if there's a term that can respond? Imagine that you set team units stress energy tensor equal to zero. If there is a capital G mu nu curvature tensor, Einstein curvature, then you need the dark energy term to go up and down with it. You need it to be able to achieve a VEV if you will. The reason that the clock were stuck with the cosmological constant is that there's an automatic identity inside of the Einstein curvature, which is that the full Riemann curvature has a Bianchi identity. The contracted version, the Einstein tensor, is what has the divergence free due to the Bianchi identity. Therefore, set team unit equal to zero, throw the dark energy term to the other side, it better have an automatic differential equation because it's equal to something that has one. Okay. So now the only equation, there are only three real tensors, again, so they're something slightly inaccurate. There are only three real tensors in Romani and geometry. There's the metric tensor, there's the torsion tensor, and there's the curvature tensor. Sure. Curvature tensor is used by Einstein to do gravity. The torsion tensor is the weak sister that never makes it to the big dance. So all you've got is G mu nu, and it's got one equation, which is that it's annihilated by its own levichvita connection. Therefore, all you can do is put a lambda in front of that so that the divergence has a product rule, the derivative of lambda with G mu nu left alone, plus lambda times the derivative of G mu nu. The derivative of G mu nu dies. That means that the only thing that you can count on is that the derivative of lambda has to die. That is what doomed Einstein to having to include this goddamn term in his equation, which he never liked because there were three terms. There was the beautiful term, there was the greatest blunder term, and then there was the cheap wood relative to the pure marble, which was what the stress energy tensor was, as he described it. And torsion. Well, the torsion isn't in the Einstein field equations because of the palatine, the fact that if you open yourself up to torsion, then the oil or the Lagrange doesn't select for it. The reason with it, so one of the contentions, you know you're in G U when instead of using the torsion, you think about contortion, and then instead of using contortion, contortion is not called contortion to me. What is it called? What do I call it? What do you call it? I don't know because you're using a different term. Okay. So if you take the displacement tensor, displacement torsion tensor, we've got to distortion yet. Contortion is something involving some commutation of x and y vector fields as you've seen in Rheumani and geometry. Then there's an equivalent augmentator. But that's the thing I'm introducing. We haven't gotten there yet. Contortion isn't something I've introduced. Okay. Got it. Great. My understanding, again, I've been out of academics for a long time, so maybe I'm screwing it up. If I have a bundle and I have a levichavita connection, I can ask for what's the difference between any connection and the levichavita connection that has to be an ad value one form. That is called the contortion. You can get the regular torsion from the contortion or the contortion from the regular. In other words, they have equivalent. I didn't know that had a name. Yeah. I believe that. This is stuff that nobody knows, so I'm going to be a little bit careful. I believe that the torsion and contortion have three separate representational theoretic components. The ad value one form is lambda two, and one form, valued in the two forms, breaks into a sum of three irreducible representations under a Lorentz group. That thing. If you take different proportions of them, one proportion combination is the torsion, and proportion combination is the contortion. They're equivalent. Neither one of those works. The whole. You know you're in geometric unity when you use the gauge rotated levichavita connection in what would be the contortion instead of the torsion tensor. Because that thing has incredible invariance properties and equavariance properties under the gauge group acting on the inhomogeneous gauge group. Do I know that as the tilted gauge group? The tilted gauge group. This is. I love this. The tilted gauge group, the Terra for our Hindi speaking friends gauge group, is mapped in by this. What I now call Tao sub plus. And you can multiply on the right or you can multiply on the left by the inverse so that you get a right action on both sides. You can take the double co-set construction, the double co-set of the Inhama-Geneous Gage Group by the proper Tao-tilted homomorphisms acting on both sides results in something equivalent to Am-A-G, which is what the McDowell-Mansori people didn't understand. They started with the wrong space. Again, I want to honor them. Look, I found this without knowing about them, but they had a piece of the puzzle. And so this thing has a beautiful differential equation that allows it to be the analog of divergence-free. Let me see if I understand this. Sure. The Inhama-Geneous Gage Group, double co-setting by the Tao-subscript plus, which I forgot what I called it, doesn't matter. The Tilted homomorphism. Is Isomorphic to Am-A-G? Think about it as this. Is Isomorphic to Am-A-G or there's some extra. If you want to get technical, there's two different because there are multiple homomorphisms. But think about this. An Inhama-Geneous, sorry, a semi-direct product topologically is a Cartesian product. It's just the algebra that's the semi-direct. Okay. What if you had G cross, or G? Now you're speaking of a group G. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for keeping me honest. You have a gauge group, Cartesian product, with the space of ad-valued one forms. Up to an origin, ad-valued one forms is the same as the space of connections. The first start with the Inhama-Geneous gauge group, realize that that's equivalent to gauge group Cartesian product, gauge potentials. Realize that the gauge potentials are equivalent to the space of connections. So therefore, that's the whole Inhama-Geneous gauge group is equal to gauge group Cartesian product connections. Now mod out by G, just try to cancel the G. So G mod G goes away. Now you're left with an A. Now you're mod out by another G. And you get A mod G. You know you're in G you, when A mod G is replaced by the double co-set of the Inhama-Geneous gauge group by its own tilted subgroup. And you know you're in G you when the dark energy term, which is the cosmological constant times the metric is replaced by var pi, an ad-valued one form, minus the Epsilon-Gauge transformation inverted, counter-rotating the exterior derivative coupled to the Oluf connection applied to the Epsilon-Gauge transformation, the sort of the more cartan form. That thing is what solves the cosmological constant problem in G. Now it's just a vev. Now your only question is why is it so flat where I live? Because you have this different term that doesn't have to be constant. Look, Eric, I have this geometric unity iceberg. I can see the reaction from the comments and people who email me. It comprises professors, laypeople, researchers, graduate students, in strength theory by the way, and in not strength theory. So it's not as if strength theorists don't like you or you don't like strength theorists as a whole. But I don't know what the reaction to G you or the iceberg, but G you itself is in the academic world. I know what the reactions like from the pop academics that we talked about earlier. And most people see pop academics just by definition because they're popular. The people who put themselves out in the public, but that's a biased set. So one can't generalize and say academics think X about G you because pop academics think X about G you. And that's even provided that pop academics think X about G you. So what is it like behind calls doors? I would say that for the most part, I take a tremendous number of high level academic meetings with people at the very top of the field. So I frequently go to seminars at Caltech at UCLA. I meet with people afterwards. I could name names. I choose not to at the moment, but names everybody would know. The dominant reaction to G you, by the way, is silence. People don't know what to make of something this crazy, this bold. And it draws on a skill set. The number of people who both know the standard model cold still and still thinking like bundle geometric terms is about zero. You can, here's an exercise for your listeners. But in the term vector bundle, you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits on Google, put in the term CKM matrix, which is a reference to the standard model. And then require both of them with a plus sign before the quotation marks. And it drops to three digits. In other words, the number of people who are in contention to be working on the standard model is now vanishingly small. And is in part the problem is that nobody who's thinking in vector bundle terms in physics is really focused on the standard model. They're mostly in string theory or maybe some very high NGR stuff. Most of the people thinking about the CKM matrix have no idea really what vector bundles are, other than something they saw when they were a graduate student. So in general, the major note is silence. The only group that is really vocal is the negative pop side people, the negative pop academic people. Some of them aren't even in math or physics. And their thought is, well, this is obviously garbage because it has the following characteristics. We've got somebody who's close to 60 years old is not in an academic seat making crazy claims very large. And this is a classic failure mode of something going wrong psychologically. So yeah, that's what their point is. Well, if you're avoiding the archive, you're avoiding submitting to journals. The only reason for that is your hungry for clicks and trying to make a fortune bamboozling the public. So I just want to say that so that they hear, do you imagine I can't see you on the internet? Okay, how many of you understand what the standard model gauge group is and understand vector bundles and have looked at the various theories so that you have an idea of what Peter Void and String theory and Luke Conrad, like this is a group that doesn't exist. So more or less what you're seeing is you're seeing people trying to make a heuristic distinction