Theory of Everything Controversies: Livestream
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/Dona...
↓ More info below ↓
The second in our two event series about Theories of Everything! Watch the first one: • What is a Theory of Ev...
Please subscribe to Brian Keating's TH-cam Channel to watch one-on-one interviews with the guest speakers and more: / drbriankeating
Existing Theories of Everything have not yet produced experimental evidence that solves the fundamental challenges facing physics. That lack of progress has opened up a sea of controversy, from disagreements about the very necessity of TOEs, to questioning the cost/benefit of mega-billion dollar particle accelerators in search of them, to the emergence of competing TOEs from physicists outside of the academic community. In this 90 minute chat we dive into the existential questions around TOEs.
Special thanks to Brian Keating, Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Eric Weinstein for helping us create this great event.
Our Guests' Work:
Sabine Hossenfelder
TH-cam Channel: / sabinehossenfelder
Lost in Math: How Beauty Led Physics Astray: www.basicbooks...
Eric Weinstein
The Portal Podcast: ericweinstein....
The Portal Wiki: projects.thepo...
Lee Smolin
Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum
www.amazon.com...
Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe
www.amazon.com...
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity
www.amazon.com...
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
www.amazon.com...
The Life of the Cosmos
www.amazon.com...
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1j0Xh9XM34M/mqdefault.jpg)
The discussion of beauty in science reminds me of this saying in economics called "Goodhart's Law": "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." E.g., presumably by default higher graduation rates mean a better education system-but it's obvious why trying to _optimize_ for graduation rates _to the exclusion of all else_ will lead to worse education.
The idea is just that, you may have some metric that correlates with your goal (beauty), but once that correlate _becomes_ your goal, you find that you can maximize the correlate without increasing the thing you actually care about (truth).
All this is to say that I expect more fundamental theories of physics to be beautiful, but I don't expect _optimizing_ for beauty to get anyone anywhere. (Especially if Sabine is right that people are optimizing for one very narrow type of beauty shaped by our current incomplete frameworks.)
An equilateral triangle requires fewer parameters to be procedurally generated than an isoceles one - assuming you don't just brute force the coordinates of each vertex redundantly. If the isoceles triangle is sheared by some angle to the right then you need to capture both idiosyncracies by which one vertex is further out than the other two, and more sheared to the right by what angle. If a deeper model of reality reveals the procedural rules by which arbitrary triangles are generated, then you still need to explain the origin of the tuning parameters in these models. Philosophically, the deepest of all truths would have no hand inserted tuning parameters in order to agree with reality.
You might propose a multiverse solution here, and it could be the five universes of M-theory, or some finite number of universes within which all combinations of the tuning parameters are mathematically derived, or... an artifact of a metamathematical generative structure which has regions of mathematics that have inherent elegance defined in a way that makes local sense to that mathematical region, and all possible forms of mathematics exist in an infinite space of metamathematics, rather like 1, 2, 3, 4,... keeps going on until infinity, and there are a bigger infinity of Real numbers, even though those numbers aren't actually real in any real sense as they don't all really exist in reality.
There has been a repeated pattern of unifications from Electricity with Magnetism, to Electromagnetism with the Weak force, etc. Thus it is suggestive that we live in a universe that is economical, which gets by with the minimal number of parts, and could be more structurally complex, but isn't. A lot of this makes it seem mathematically elegant, symmetrical, and in a sense beautiful. So, when physicists use beauty as a "muse" to guide their work as it has not led prior physicists astray, I don't think that is too wrongheaded an approach. Sabine reminds us that if our experiments fail to agree with reality it isn't that reality isn't wrong and our equations are somehow right, and I have a hunch why there are three generations of matter and why it would be a total waste of money to build a larger supercollider. In a sense, we have run the experiments and just need to make sense of the results, as we are trying to understand everything with two irreconcilable models of reality, and multiple speculative unifying theories that remain unproven.
Unless there is a good reason why the universe is not explainable by one consistent theory (e.g. God quite literally looks after the heavens and Lucifer is responsible for the hellish world of quantum mechanics and that is why there is this incompatibility between their realms of authority) then one can infer that it ought to be explainable by one consistent theory, even if that is a new theory that throws out General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to look at the problem another way.
Also, there is the problem of why such a theory that explains a consistent model is the way it is and if it has any parameters (like with the isoceles triangle example above), why those are plugged into it for it to work. All this would be is a Grand Unified Theory, so a full Theory of Everything would need to broaden its scope to include the origin of the mathematics that is observed to operate in our local experience of the universe, which might not apply elsewhere in the cosmos, and then explain why our universe has the mathematics it does, if it could be arbitrary and part of an infinite multiverse of metamathematics. So, maybe there is some selection criteria, such as it being impossible to tie a knot in anything higher or lower than three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, thus our familiar (3, 1) realm has a mathematical foundation. Weinstein then proposes (7, 7) with (3, 1) subtracting from that to yield (4, 6) which are the ten Einstein Field Equations, and SO(10) Theory, etc. whilst 7 + 7 = 14 dimensions are justified as being the three coordinate dimensions of space, with one of time, with a magnitude for each (i.e. ruler), and with the ability to choose angles between each axis that aren't necessarily ninety degrees, so that would be three angles between the left-right, up-down, and forward-back axes. Then in adding in the past-future axis it forms angles with each of the existing spatial axes in turn, so you get past-future at an angle with left-right, etc. and this yields another three angles. Counting up all of these variables gets you to (3, 1)(4, 6) = (7, 7).
So, Weinstein's adoption of the number 14 is not without geometric justification, and it would be strange to have him elect to say "No, I'm fine... I only need 11 dimensions for my Theory of Everything" like Ed Witten's M-theory as there is no reason why Weinstein isn't using the space of all possible metrics which includes the manifold X4 itself and for some unaccountable reason ignoring 14 - 11 = 3 dimensions that he could be using. Consequently, any Theory of Everything would need to explain away all tunable parameters somehow or just be considered a Grand Unified Theory.
Ballsy bringing these specific people together, but it paid off. Questions that needed to be asked got asked.
lol at best
..Do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth?
@@alanlowey2769 Good one! lol!! The earth is so important to... uh.... humans only! But our importance I'm sure sucks in all matters of this single and maybe all other universes!
But not answered....as for the last 100 years....The utter lack of academic creativity and fear of thinking out of the box . Only Eric offers a new view, if only partly correct
@@RWin-fp5jn Maybe the scientific community needs to look beyond the handful of names in the hat?
Sabine: Eric, your communication skills are total crap.
Eric: That's preposterous. *Breaks out toilet paper
Whoever edited this is a genius and should run for president.
Can you give me the context? Why is the editing good?
Yeah... what is the big deal about the editing?? I admit that I haven’t watched the whole thing yet, but as far as I’ve seen it’s just straightforward editing... what’s the big deal?
i would speculate it was edited live in the livestream programm they used. but i still dont understand whats so great about it?
@@Cscuile The livestream had lots of connection issues with the participants not being able to hear each other and stuff like that, it was horrible to watch.
When Matt ends the stream with "space time", everything feels less chaotic.
Except "space time" has been a bit cut.
Good call editing it into a clean form that only has the actual discussion.