about, well, it violates these heuristics. So if you're not going to play by the rules, we're going to treat you like a crank. And I would say that there's some reflection of that in math and physics departments. And there's also, if you listen to the way I speak when I'm talking mathematics, which is rarely people don't usually see me in this one. Well, fine, if you don't like what I'm saying, I would imagine you'd take issue with it on a blackboard. Why is the third generation, the imposter generation? Because when you do the decomposition, it looks like the first generation is the one that's different than the latter two. Well, it depends what you call first, second and third. So the claim is that you're looking at zero forms, tensor spinners, direct some one forms, tensor spinners. So I call zero forms tensor spinners the first generation. Now it could turn out to be not right, but I believe that's the way it'll go. The second generation would be what you get by taking a direct contraction, which you call the trace. Gamma trace, gamma trace list. I don't know if that's the right language. Is it? No, I don't know. I don't know either. It was my understanding. No, I know that's what I'm understanding. You were saying to me before that Eric, you mispronounced a contraction as a projection. And I'm saying, yeah, this is what happens. We're fumbling. I see. So you say that in analogy, the gamma trace part where you take a one form tensor is spinner and you contract the one form against it using Clifford multiplication, that I would call that the second generation, you called it the gamma trace. I see. And then you started with the gamma trace list as the second generation, which I didn't think I said. So it's a little bit of a discrepancy between you and me, which is great because this is like, this is because it's real. Like we're trying to develop something and you're making a point where there's confusion of language. I'm not sure that this is a process as opposed to I hand you the person. perfect finish thing it is flawless. - Yeah, sure, sure. - So the claim is, first generation is spinners tensor zero forms. Second is one forms tensor spinners contracted across the tensor product? - Just a moment. Would you say that it's zero forms valued in spinners? - It's just spinner fields, but in order to make it consistent. - I see. - Like I would never have introduced zero form valued spinners, except I know that one form valued spinners are in the mix. So then I have to point out that it is true that ordinary spinner fields can be technically and pedantically called zero forms valued in the spinners. - Yeah. - So you have zero form valued spinners? That's the first generation. Then I claim the second generation is what you get when you take one form valued spinners and you clifferd multiply across the tensor product. And it's all of those things that, I guess it would be the inverse image. - You clifferd multiply what though? - The spinner with the one form. - Okay. - Yeah. 'Cause you have a metric. That piece, which is equivalent to the spinners, so you're looking for the, you got it, Eric. - I'm gonna screw up the kernel, co-curnal all this kind of stuff. The easy thing to say is the third generation piece, which is the kernel of that map. Right? And then the issue is what is the complement to the kernel? That would be the second generation. That's what you're calling the trace. The trace and the trace list. - Yeah. - Gamma trace. - So these all look different. So why are you saying that two of these are equivalent in some aspects? - Because at the representation theoretic level, two of them are equivalent and the third is not an equivalent representation. But you can have two groups, sorry, you can have two group representations at the level of a subgroup that are isomorphic, which at the level of where they came from the total group are not isomorphic. And I think sometimes it's maybe called, so we should check me, lepton universality, where you believe that you have to be technically, this isn't much discussed, but we don't know whether these three generations that we have will continue to be identical up to mass as the energy scale increases. So I'm claiming two of them will, one of them will not. That's like a prediction. You know you're in GU when you actually have predictions about what the remaining matter is to be found and how it would behave if you went to higher and higher groups rather than just broken subgroups. - Okay, let's speak about predictions. - Yeah. - Suppose someone wanted to know something concrete. Like tell me what happens when two electrons scatter. - Well, first of all, I'm not the best person to answer that question. Sabina made an excellent point. She said, look, there are only three places to find new physics. Again, if Sabina if I don't get this exactly right, forgive me. One place is you can have things that are incredibly massive and require energies that we've never gotten to. So we wouldn't see them because we haven't gotten to enough energy equivalents to the mass that we actually see the objects of the phenomenon. Another thing that can happen is is that things can be so weakly coupled that we can barely detect them. Neutrinos are all but dark matter. They're very weakly coupled. They're not the ones we see aren't massive, but so both of those are things. Then the third one is the most interesting one, which is effects that you only get to see and special configurations. So that would be like Eddington waiting for the moon to pass in front of the sun and getting in the right place to see the effect of bending the light of distant stars. Or the boom, Erin off effect would show how do we get so far into the story of electromagnetism and we didn't even know that we had it wrong? So it's accessible at low energies that just requires some novel constructions. Yeah, that one's also funny because it's really a classical effect, but it's quantum detected. All right, so. One thing I didn't know because I'm not a physicist, is that there's this thing called a phenomenologist. I didn't know what a phenomenologist was. I just thought there were people who were closer to the standard model. I think what a phenomenologist is is a bridge object between the pure theory community and the experiment community, where the pure theorists are not really good at saying you should build a calorimeter that does this. So with phenomenologists have the trickiest jobs. Don't they? And I think they're kind of-- You have to speak both languages. You have to speak both languages and they're not highly visible. Like Brian Keating makes an excellent point that almost everyone you hear from in the popular version of physics is a theorist. And he said, where do I have the experimentalist? I'm an I-briant, I'm an experimentalist. Well, the theorists are broken into two categories and we never really hear from the phenomenologists. So I agree. And I didn't understand this. Like things that got wrong in life. I didn't understand-- I'm not supposed to be asking questions. But I can tell you the effects that I think you should look for. I don't think the world is chiral. You know you're in G.U. when your theory is not chiral. Like one of the critiques of my theory is that I have a chiral anomaly, which I find funny, because it is not chiral. But nobody notices it, by the way. Now, you could still have an intermediate chiral structure, though. Sure, but you have an effect-- you have an effective theory. Right? So the idea is that-- Or an anomalous triangle diagram or an inconsistent regularization procedure. So G.U. is not chiral. But it has to produce a chiral world because at an effective level nature is chiral. So what you have is you have a field of vev in a deroc like operator-- again, this deroc, re-rede-swinger thing-- that comes up to meet the scalar curvature in the Einstein equation analog of G.U. So G.U. has what it claims is an improved Einstein equation. Therefore, there is like Romani and curvature in it. It coaxes this thing out of the vacuum that then plays the role of a fundamental mass scale. So what happens when things flatten out? The scalar curvature drops, and the masses drop. If the mass drops sufficiently, then a deroc type operator decouples into wild type operators. So the claim is that what we have is we have a non-chiral world, where there were two chiral halves that were coupled because of a vev. And then when gravity gets low enough, what I believe you have is you have a decoupling into matter sectors. And what we call luminous will be connected to matter that is currently dark when gravity becomes strong enough. But this is like a mathematician trying to say, cool, but like that's what I think the equation said. Dirac, Rorita, Schwinger. Yeah. There's a complex, and there's an operator. Let's take a Diram complex, where d squared equals 0 on a manifold. And let's put a bundle on top of that manifold with a connection. Let's imagine the connection is flat. So we've tensored this bundle, this vector bundle, with the Diram complex with a flat connection. D squared will continue to be 0. Now let's say, OK, let's relax the flatness condition. D squared is no longer equal to 0. D squared actually becomes, definitionally, the curvature. OK? Right? Because you need to go from i forms to i plus 2 forms. And instead of it being a second-order differential operator, it's a 0-order differential operator, equivalent to a degree to form value in the adjoint bundle, which is the curvature. OK? Yeah. So sometimes in such situations, you're like, oh, no, that ruined my complex, the curvature, which I love, ruined the complex structure of the tensored Diram complex. So what do you do? You say, OK, I'm going to roll it up into an operator. Instead of having a multi-step complex, I'm just going to say, let's take even forms on one side, forms on the other. And I'll map the even forms up via D, and I'll map them down via D star, both coupled to a connection. So now you get a one-step operator, rather than a multi-step operator. It's not a complex, but that thing would be the Diram complex. The best you can do with a Diram complex, with a vector bundle tensored with it, where the connection was not trivial, which did not have trivial curvature, rather, let's say, that's not. So this is a rolled up complex that normally one would find on a three manifold. Remember I said that your NGU, when a four manifold