The one physicist talking with someone like none of the rest of the participants were there and saying somewhat unkind things was embarrassing for all involved.
A rule for teleconferences... Unless you're physically muted and have physically blocked the camera lens, everybody can see you and hear you.
@@Omnifarious0 Because I don't really understand the physics, I crave some gossip. Who was saying unkind things about whom?
@@_yak - I can't remember who it was. The woman who wasn't Sabine. She was on a phone call with the person who convinced her to attend telling them that things weren't working and she was thinking of dropping off because she was only there as a favor to the person she was talking to.
@@Omnifarious0 How insulting, disrespectful, and petty. What exactly wasn't working out? I watched both and they seem like very respectful discussions
..Do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth?
Whoever edited this deserves a raise
What did I miss?
The live version of this they did last week was a mess. No one could hear each other and there were connection issues. There were 6 people and at most, they had 3 people who could actually hear each other and converse together. That is at least when someone else didn’t realize their audio was on and just talked over everyone lol
@@noteable oh thank you so much I actually caught that one in part. I must have missed the point where things got rough. I was only able to catch the beginning. I had to attend to things in other places. I'm sad to hear things lead to conflict but all things new usually do.
Yeah, I was super excited for it and was kinda disappointed how it all turned out. I felt bad for them tbh lol Oh, also the stream started almost 20 minutes late. Should have realized then that there was going to be issues ahah
@@noteable sir do not be disappointed all progressing science has its growing pains. This seems to be just that. Yet with that pain hopefully comes progresse.
Dr. Smolin's introduction of asking the right question was absolutely fascinating!!
Really impressed with Sabine. I definitely think that Eric does a poor job of clearly describing his idea and it was nice to see Sabine express this honestly.
@@dalebewan Great that you understood! Can you translate the full thing into math so everybode else can understand it as well?
@@Fuhrerjehova Do you want to encode it mathematically, thereby making it more precise, more complex and more esoteric, or do you want an oversimplification like Sabine's? Pick one.
@@TheRealFlenuan I want the math. The explenation of current data and the predictions of future data. I guess Eric will publish it together with the release of star citizen.
The problem is he doesn't really have ideas just questions.
Definitely check her youtube channel!
There was a lot of hubris going on here. But also some very refreshing humility. Sabine wins the humility award. Also the "no bullshit tolerated here" award. Eric wins the hubris award. Matt wins the "best able to politely tolerate assholes" award.
I disagree with your assessment. I found Eric's perspective refreshing. I could not have listened for an hour and a half to a bunch of physicists nodding at one another and agreeing.
@@crazyfly5505 that's what the last podcast felt like and it was a bit obnoxious.
Whoa, Lee Smolin is a legend. I think I at least get his analogy - we'd be classifying proteins and thinking "how messy is all of that" if Darwin didn't explain the mechanic that made them emerge in the first place!
I think his message was actually the best. The universe or multiverse is emergent.
@@maxbell9723 It feels like a veiled defense of string theory
The world may have to wait many years for a Theory of Everything but we are blessed that we have Sabine to listen to right now.
Definitely check her youtube channel!
I think it's a ways off but I think we're getting closer
Well, this was fun... I watch Eric in The Portal & have been watching PBS Spacetime for years, with the honestly assumption that never the twain shall meet. Kudos, Spacetime, for a brave choice.
Same
@@tectzas I think it was a foolish choice. His polemics and crackpottery don't deserve to be on this platform.
@@PhysicsPolice I disagree but I respect your opinion
@@PhysicsPolice
Feynman: "To figure out how things are in physics, the very first thing we do, before anything else is, we make a guess."
Audience: *Laughs*
Feynman: "Don't laugh, it's a very serious matter. That's really how fundamental physics must be done."
@@PhysicsPolice
Also Feynman: "If a lot of smart people keep asking the same questions without getting answers, perhaps the smart thing to do is to ask different questions."
Sabine @1h gave a much needed tough love for Eric.
That is: stop acting as if everybody understand your idiossincratic jargons
lol .. String theory to date, since 1984, is wrong and has went nowhere, understand?
Thanks! So it’s not just me.
It's called a word salad.
Precisely. Linguistic nonsense is neither Scientific nor is in Mathematical.
Just because Science has not arrived at a solution to the quantum Gravity problem, doesn't mean we can fling linguistic riddles and baseless nonsense that lack verifiable predictions into the arena.
Since Eratosthenes invented the scientific method, in about 180 BC, it has been a very simple and successful tool of discovery.
We just need to remember the Mathematics is not a discipline of Science - it is part of the Arts, like painting or embroidery. In one sense Mathematical abstract nonsense has contaminated and impeded progress in scientific discovery (especially over the past 70 years).
Mathematicians should take a leaf out of some of books Philosophers use and challenge their axiomatic neuroses.
Here's a transcript of Eric's reply. In which he does nothing to address her primary concern. Beware... Lots of words.
Sabine - [paraphrased] People don't take your theory of Geometric Unity seriously because we can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Eric - [verbatim. ums and uhs ommitted.] It's very simple.
Assume that you had a space-time manifold. Normally we need 4 dimensions for that. Before you have a metric, here's a 1-dimensional manifold in the form of a circle. Now, it happens that you have to create, in Geometric Unity, an Ambient Space which would be a fiber bundle. That would look, in the case of a circle, like a disconnected object which we will call Y. Call the circle X, which is a band around the core, and this is Y which is the space of metrics. These would be time like and these would be space like metrics.
So the idea is that an Einsteinian space-time is a wrapping of a circle of 1 dimensional time around a core of space. And the idea is that the physics is taking place both on the circle and on the core. So if the space-time metric is down here, you're going to pull back different information at the bottom of this core than if it were at the top. That's just saying that it's a section of the bundle of metrics. It's straight-up Einstein.
What I am saying is that the bundle of metrics of this object Y has a funny feature which is that it has a metric on it, almost. So I'm going to put an orthogonal axis protruding from the core, representing what I call the Horizontal Tangent Space. It is not pointed along the tube. If it was pointed along the tube, then the Y structure would have a metric and it could have things like electrons and muons and neutrinos and the like. But in fact it points off.
So one of the factors of Geometric Unity is pushing this Horizontal Subspace along the core, to be perpendicular to the Vertical Subspace. Therefore, the space of metrics that Einstein actually, weirdly, almost inherits a metric without any choices of a metric on the original space.
On that, you define all of your particles, and the 10 dimension that Einstein gives us from the partial-coupled differential equations are the same 10 as the spin-10 unified theory. So the idea is that you have a coincidence. You learned about something involving 10 in the case of Einstein's General Relativity. You also have 10 cropping up in Grand Unified Theory. 10 is two times 5 for that SU-5 Theory. If you think about something called the Petit-Salom Theory, that's usually given as SU-4 plus SU-2 plus SU-2. It should be called spin-6 cross spin-4 because 6 plus 4 is 10.
Ten is coming up over and over and over again. It's also d-squared plus d over 2 if d equals 4.