births a 14 manifold, which behaves like a three manifold? There are two ways that that happens. You pointed to one of them, which is, oh, you mean churned silence. That was part of the truth. But then there's a second part of the truth. Only on a three manifold do I get a cheap version of a complex that has zero forms to one forms, one forms to two forms, two forms to three forms. Right, so there are three non-trivial steps in that complex. This one goes zero forms to one forms, one forms to two forms, but the two forms then get contracted to D minus one forms. And then the D minus one forms get taken to D form. So if you put those together, it looks like a three complex because you cut out almost all of the middle of the DRAM sequence. Right, now that gadget gets rolled up. And that's what this direct for Swedish swing or operator is all about. That's what the fermion sector looks like. And by the way, the idea that I haven't had any commentary on this idea at all. It's just weird. It's like, here is a bold, clear idea. Take the 14 manifold. And that 14 manifold has a chimeric bundle, which is equivalent to the tangent and the co-tanger bundles. In fact, it's semi-canonically equivalent and is endowed with natural metric information. So you can build spinners without ever making a metric choice. Okay? That guy, because you can build spinners, you can think of that as a bundle with a U64, comma 64 structure group. And what we're going to do is we're going to take the DRAM complex on that thing, which would normally have degree zero, degree one, degree two, three, four, all the way up to 14 before it died. So it would have 15 different terms, 14 different operators. You're going to cut out almost all of them in the middle. So you're going to go zero to one to 13 to 14 and then die. And so how did you get from two to 13? Well, you took two. Yes. You did a contraction. That got you back to one. Yeah. And then you did a star. And so that thing, when rolled up, has that zero in the south-east corner of the two by two matrix of operators, which is what I think will be found to be a seesaw mechanism. So there's an entire, there's a wonderful book by Michael Atia called the physics and geometry of knots. And you see this complex in that book. So the reason that the 14 manifold behaves like a three manifold, tree is magical, just a magical dimension. There's the bosonic magic, which is churn Simon's like theories. And there's the fermionic magic, which is that you roll up this very simple thing. And that's what leads to three generations. Do you still have the D squared property in this complex? Is there only three to four long? This is something I've never said anywhere. There is a new D squared. I think it's acyclic, crazy, beautiful complex. That if you have two connections, I created and have never released to anyone. I haven't even mentioned it because it's going to, it's going to engender more confusion. But suffice it to say, there's something that looks like, oh god, what is it? DA, F sub B for the second connection, identity, DB. I think that's the four entry. Oh, sorry, there are two negative signs in the second column. So there is a new D squared, which is unbelievable. And one of the coolest things about this is that on shell, where the equations get satisfied, a complex is birthed. So if you think about it, and this is, you know, this is like, this is more with my old math buddies. My interpretation is that the Einstein condition is a co-homological condition. Okay. Because what it says is the curvature has some special property. But if the curvature is the obstruction to D squared equaling zero, then maybe on shell that that's telling you is that a new column, co-homologies theory is born on shell. So you're going to get a moduli space of connections. And then you can look at the kernel and co-cernel of a co-homology theory on that space and you get this gorgeous structure. But the thing is is that look, I went into math to avoid strength theory. And you know, there's just this very weird story, which I couldn't sort out in my mind, where I, I was a 17 year old kid at the University of Pennsylvania, who went to a lecture of Ed Witten on strength theory in 1980 seemingly three. But Ed Witten doesn't give a lecture on strength theory until 1984 after the Green Schwartz anomaly cancellation. And in this story, we're unclearly lying, I switched my major from physics to math because I can see the effect that he's just had on a room full of physicists, where suddenly everyone has given up to the like instant learned helplessness. And I never told that story because it's clearly time and consistent. Like, he, I'm in my sophomore year. I'm in college only for three years. I'm in my sophomore year when the Green Schwartz anomaly cancellation happens, but I've already changed my major. I'm reading Peter Wight's book about this period of time. And he says, "Witten doesn't begin to get interested in this until the Green Schwartz anomaly cancellation." But he actually gives his first lecture on strength theory in 1983 at a conference on grand unification. I read this and just think, "You're kidding me. Tell me where this conference was." This conference was