All of these things give you an internal structure where there is no symmetry groups, and that was the huge problem with super-symmetry is that you never got rid of the double origin story. You had a space-time origin story, and then you had a fiber origin story where out-of-the-blue, or in Yiddish [coming from nowhere], you put SU-3 cross SU-2 cross SU-1, which because you never pulled that out of anything organically geometric, the idea is that when you did super-symmetry on top of it -by the way, which is not a symmetry, I don't know why we insist on calling it that- you were working on the wrong group.
The idea is that where you saw the Lorenz Group is where you should use the Gage Group. Now Sabine, what you called the Gage group is actually, technically called the Structure Group. I'm not talking about the finite dimensional objects that you were talking about before. But you should form the infinite dimension Gage Group. And just as you form the in-homogeneous extension of the Lorenz Group to form the Poincare Group, you should form the in-homogeneous extension of the Gage Group, which is an infinite dimension gadget, do super-symmetry on that, remove the internal symmetries and generate them by virtue of the fact that protospace-time, before it inhabits the provinces of Reimannian or semi-Reimannian geometry, you should look at the bundle of metrics, realize it almost has a metric on it. Therefore it almost effectively has Spinors on it.
And closing out this little riff on Geometric Unity, one of the problems that people always talk about "Oh we can't quantize gravity." You have a bigger problem than that, which is that the electron and the quarks and the neutrinos and all these particles that are matter depend on a particular choice of a metric. They don't exist in the absence of one. So in the case of a photon, you have the sea in which the photon is the wave and you have the wave itself. And you say, well I don't know where the wave is between observations. If you don't know where the metric is, then you don't know where the ocean is between observations.
And the difference between being at the beach and not being exactly sure where the waves are, and being at the beach and not knowing where the Pacific Ocean is? It's an entirely different world of pain. And for some reason the physicists are not particularly bothered by this. And one of the things that Geometric Unity does is it takes the issue of the fact that the electron bundle, the medium in which the electron is a wave, doesn't exist between observations of the metric, and it says we're gonna solve that for you by working over the space of all metrics, showing that that has an almost-metric coming from the fact that it has a Chimeric bundle which is partially along the space and partially pointing away from the space (Geometric Unity tamps that down) and that means that electrons are defined between observations of a Gravitational Metric, which could be up here or down here because the entire space of metrics effectively has a metric.
[end response]
Me: Well that certainly cleared things up...
Mad respect for not avoiding Erik and having him on. Have not listened yet but props for not being scared of controversies
I was biased towards Eric over Sabine, but I must confess: after hearing them both, I'm 100% with Sabine. I loved her at 59:00 !! she destroyed him hahaha
Eh, it's not really a debate. Combative showdowns are not doing anyone any favours, they're as relevant to physics as reality tv.
I came for the physics, but they started fighting, then I just grabbed the popcorn 🤷♂️
Let's be mature about this. Likely they both deal in far more nuance than they can encapsulate in a limited discussion (which is what it is, not a debate). The fact is they both have worthwhile points and, tellingly, they both seem to find themselves operating from the outside boundaries (yes, I now S. is a physicist, but she clearly follows her own path). Put simply, I think S. critique of beauty as a theoretical tool is bang on, but W. has a certain point in that... look, we're ultimately humans, not calculators... and what gets us out of bed or indeed decided to even breathe another breath is some sense of beauty hidden under whatever it is we're doing. I don't think you need to cherry pick great minds who referenced beauty. There wouldn't even be physicists if that sense wasn't at least a 'get out of bed' force... as opposed to a logical premise.
Seems to me she had a lot to say about nothing.
Hitting the Earth, surrounding the earth, but probably not at the center.
Spacetime is doing debates and discussions now? That's such a great idea, I love it!!!
I'm too ignorant to understand Eric's "explanation", but this I can understand: in the first few minutes of his intervention, he basically pissed on the entire scientific community, using language like "nonsense", "sleight of hand", "set of dreams", "oppressive propaganda". At a very visceral level, I'm not inclined to trust someone whose first move in a talk is to frame the discussion in those terms.
My thoughts exactly
What Smolin was saying about the scientific method and his "Against Method" viewpoint reminds me a bit of the rules of Wikipedia. Wikiepdia has a whole bunch of policies regarding what content should be included, what should be deleted, what is tonally appropriate, lots of sub-sub-conventions for article titles, etc. etc.
But one of their rules is "Ignore all rules". It isn't quite as provocative as its title; it just says that *"If* a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" *[emphasis* added]. The policies are designed to corral what would otherwise be chaos into their actual goal of creating a reliable free encyclopedia. But should you encounter an edge case where the policies fail to push Wikipedia in that direction, the goal takes precedence over the guardrails.
Similarly, I think the "radio edited scientific method", as one of the speakers called it, is better than just about anything else put to paper at steering humans towards more understanding of the universe. But at the end of the day, the _point_ isn't to go through a checklist of having followed all the rules and done all the right things-the point is to find more true things about the universe.
(Of course, every crank _thinks_ that they're an exception and that the scientific establishment are a bunch of hidebound reactionaries, and in those cases, ever since science became the establishment, the establishment is almost always right-hence why you need those guardrails in the first place! And to the credit of scientists everywhere, in the rare cases where the established methods are hindering progress, the global community does seem to come around to that fact much quicker than you'd expect (given how poorly optimized the human brain is for finding truth). E.g., In the grand scheme of things it didn't take Einstein long to go from being nobody to the world's most respected physicist. Or as another example, the replication crisis quickly went from being something a few lone voices raised concerns about to something _everyone_ takes as a serious problem and is interested in fixing.)
At the end of the day-and with the understanding that "Ignore all rules" ought to be in the back of our minds-I say two-and-half cheers for the "scientific method"!
Formalism is death.
Great to have these top-mathematicians joining and truly excellent moderation by Matt, given the communication hick ups. If anything, what this video clearly demonstrates, is that all attendees may be great in their sub-specialties, yet do not really want to leave their own field of expertise (or even promotion thesis). The very fact that for 100 years, literally tens of thousands of the greatest minds can't improve on our fundamental understanding of PHYSICS (which is NOT equal to its derived approximating mathematics called QP and GR), suggests either the fundamentals are extremely complex (which is a contradictio in terminis) or all these fine mathematicians simply all share flawed base assumptions due to an incorrect curriculum. Impossible? Take for instance the concepts of Mass and Energy:
We all learned about Mass being 'equal' to Energy, because of Einstein's E=MC2. Good argument? Well, if we look at the formula of Distance(Space)=Time* Speed..do we derive from this that given a certain speed, Space and Time are 'equivalent" ? No ! Then WHY ON EARTH do we do that with Energy and Mass?? Notice in contrast we KNOW very well that it takes high energies (e.g. the Large Hadron Collider) to venture the smallest distances..This is saying ENERGY relates to the inverse of SPACE....Now that makes more sense. Look e.g. at our 'big bang' singularity universe: Its shrinks in energy ('as a grid') as it increases its spatial grid. So the inverse of its energy times its space (inversed energy) is the ALWAYS the constant 1 except for the moment of inversion (big crunch) where it is 0 from our perspective. Hence we get a binary oscillating manifestation of Energy and Space. Doesn't that make more sense? And if Energy is the inverse of Space than so must Mass be the inverse of Time. Strange? not really. If an object has a lot of mass, w e can now say it has a lot of inversed time, which means it takes more time to yet change its speed...Intuitively that is a very natural definition of inertia. Again notice the dynamic in-product of time and mass is again a constant linking inertia to the clock function. After 100 years of failure we MUST start thinking in these VERY basic terms , otherwise we will not understand how the universe and everything functions, resulting in another century of Human Mathematical Vanity. Or as Sabine puts it: '..keep getting lost in Math..'.
just to be clear, "Against Method" is a work by Feyerabend: Smolin was expressing his agreement with Feyerabend, its not strictly "his" viewpoint because "Against Method" is not his work (which iirc, Smolin explicitly notes that these are not his "original" ideas)
Eric has clearly been told the words "yes boss" too many times and now thinks he can never be wrong.