held at the University of Pennsylvania. I am the only 17-year-old in that room. I'm the youngest person to see the beginning. I'm almost 60 right now as we speak, 59. I am the youngest person on earth to see the birth of the Whitten era of strength. I'm the only person who can report accurately of what it's like to be an undergraduate and watch as the theoretical physicist in this room lose their minds. Because God is in the room saying things that are so incredible, claims that are so strong from a position of so much understanding in wisdom that nobody wants to oppose it. And I just looked at this and I said, "I cannot go into this field. This is going to take over ever." Gosh, man, there's many questions that I have pages and pages of questions. From before. I'll come for several days. We'll do whatever you want to do. But may I say something? I think we're making history right now. Tell me more. So all these questions are, what was it like to be in the room when nobody had heard these stories? Like, there's so much of my life that lives only in my head because everyone's still trapped about like, "So wait a minute. You think the world is 14 dimensional? Why do we only see four?" Like, that's sort of the level of my life. I never get to the real part of my life. My whole life has been lived alone. This is really creepy in a weird way. I'm having a discussion about something real. This doesn't happen. Let's go. Earlier when you said that we have the three generations, the two of them have the same representation, but one doesn't. See, physicists tend to mix up the word representation with representation's face. Mathematicians tend to be more careful about that. The representation is the map that goes from the group to GLV or the endos if you're a layout general. But representation's space is the V. So we have a triple. We have a group. We have a space and we have a map from the group into the automorphisms of the space. So let's call that a representation. Very good. So when you said that they have different representations, do you mean the representation spaces are the same for two of them, but not the third or what? You're asking the right question. So let's back all the way up if we're going to do it from a math perspective. A breaking of a representation is a group, a subgroup, an initial representation of the ambient group into the automorphisms of a some space, usually a vector space. When you break from an irreducible representation or easily presented tensor product of representations to a subgroup, very often something that was irreducible breaks into smaller, irreducible subcomponents, yes, of the smaller subgroup. The claim that I am making is the spinners that we see, the 16-dimensional complex internal quantum numbers, tensored with the two complex dimensional vile spinners. As we go to the higher and higher groups in GU, what you're going to see is those dimensions of the spaces won't change. You will see something that looks like dark matter coming out of its non-luminous phase and being connected and coupled to the luminous matter at higher gravity regimes. That's my interpretation of what you think. Higher gravity regime just means higher curvature? High curvature. Really what I'm thinking of is high curvature, but I'm trying to sound like, okay, okay. But the thing is that there are two, even without high curvature, there are two spaces of fermions that we haven't seen in GU. There's spin three halves fermions that are really weird because so they'll appear to be spin three halves on the form manifold we know and love. Tensored with a 16-complex dimensional space that'll look like the standard model fermions, except it will be conjugated. That's a prediction. You know you're in GU and GU makes the prediction that there will be spin three halves matter coupled to a 16-dimensional vector space that looks awfully familiar, but that the parity is sort of reversed and flipped. And then you're going to have an additional collection of spin one-half fermions that are coupled to, I forget, 144 complex dimensional vector space that nobody's ever seen. And the third generation of fermions that we see that's also spin halves, spin one-half, will combine with that when the group rises from this broken SU-3 cross SU-2 cross SU-1. So there will be a grand unification at a petit salam level. That's where they observe leptons, the electron and the electron neutrino become the fourth color of the quarks for the SU-4 that contains the SU-3, which has really spin six, but never mind. And then you're going to see all these other particles you've never seen before. And so the physicist trying to dismiss the theories is great. You're making a prediction. Tell me something why haven't we seen these particles you have in mass? I don't really know. But we didn't see the third generation of particles for a while. Robbie was the one who said, "Why is there a second generation of particles?" I assume that there's a mass prohibition because a lot of these things are electrically charged. So yeah, there's a hidden, I think it's 144 dimensional complex representation that'll be tensed with spin one-half vial spinners. And it will combine with the third generation. It's a pleasure, man. I could keep talking to you for another couple hours. Well, probably at least another podcast on GU that will be more in depth as mentioned. It also wasn't fair to use, so maybe you're going to want to do it more structured. Well, that's fine. I mean, it's like five hours of notice. I haven't had time to prepare for this, but take care, man. Hey, really great to be here. And by the way, thanks for really taking an interest in this. I learned a great deal from watching your video. Okay. And like me, what did your observation map tell you? I can tell you what I learned. I think I'm less interested in giving you like a minus b plus, all that kind of stuff. I had no idea that this was so difficult. Because I just remember all of the little problems along the way that I was trying to tackle. So whether this is right or wrong, whether it's delusional, we'll find out. But it has a kind of coherence. And at least to me, to my mind, it's like, yeah, obviously, you know, because GU begins with an assumption of four degrees of freedom only together with a tiny bit of extra information, almost nothing. I always think of it as really simple. And I think that I just didn't have an appreciation for how overwhelming this is. I get no point. Did I feel like I was doing anything particularly unusual or clever? It's just a series of beliefs and intuitions that I followed and followed and followed. And I've always had this question about like, well, I don't understand. Where is everybody? And I think in some sense, watching you struggle with how to present it, I think I've become kinder to myself. I think I realize why I've taken on all these personality distortions and affections of trying to have the same kind of try to imagine having this conversation for 40 years. Eric, I've got 40 minutes. Explain GU to me. And then like, I'll be three minutes in. The person will say, okay, let's design the experiment that will prove or just prove your theory. Like, what? Or is there a double cover of GLV? Yeah. I think Ed Franklin, I recently spent an hour and a half on whether there's a double cover of GLV. There's a meta linear group. It has an N lab entry. I didn't know that I didn't know the name of it. Mm-hmm. I just worked out that it had to have GLV had to have non-trivial pi one. And then I think I remember once running into a reference in Lawson and Michelson that says that there is such a group, but it's not important because there are no rep-- finite dimensional representations of it, which reduce to the spin representation. It's like, that's the entire acquaintance I have with this object. So I had no idea until theories of everything that I'd actually-- like you say this thing at the end. I'll tell you something else I didn't. I didn't know the word unexampled. I was like, should I correct Kurt because he's not using the English language properly? And I realized, no, I just didn't know the word. You're using it beautifully. At no point did it occur to me that this is an un-exampled phenomenon that what you're actually asking is for people to use a heuristic-- look, I'm not going to read all that. Just tell me whether it's right or wrong, whether he's full of it or whether there's anything to it. And by the way, here's a story that I don't think I've told much. It was a guy named Eugenio Bianchi, who's I think still running around in physics. I went to a conference right after the Oxford talk in 2013. And he said, you know, we've been at this conference for three days. This is our last day of the fourth. And everybody in the world, because like Lamonde had written about this, was a big, you know, the guardian had written about it. And he said, everybody wants to know, is there anything to this or is there nothing to this? So let's go and we'll ditch the conference. So we ditch the conference. We sit down. I started explaining it to him. I don't know where he went. And he finally just said, stop right there. We're like 20 minutes in. And I should have listened to this. I was just like, I didn't have the confidence to hear what he had to say. He said, forgive me, Eugenio, if you're out there. He said, the only thing that's occurring to people is that there are either zero new ideas or one new idea. And nobody imagines that there are two or more. And the most likely number is zero. And then he pointed at the displaced portion of the augmented tourism tensor. And he said, just take that. He said, that's an entire field. He said, that one idea is worthy of a field. I didn't know had a process done. You said, "The And the problem is there's no idea after no idea after no idea and nobody, no one has budgeted that this is a possibility. It was like, remember when you said something nice and I said thank you and I said struggle to figure out what to say? I don't know how to receive the idea. It's a weird thing that you work on the theory of everything and you think it's right. You take those two statements. That shouldn't be a weird thing for anyone with a PhD and a technical subject. Of course, that's what you're working on. If I was in biology, I'd be trying to cure cancer. If I went to a rocket company, I'd be trying to go to Mars. And to me, it's like we're