He's so bad here.
huge respect for Sabine's uncompromising approach
Eric needs to get Sabine on the portal ASAP.
He's a clown
That'd be great actually
And let her talk!
liltonyabc Do you know any differential geometry?
@@FOSology yeah I saw those toilet tubes, gravity popped right out.
sabine says to eric what i was thinking: half a million watched it but no one understands what you're talking about
Eric's "theory" is definitely not a theory as it comes across more as a bunch of gibberish or if your being kind a bunch of hand waving from step to step...
@@metatron5199 I think his basic idea is that the selection of theories and avenues of approach is becoming politicized, with the parties being the Truth and Beauty Party, The String Party and so on. The reason he says it is becoming political is that people in the field are casting their votes based on the party they currently belong to, old loyalties snd so on rather than on the merits of the ideas.
Yeah I mean I am no physicist but I understand a litttle bit of what all the others are saying because of what I know from PBS Space time and others, but what he says sounds like a bunch of random ideas thrown together nonsensical but also complicated enough that no one can even start refuting it.
And even more annoying is how he keeps generalising "the string theory people" into "they said" "they failed" "they kept moving the goalposts", like sure encourage people to follow other ideas but if you dont change your theory based on the findings you are not a scientist...
Eric knows lots of words and he can say them really fast. It's like putting all your punctuation at the end of a long paragraph and letting the reader decide where they belong. :)
Tubluer I'm not talking about any of that! none of those points have anything to do with his theory on physics (if you somehow thought that when he was talking about the current state of the community of physics as his theory of physics you have a bit more issues when it comes to understanding even what a theory is sir....) And to note I don't have any qualms with any of those points he is making and if anything I fully support them my problem is his actual "grand unified theory" of physics (I'm guessing you don't even know what I'm talking about, so simply Erica believes he has a unified theory of physics and has put out videos "detailing" outlining the theory), if it was anything like he claims he would be able to produce results i.e. Solutions to questions which we can not currently do like fully describe black holes would be the most obvious thing to test your theory on, if you have a theory of quantum gravity than provide the solutions to all the dynamics of what's going on in a black hole, this was exactly the counter that Sabine had retorted with basically giving him the one two punch in that intellectual dual.... further I'm not against him trying but he needs to do a lot more work before he thinks he even has a theory, I look forward to him working through things as I appreciate his ability to acknowledge the philosophical implications of various fundamental physics question and concerns himself with how the theory actually maps onto reality, this is something that many physicists have no sensitivity to at all or even worse don't even see it as a problem smh.... but what he currently has is not really a theory, if anything it's closer to an interpretation of QM though it's not even really that either, it's kinda in a no mans in between both....
Eric: "That's proposterous" (that nobody has any idea what he's talking about)
Also Eric: (poking a toothpick through a toilet roll) "see?! Einshtine!"
Really good program. Any time Lee Smolijh and Sabine Hossenfleder have something to say, I want to listen.
Why Sabine? Are you a physicist by any chance?
Matt is a legend and a massive inspiration. I'm a physicist too and decided to try this YT thing out, have a look for some more cool space vids :)
Will give you a shot!
what sort of physicist?
@@aaronbev8451 Thanks my friend! Hope you enjoy
@@ryanm3964 Currently playing with quantum computers and trying to get them to work! Planned on going into astrophysics though
@@DylanJDance Very cool
Watching this live was one experience I will never forget 😂. Thanks for providing us with these interesting discussions. Hopefully there will be many more to come in the future :)
The universe was definitely against them that day. Lol
What happened?
White one Let’s just say that even the smartest people among us aren’t immune to technical difficulties
Gained immense respect for Lee Smolin after this
Sadly missed this while it was live. SO glad to finally see it posted for good!
You didn't miss much, the livestream was plagued with technical difficulties.
Sabine is right. Eric has problems with delivering his ideas.
Eric has also problems in understanding his own ideas.
Scientists aren't supposed to be passing judgment on delivery of ideas. Scientists are supposed to be SEEKING new ideas, which these people appear not to be. I keep on hearing all sorts of physicists who say "Well, Eric could be right, but I need him to convince me." I find that absolutely shocking. If you have a POSSIBLE candidate that looks in any way legitimate, why are you not jumping at it? Why aren't they just ripping his model to shreds instead of talking about Eric's presentation?
@@classiqueliberal8576 first define what science is. Artists also have new ideas.
@@OleksandrFialko Are you serious or trolling?
We aren't talking about your local homeless man. The people on this video all had Ph.D.s. What are you trying to say?
@@classiqueliberal8576 Because he has no model, he is just a fraud and a clown. If he had had any model, he would have published.
Can Eric's theory cough up anything tangible/testable/comprehensible-as-a-genuine-problem for the instrumentalist Sabine to chew on? Wow, she's stubborn with stubborn ferocity, I love it! And Eric's ideas are so compelling, I want to believe it's more than just mathy metaphysics. Sabine is right, though, he needs to explain it better, or show how it can provide the sort of calculation she asks for.
This vid was quite enjoyable.
Eric hearing what he wants to hear. Most obvious one is that he was acting like she said “geometric unity doesn’t exist” and not “most people don’t know what it is”. he even had all them toilet paper cardboards ready and everything 😭😭 he isn’t hearing what she’s saying and I’m glad she called him out
Also Eric must be living in a different universe considering he thinks physicists do not advocate and negotiate for more grant etc. we live in a world a huge population doesn’t believe in science and some who even think the world is flat. Eric just likes to hear himself talk is what I’m gathering from his responses
Woohoo great to see Sabine here!
Did I miss it or did Eric dodge Sabine's pointed question of how GU allows one to measure the gravity of particles in superposition (QM/GR reconciliation)? Though I'm a fan or Eric's intellectual contributions, Sabine's stance is more logical in that a TOE needs to answer the important discrepancies first (QM/GR) and worry about unification/explanation of symmetries, chirality, and so on as a lesser priority, if ever, since even if more fundamentally explained, the prediction accuracy of the standard model wouldn't improve.
He essentially dodged it because I think that's unfinished. He's kinda working on 80% of a theory. He'd respond she doesn't have an explanation for that either. You can say one is more important than another, but when he points out his ability to explain the three generations, chirality, etc., and her response is simply "I don't see that as a problem", in a TOE discussion...
really? I don't think hers was the better response.
Eric's just been this guy mulling this stuff over for 25 years, covid came along and he started worrying about his own mortality, realizing he might never have completed his currently half-baked idea himself anyway, and is trying to push it out at 80% to get people to either a) try to fill in the other 20% or b) show how something in the 80% can't possibly add up.
Yet no one seems to both a) have the chops and b) have the willingness to do either.
I know I sure don't.
@@TransRoofKorean I really like Eric and his content, but you really come off as just trying to justify his stance.
If you prefer the man, than the facts you must reconsider, really.
@@andresdubon2608 Problem is that no one knows the facts: there's not a single person alive who *_knows_* (ie., with certainty) the facts to whatever the "actual" Theory of Everything would be, if one can be.
Eric's stuff smells right, more or less, to me. But that's a proof of nothing. What it doesn't smell like is charlatanism. But, I guess others have the opposite opinion as far as the smell test goes.
@@TransRoofKorean He dodged a direct question, that's a fact.
I don't know why he did that but it felt wrong.
If you come and justify the lack of a direct response does make you look as a fan defending Eric.
He shouldn't be needing fans to defend him, that's literally the last thing science and math needs.
@@andresdubon2608 oh god what is the point... I'll just reiterate once more I don't really think it should be called a "dodge" if you're saying "it's not complete ie. I don't know the answer to that yet"
you f'ing people exist only to come around and tell everyone else that they're wrong and what they're doing is wrong, just go away
What a crew! This deserves way more views
This needed to happen, and I am so happy that it did (so much so that I am commenting on a youtube video :o).
Matt, please do us all a huge favor. and do an episode on the concepts of Eric's theory. You are a master when it comes to breaking down complicated topics into a format and language that is accessible but also technical. Even if all you could cover would be the geometry portion, the premise, and how it may relate to physics, myself (and I am sure many, many others) would be so very grateful.
Thank you again for hosting this.
I like how "Why String Theory is Wrong | PBS Space Time" is recommended to me on the side haha
"Why String Theory is Right" was another one they made in that series; they looked at both sides of the argument!
@@__-cx6lg could be either. The point being it's completely unknowable which, so is unlikely scientific. It's a maths theorum.
@@georgesimpson1406 Some people argue otherwise-that it could be tested in principle, if you had a large enough supercollider.
Really impressed by Sabine, ordering her book now
Wherever Eric appears, even in a science discussion "They" appear too, lurking in the shadows around us...
I love how people asked him who that "they" was a couple of times.
Ah those they. The those that shalt not be named except for they... Who are they exactly? .. "Well basically it's just silly to not spend billions on science and they should just be throwing money at them but they also have done absolutely nothing in 50 years. Maybe if they knew that symmetry didn't mean symmetry and that the standard model was conceived from a lesser understanding of the higher dimensional mathematical equations of metrics and theory of toilet rolls / hair bands and a tooth pick"
Sigh, why so short... We need an 8 hr battle to the death between Eric, Sabine, and get Sean Carroll in on it. Play the Kirk vs Spock fight theme in the background.
I second Sean Carroll!
Maybe he could undestand Eric's theory then explain it to the rest of us.
Amok Time? Yes, I wager five thousand quatloos that the newcomers will have to be destroyed!!
"Kum ba yah" ("Come by Here") Lord if you are all powerful and help your humans!
@neil u Turok? Wasn't that Spock's father?
Eric and Sean wouldn't have a chance. It would be like throwing two bunnies into the wolf's den.
Great talk, sad it was so short. Hopefully u'll have more of these.
I love Sabine!
This was one of the best talks ever. Big props to Eric, Sabine, and Matt,and Brian for moderating this. I encourage everbody to watch it in full.
Conspicuously missing: Sean Carrol - a theoretical physicist with lots of great content.
Might not have had time
I guess Sean Carroll wouldn't want to waste time with pseudo intellectuals like Eric Weinstein.
@@Neomadra You say dangerous yet true words
I don't feel it's too conspicuous, I feel like it's worth mentioning though. i think a conversation with Sean Carol and Eric Weinstein would be super interesting. It's my understanding that they have very different ideas...but what things do they agree on? It would be very exciting indeed.
I want Sean Carroll and Brian Cox
I don't know the answer but I'm pretty sure it will involve duct tape.
LOL... Yes to fix a broken symmetry.
And it will have a length on any scale but a value of 42 haha
Super glue here. Did I miss anything? 🤔
@@SkyraHope These youngsters comin along with their fancy glues 'n' such 😊
@@tarecho I think to unify GR and QM :p or to wrap gravity and smush till it's "quantized".
Soooo Happy to hear Lee and Sabrine both mention Against Method. That book changed my life.
Lee has changed my mind. How are we supposed to find an accurate framework for the union of GR and QM without focusing on how they change? The problem space is too huge! His evolution analogy was great!
I know! It's one of the most profound things I've heard in a long time. And no one else picked up on it.
I recommend reading Smolin's book Einstein's Unfinished Revolution where he expands on this idea. In the book Smolin describes one theory that he's come up with that could be this so called evolution. He calls it the causal theory of views. He admits that it's unlikely to be correct but it could atleast be testable and it's a great example of what the evolution theory of physics could look like.
I missed this point, and I don't understand it from your recap. Is he saying the theories change? The dynamic systems?
His evolution analogy was no accident. His theory is about how we live in a multiverse where new universes are created at every blackhole in a nested tree. Each universe might be created with different universal constants and only ones capable of creating universes with black holes "reproduce" and create new universes inside of them. That is what he is talking about when he says evolution of the laws (if I understand it correctly). Supposedly, universes capable of creating stars are more capable of creating blackholes (random fluctuations being the alternative). The more stars, the more universes, and here we are, a universe full of stars and blackholes.
One missing problem is that for the algorithm of evolution to work, you need a few more characteristics, not present at his theory as far as I know: the change from parent to sun is minimal (stable DNA, with rare mutations). I don't think he presented any mechanism to that effect.
Wow. Matt and the pbs spacetime team, *we need 2 videos from you!*
1: attempting to break down and easily explain Geometric Unity as something that could bring new unknown problems to our attention.
2: Maybe a theory of everything will be formulated by describing how and why the forces evolved to be what they are now, (based on the final statement that Lee Smolin gave, which took me by complete surprise!)
Please like so the pbs team can see!
Why would they do the first thing if not even Eric bother to do it himself and write down a damn paper. And the lazy bastard is angry people don't wanna pay attention on what he is talking about. LMAO
He could start by being sure it answer the questions Sabine made: Does it gives a method to calculate the gravitational field of an electron in state of super position? And can you show that the energy of particles is uv resistent (ie. doesn't blow up in high frequencies)? He surely dodged those questions.
It is too familiar for me the situation of being working hard on a math problem, when someone takes a look at it and have a general fell of what the problem is about and says:
"I think you should attack the problem this or that way"
"Great, why don't you have a try and we talk about of it latter"
"Sure"
They start righting some half ass answer that goes nowhere. Only then they recognize that the problem is more complicated than they thought it was. At least the guys he is criticizing have a somewhat consistent model of what they are talking about.
"The planet that I live on, money matters." Sabine Hossenfelder
Exactly ...
I'm going to need a better representation of time and space than a rubber band, toilet roll, and a tooth pick.
it’s embarrassing how little he even knows what he’s talking about. also where tf did he even get those in the middle of a convo?
i was waiting for the upload, because i missed the livestream, thank you
Me too!