in theoretical physics to solve physics. Like, you know, I know Jim Watson as a person. That guy's name will be around for 10,000 years if humans still exist. It's very weird to like hung out with Archimedes for four days. Raul Bot, I swam naked with Raul Bot off Martha's vineyard because of sun worshipper. Raul Bot will be remembered forever. What we do is normal in a region which almost never works. But if they work, the prize isn't rich. You can look at Einstein's house on Zillow and it's like a million, two million, two million bucks. It's not much. If it works, you get to have your name perpetuated. And that's a weird thing to think about. We don't think about glory. We don't think about lasting contributions. We can talk about them for other people. We can't talk about them for ourselves. What he was telling me was there's too much here. And you know, just visiting with with with Lee Smolin, he once said this thing to me, which forever will, you know, just disturbed me. No, and he said, Eric, you're too present. I still don't know what he meant. I think every time somebody had something to say, I was like, yeah, let's go. Let's balance. What can we do? Ultimately, the hope of GU is that we get our own source code and we figure out whether we have to die on this planet from the fruits of previous generations of physicists. I've received several messages, emails and comments from professors saying that they recommend theories of everything to their students. And that's fantastic. If you're a professor or lecturer and there's a particular standout episode that your students can benefit from, please do share. And as always, feel free to contact me. New update started a sub-stack. Riding's on there are currently about language and ill-defined concepts as well as some other mathematical details, much more being written there. This is content that isn't anywhere else. It's not on theories of everything. It's not on Patreon. Also full transcripts will be placed there at some point in the future. What people ask me, hey Kurt, you've spoken to so many people in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and consciousness. What are your thoughts? While I remain impartial in interviews, this sub-stack is a way to peer into my present deliberations on these topics. Also thank you to our partner, the economist. Firstly, thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. If you haven't subscribed or clicked that like button, now is the time to do so. Why? Because each subscribe, each like helps YouTube push this content to more people like yourself. Plus, it helps out Kurt directly, aka me. I also found out last year that external links count plenty toward the algorithm, which means that whenever you share on Twitter, say on Facebook or even on Reddit, etc. It shows YouTube, hey, people are talking about this content outside of YouTube, which in turn greatly aids the distribution on YouTube. Thirdly, you should know this podcast is on iTunes, it's on Spotify, it's on all of the audio platforms. All you have to do is type in theories of everything and you'll find it. Personally, I gained from rewatching lectures and podcasts. I also read in the comments that, hey, to listeners also gained from replaying. So how about instead you relisten on those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google podcasts, whichever podcast catcher you use? And finally, if you'd like to support more conversations like this, more content like this, then do consider visiting patreon.com/kurtjimungal and donating with whatever you like. There's also PayPal, there's also crypto, there's also just joining on YouTube. Again, keep in mind it's support from the sponsors and you that allow me to work on toe full time. You also get early access to ad free episodes, whether it's audio or video, it's audio in the case of Patreon video in the case of YouTube. For instance, this episode that you're listening to right now was released a few days earlier. Every dollar helps far more than you think. Either way, your viewership is generosity enough. Thank you so much. The economist covers math, physics, philosophy and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how the impact markets. They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants creating an entirely new field of medicine. But it's also not just science, they analyze culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region. I'm particularly liking their new insider feature. It was just launched this month. It gives you, it gives me a front row access to the economist's internal editorial debates, where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policymakers in twice weekly long format shows. Basically, an extremely high quality podcast. Anything else you should know about is that if you go to their app, they not only have daily articles, but they also have long form podcasts with their editors and writers. This is also available online. Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, the economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines. As a toll listener, you get a special discount head over to economist.com/toe to subscribe. at economist.com/toe for your discount.