This is one of my favorite things you're doing right now. Thank you
YES! Got Eric Weinstein on!!! So stoked!!!!!!!!
So, so glad I got to see Eric on the show
1 and a half hour show that still manages to naturally end with "space time".
Thank you for reulpoading this! I was really sad when the original was taken down, but now I am happy again^^
Hi, I have a simple question for you...do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth?
@@alanlowey2769 Hey, I am not sure why you are asking me that? Maybe it was suipposed to go somewhere else?
@@MrLorbu I was asking everyone. It's a psychological and philosophical new angle on solving the TOE.
@@alanlowey2769 OK :) honestly I have no clue, thats way beyond my own physical understanding to make such theories or to even comprehend what that would mean in the first place :)
@@MrLorbu Okay, thanks for the reply :)
Thanks for sorting out the technical difficulties, their was some real gold in this stream.
@@abhishekkumbar9015 it got a quite chaotic, there was another guest thats been completely removed it was no where near as smooth as the first stream
Key thing is to understand how the handedness and sign of charge and spin are chosen locally in measurements/interactions. Then study how states keep their coherent correlations over distance...
Sabine was great!
Great work on the repair. Well worth the wait. I watched part of it live and know what kind of scalpel work you had to do. Happy you stuck with quality.
The wizards are stuck at the door, arguing about the phrase "Speak friend and enter".
We need a damn hobbit up in here.
Very enjoyable to finally see this. Good chat.
I saw most of the original. It was simultaneously really interesting and a total mess. Eric Weinstein can't explain his theory to save his life. I can tell he thinks it's so simple in his head and it frustrates him immensely that nobody else seems to get it.
Mr. Weinstein is an interesting case. He thinks the general public is a lot more intelligent/versed in mathematics than it actually is, in some cases, and yet when he tries to explain certain ideas, he dumbs the analogy down to the point where its meaning is almost lost.
Having said that, his Oxford University presentation goes into great detail, and you would do well to watch it, if you think he is unable to explain his theory.
@@quaereverum3871 His Oxford lecture is great. Unfortunately I still have trouble understanding his explanation (having now heard it across multiple podcasts). Would love if someone could share the required reading before jumping straight into Geometric Unity.
@@aaronchowdhury2706 There is not one single source that I know of, but the particular areas that contain most of the jargon about differential operators, fibre bundles, metrics, spinors etc., are differential topology, algebraic topology and differential geometry. Lee has a textbook series about manifolds; topological, smooth and Riemannian. You could read that series, to get started.
Dr. Schüller has a lecture series on YT called "The geometric anatomy of theoretical physics", with lecture notes online if you search for them.
I've tried to get it, but it's hard to think in dimensions outside our normal existence ... He has a presentation he gave years ago (to the Historical Society in England, I believe) that's a few hours long, if you wanna dive into it... Good luck, I like Weinstein, I watch The Portal, his channel, & enjoy the Dark Intellectual Web & their discussions, but when it comes to the physics much is over my head...
He's thinking in math but talking in words and it doesn't go well.
Very, very, very great. Pls more from this. Best episode ever!
Yes yes yes, very keen for this one
Watching/ listening while working on the problem.
Hi, I have a simple question for you...do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth?
@@alanlowey2769 No.
@@fractalnomics Okay, thank you for the reply.
From the perspective of philosophy of science, a few things come to mind regarding Dr. Hossenfelder's comments about "beauty" having no place in science: We know that the explanatory value of theories depends not just on empirical adequency, but also on coherence and parsimony. Among two theories with the same set of deducible empirically observable situations, the more parsimonious and coherent theory is preferable.
We might even further operationalize this in terms of (e.g.) Kolmogorov complexity, or in general information/complexity-theoretical measures.
Another way to see this is that among two theories otherwise equivalent, the theory with fewer numbers of free parameters is preferable (because it extends the domain of things it explains). This also works with information/complexity-theoretical approaches, because the complexity of a description that has to specify parameters explicitly instead of explaining them through other structure has more information/is more complex.
In that sense - beauty absolutely *is* important in science - and we can even grasp its role theoretically. Of course, Dr. Hossenfelder specifies that she targets the dominant understanding and use of arguments from beauty in the field, not the general idea - to which she, as a self-identified Feyerabendian methodological anarchist, has no objections if it works (though of course - with methodological anarchism, everything comes down to how much you pack into the concept of "works").
Also - Feyerabend is great reading - but so is W.v.O. Quine (essential reading on the details of and issues with Falsificationsism), and Imre Lakatos (as Feyerabend will tell you himself), who, like Larray Laudan, Joseph Sneed et al. developed analysis and formalization of scientific methodology beyond Popper. In general, meta-theory of natural sciences from Carnap to current-day philosophy of science - is well worth knowing in order to judge the current situation in fundamental physics.
The idea of being able to theoretically grasp meta-theory of empirical science is not positivist - even Popper was famously the pallbearer of positivism, not a positivist. Kuhnian as well as Feyerabendian criticism does not invalidate the project - and can even be (reasonably) incorporated.
Could you reduce that statement a bit. I personally do not know concepts by names of people. From what I read you might have a good point, but I study far to many subjects to speak in names.
@@andrewkelley7062 Hmm... I'm afraid the names are already shorthand for their contributions which would each take more than one paragraph to describe. I could provide the names of concepts they were developing and a few key ideas, oh... and I can provide a set of links to articles in the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is always a pretty good source for theoretical / conceptual questions.
The basic concepts are:
Carnap - Positivism. Reducing science to logic and basic observation-sentences, attempting to describe it as providing proofs and (final) knowledge, formalization of conceptual issues in logico-mathematical terms.
Popper - Falsificationism. Critical Rationalism. Rejecting positivism and showing science cannot be reduced to observation, and verification is generally not possible. Analyzing science as axiomatic structures from which statements about classes of possible observable situations can be *excluded*, which when observed would then falisfy the theory. This question "what counts as science and what doesn't?" is called the "demarcation problem".
Kuhn - "Paradigm shifts". Recognized the importance of sociological phenomena in the course of science - where paradigm shifts only occur once "the old guard" has had "a few more funerals".
Quine - "Underdetermination of theory by evidence", the Duhem-Quine thesis, "Confirmational Holism" - analyzed the methodology of falsification in detail and what it can provide - uncovered fundamental issues.
Feyerabend - Methodological anarchism: There is no demarcation criterion, no general methodology of science - whatever works, works.
Lakatos - Incorporated the ideas of Popper and Kuhn - science is analyzed not theories in forms of axiomatized statement systems or as sociological phenomena, but instead in terms of "research programmes". Recognized the importance of trans-temporal dynamics (whether research programs come to expand by explaining more and more things and spawning more fruitful endeavours or are regressive by problems becoming increasingly manifest).
Laudan - Analyzed science similarly to Lakatos, but with particular importance given to elaborating the idea of science as trying to provide theories with high problem-solving effectiveness and efficiency. Famous for his contributions of the "Pessimistic Meta-induction" argument against scientific realism.
van Frassen (not mentioned explicitly, but quite important) - Constructive Empiricism. Instrumentalism. Analyzed science as a collection of tools for structuring and predicting experience, of which we can maximally show that it is useful, not true - thus it is mainly opposed to scientific realism, which holds that science confers at least some amount of actual knowledge - gives access to some amount of truth about the universe. Instrumentalism holds that an empiricist cannot describe science as laying claims beyond being good at describing/organizing the structure of our experience (Hawking in his last book had discovered this idea... I don't know how much he knew about the history of this idea going back to van Fraassen and Berkeley).
Sneed - "Structuralism" - together with Stegmüller, Balzer, Moulines, Suppe, Suppes et al, they applied set-theory, predicate-logic, model theory and category theory to formalize physical theories and thus provide a framework for a "semantic view" of theories in terms of their models and the relations between them, and of their internal structure in terms of set theory with formal logic. Highly interesting stuff.
I will provide links to articles for relevant concepts and programmes in a further comment.
@@DumblyDorr very informative comment 👌☺
@@andrewkelley7062 And here are the links I promised:
* Theory and Observation in Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
* Models in Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
* Measurement in Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/measurement-science/
* Confirmation - plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/
* Abduction - plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
* Scientific Representation - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-representation/
* Scientific Explanation - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/
* Scientific Progress - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/
* Scientific Reduction - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
* Underdetermination of Scientific Theory - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/
* Theoretical Terms in Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/theoretical-terms-science/
* Constructive Empiricism - plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructive-empiricism/
* Scientific Realism - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
* Structural Realism - plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
* Structuralism in Physics - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-structuralism/
* The Unity of Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/
* Laws of Nature - plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
* The Metaphysics of Causation - plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/
* Emergent Properties - plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/
* Counterfactual Theories of Causation - plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/
* Causation and Manipulability - plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-mani/
* Essential vs. Accidental Properties - plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
* On the "Object"-Concept - plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/
* On the "Property"-Concept - plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/
* On the "Dispositions"-Concept - plato.stanford.edu/entries/dispositions/
* Natural Kinds - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
* Mechanisms of Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/
* Realism and Theory Change in Science - plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/
* Intertheory Relations in Physics - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-interrelate/
* Operationalism - plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/
* Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory - plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/
* Physicalism - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
@@dimitrioskaragiannis1169 Thank you :)
More I listen to Eric Weinstein (his videos etc) more I think that his aproach leads nowhere even more intently than anyone else. Our problem is not asking "why are there 3 generations of particles" but we are unable to make predictions about reality that we can test, even forgetting about things like proving that the theories are UV-complete as was stated with the string theory. In many videos where Weinstein states his problems with university establishment, aproaches to physics or his own ideas has he made a testable prediction. That is the true drought of physics now and I have to agree with Sabine that there is no point in building a colider when you are not even sure what you want to measure.
You can only do calculations within a theory when the theory is well formulated.
So asking for predictions when there are big theoretical gaps is thinking backwards.
Also pseudo-popper's falsificationism is itself false and a scourge on science. Also NOT what Popper envisioned. And he was a philosopher, not a research scientist.
The search for beauty in physics might have to do with our knack for pattern recognition. But AI and machine learning has demonstrated how brute force calculations can be more effective than human ingenuity, and ultimately, the way nature works could turn out to be ugly and complex.
While AI/Machine Learning is starting to *finally* show some real promise (recognizing faces and transcribing language), demonstration of more effectiveness of even earthworm level of full complexity has yet to be demonstrated, much less human ingenuity. Most of our ingenuity is actually so deeply engrained as to be taken for granted. AI has a long, long way to go before being able to truly rival life.
so called "brute force calculations" are actually incredibly complicated and beautiful algorithms incased in mindbogglingly complex hardware
@@dls78731 I thought scientists have been able to use computers to self recognize and determine correct species correlatives on evolutionary theory?
AI , neural networks dont use brute force. Alpha zero, the neural network chess engine beat the brute force stockfish while calculating something like 1/1000 of the total number of positions that stockfish did.
Neural networks are basically 'natural' selection for code. Nothing 'ugly' about it.
AI and machine learning *is* pattern recognition.
As a non-Physicist I can only add two parallel anekdotes to the discussion about theories having to be "pretty" to be right, or further pursued:
First of all, in the evolving jazz scene where everything had to sound nice and congruous, Charlie Mingus, and also Thelonious Monk, started to play experimental Jazz that went, as musical constructions go, beyond anything that a beginning Jazz listener would find "easy listening". But their crazy, intuitive improvisations still " fit" if you would map it, as Space Time likes to do, on an underlying rhythm grid. For curious people, listen to Mingus' "All the things you could be right now if Sigmund Freud's wife was your mother". (which also proves that this brilliant musician could also easily have made it as a stand-up comedian).
Second: I have known a woman which amazing beauty produced a bunch of lovestruck admirers. however, after getting a bit closer to her, (professionally, not romantically) I found that her apparent beauty disguised a pretty warped (or let's say complex) inner life. To put a finer point on it I would go so far as to say she was broken. A shattered soul, whatever you might call it. This did not stem the stream of regular suitors.
So even the prettiest things in the universe might not be worth pursuing, and having heard and seen a lot about string theory I must side with Eric Weinstein and Sabine Hoffenfelder on this: go back to basics, even if it's messy and goes against the grain in the community.
I remind you of the famous Bernard Shaw quote: the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
If you already basically know who these people are, skip to 3:20, these introductions take forever in YouTime...
What an amazing conversation! I could listen to these guys all day...
Brian's mic is too loud. I could listen to Lee Smolin talk all day, wise and soothing voice. Weinstein got burned by Sabine lol. Weinstein keeps saying "I'm not a physicist", which is technically true. But he uses it in such a way to deflect any wrongness, which is dumb because he keeps making claims about physics and physicists all the time, if you do that, you should be accountable to criticism like one. And also he uses a bunch of math and physics jargon to make lay people think that he knows what he's talking about
I was really excited when I saw Smolin was in this livecast. Big fan of his. Was also SUPER excited when PBS Space Time did an episode on his cosmological natural selection proposal (a few months ago now I think?), his "Life of the Cosmos" is one of my all time favorite popular physics pieces, right up there with SH's "Brief History of Time". Highly recommended to any who may be interested.
He's not using "Math jargon" to appear competent, he has a PhD in the Mathematical foundations of Physics from the top department in the subject.
This edited version exemplifies the argument that simple and elegant does not actually represent the fundamental elements of reality.
Personally, I enjoyed the raw live video. It's nice and encouraging to hear these big thoughts coming from fallible normal people. Much more relatable and accessible to the laymen out here.
And I'm sure there were clever moments we miss out on in this edited version.
Good god what a slugfest. Didn’t expect Eric to drop the “Bullshit!” Lol. This was like watching a car crash and not being able to look away, or perhaps like watching particles collide at near light speed and not being able to look away would be more appropriate.
I have a simple question for you..do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth?
@@mark_huisjes You're forgetting that the current mainstream theory of dark matter is still highly speculative and that gravity theory is incompatible with the very robust Standard Model and quantum mechanics.
The idea of self-interacting dark matter at the centre of planets and stars is *not* disproved by observation.
There's a recent study of satellite galaxies around the Milky Way which support this conclusion.
news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/04/15/satellite-galaxies-milky-way-help-test-dark-matter-theory
(S🆔️Ⓜ️ = self-interacting dark matter)
I see no reason why it could not be there or at the center of any massive object. If dark matter interacts gravitationally even if extremely weakly then we can assume it would gather at least somewhat in areas of strong gravitational influence with the centers of fairly massive objects not being excluded. Since there is no proof saying otherwise one could speculate there may be, but one could also speculate that gravity at the core is not strong enough to cause the weak interaction and that dark matter passes through the planet uninhibited. The question really is how much gravity is required to effect dark matter. We see at scale that dark matter seems to cluster in galaxies however during galaxy collisions they seem to follow the original path of motion and only slow down incredibly slightly. I would use this information to assume the latter of the scenarios in which earths gravity even at the core is too weak, but this assumption could easily be incorrect as we know so little and I would not attempt to refute any possibility with so little information.
@@alanlowey2769 - Instead of the mega-collider, maybe they should dig a 300 mile deep hole. Maybe dark matter is trapped by the extreme density of matter at the centre of a planet.
@@rickn6923 Thank you for the reply.
It must be amazing to be part of this conversation.
Yeah i love controversies
You should look deep into previous theories. It is always controversial. All the way back to platonic solids it is just that history writes the victims and Victor's. It is obscure but there.
Even if you disagree with Eric, you can't say he isn't qualified just cause he isn't a working physicist. The guy has a PHD in mathematical PHYSICS. He clearly has the qualification to be in the conversation on unified field theories.
That's enough to qualify him to discuss existing ideas he had studied. To discuss new ideas you have to produce a paper and pass peer review.
@@Guizambaldi Why? It's fine to developed a "theory of everything" after having a PHD in physics, even if you aren't getting paid for it.
Sure, the truth of the universe is unlikely to arise from that source, but it's not an argument against it.
@@richardwise7813 Everybody have the right to develop and claim a theory, even if you are not from the area. What you can't do is demand attention and credibility without discussing it with established specialists.
I mean... you can do it... just don't expect the community to take you seriously.
Sabine might be a great physicist, but she sounds a lot like an engineer. And that, BTW, is a high compliment.
Here is my favorite saying, that I coined: "Reasoning is abstract, but never do things for abstract reasons."
The reasoning and logic and math of physical observables GETS extremely abstract. The more abstract the greater the power & generality. But, ultimately, it is for physical quantifiable effects, e.g. minimizing suffering, maximizing fairness, that calculations are done & decisions made based upon those calculations.
I strongly disagree. I think if one is too focused on the non-abstract, they can become a cold, calculating entity that will do immoral things out of good intentions. Certain abstract ideals, like liberty or democracy, are there to ensure that individuals are not sacrificed for a greater good, and that those with power cannot wield it to the detriment of others without consequence. Humans aren't ants, we can't function in a society built on cold logic. If our society does not account for what we actually are it will be unstable.
By your reasoning the perfect society would be one that is controlled by an amoral AI devoid of emotions with absolute power that is programmed to manage society in accordance with a general set of goals such as what you outlined - minimise suffering, maximise fairness. Already, it is an impossible task because those two goals directly contradict each other - in order to impose strict fairness, you have to take from some and give to others. And that will cause conflict, and suffering.
Would you trust this AI to manage society? To manage your life? Such a being is likely to conclude that the best way to achieve simple non-abstract goals is to enforce a ruthless police state in which everyone must comply if they are to be rewarded; and if they do comply, it has achieved the goals you set for it. It is not guided by abstract things like human freedom or compassion, so it will not inhibited by them, nor does it see violating them as being potentially more dangerous than what it is addressing.
The example of such an AI is not even necessary because we have plenty of human leaders who were or are analogous to that form of leadership, and the consequences have often been millions of people dead and many more living under oppressive conditions. Forsaking abstract liberties for bureaucratic statistics never has good results no matter how noble ones intentions may be.
I feel like academia needs much more of the rigorous yet casual discussion this video has portrayed
If you actually have a look into journals, those discussions are going on all the time. Or watch some of Sabine's lectures where she goes deeper into what is the problem. In her view the main problem is that current theoretical frameworks never produce testable predictions and when they do (loops and speed of light) they are wrong. People like Eric Weinstein are just grasping around mathematical concepts to find pretty "explanations" for things instead of predicting something measurable. Unless the theory doesn't produce some testable predictions and we can't be sure it doesn't contradict itself, it is pretty worthless after all.
@@TheoEvian Yeah I have heard that argument that Erics problem is not being able to produce anything testable. And to be certain I don't look at the journals as I am just a lazy TH-cam commenter 😁 I am glad to hear it occurs. Perhaps wrongly, I have myself under the impression a lot of academia is pigeon holed in their respective groups and would all benefit from interaction that is prevented via 'politics' etc.
@@Joel_G_NZ That's true to an extent - the string theorist literature is so dense that it's virtually impossible for an outsider to come in and critique it, for example. But there's also a generational change as well - Hilbert had a saying "Physics advances one funeral at a time", and it looks like that's the way string theory is going to finally die. The people getting PhD's in Physics for the last 10 years or so have been increasingly skeptical of the string theory crowd, and are branching out for other approaches.
@@Joel_G_NZ That exists too and not only in physics, but it isn't as bad as people think. I am also not a physicist, I do literature but I really recomend you reading a review of Lost in Math, it has like 15 pages and it is a very insightful essay all in itself, both agreeing and disagreeing with Sabine.
@@TheoEvian cheers
I wish I could provide more likes for this. Thank you for these discussions!
No worries, just 5 PhDs forming a black hole of knowledge.
White hole ;) - the sad black holes are formed all over the internet. ^^
Really enjoyed the discussion, good to see some feisty but respectful debate
Wow! What a lineup!
YES. I was waiting for this
Go, Sabine! Nice video and amazing arguments.
I love this discussion! So much information!
Sabine destroys Eric at 58:50
"Nobody has any idea of what you are talking about in the first place."
I was like Daaaamn Sabine!
I'm back yet again. Just watched part one and had to go on to part two. We need more of this kind of content-- smartest minds just speaking freely and deeply. So amazing. Keep it up, please do more.
Matt: What advice would you give young aspiring physicists?
Eric: Here's a lengthy, meandering, analogy-filled diatribe about why the whole field is rotten to the core.
Matt: Sir this is a Wendy's
braa even the way he starts is political
Oh my God yes, PBS spacetime AND the Portal in one place!
Erics problem 58:00 "I am not a physicist"
wow, this was quite the Octagon :) great discussion with great minds
loving eric's description of time cube
HAHAHAHAA
Thank you so much for doing this everone! Cheers!
Best moment had to be Smolin doing the hand to jesus upon hearing the gospel of Weinstein 23:28
That will happen in three minutes at the time of writing this comment
it’s embarrassing you think that.
Well this was awesome. Great talk, great points, great questions. Please do more like these.
1:17:35 Eric Weinstein: "You guys are Seal Team 6 for the human mind."
Thank you for this video
I like to see a video on Wolfram's theory. I remember watching a video of a presentation he did on it many years ago and it seemed interesting
I’m the young physicist they were addressing there final comments too.