Theories of Everything: Cosmic Controversies with Eric Weinstein, Sabine Hossenfelder, & Lee Smolin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ส.ค. 2020
- #EricWeinstein #LeeSmolin #SabineHossenfelder
Experimental evidence for any current Theory of Everything is, at best, inconclusive. This is perhaps the greatest fundamental challenges facing physics. That lack of progress has opened up a sea of controversy. Welcome to the second in our two-event series about Theories of Everything!
Watch the first one: • PBS SpacetimeStudios “...
Please subscribe to my TH-cam Channel to watch one-on-one interviews with the guest speakers and more: th-cam.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
Please join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php to receive "conference proceedings" and other goodies from these events.
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 Matt O'Dowd, Lee Smolin, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Eric Weinstein for helping us create this great event.
Our Guests' Work:
Sabine Hossenfelder
TH-cam Channel: / sabinehossenf. .
Lost in Math: How Beauty Led Physics Astray: amzn.to/3kL9huy
Eric Weinstein
The Portal Podcast: ericweinstein.org/
The Portal Wiki: projects.theportal.wiki/
Lee Smolin
The Trouble With Physics: amzn.to/3agWJpH
Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: amzn.to/30LW7VV
Watch my most popular videos:
Stephen Wolfram & Eric Weinstein: The Nature of Mathematical Reality • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Eric Weinstein: • Eric Weinstein: Geomet...
Jim Simons: • Jim Simons: Life Lesso...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Sarah Scoles: • Sarah Scoles, Author o...
Stephen Wolfram: • Has Stephen Wolfram di...
🏄♂️ Find me on Twitter at / drbriankeating
🔥 Find me on Instagram at / drbriankeating
📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
🔔 Subscribe for more great content th-cam.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
✍️Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
📧Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
👪Join my Facebook Group: / losingthenobelprize
🎙️Please subscribe, rate, and review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i...
A production of imagination.ucsd.edu/
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Sabine: No one has any idea what you're talking about.
Eric: Let me explain... kjfw vdgiuwq bmpotralalv jjkplooim boiirtzxx
😂😂😂
Plus! He brought a couple toilet paper rolls this time. Got it 🤣
Hahaha! 😄👍👍
His explanation would nice fit into a Star Trek episode. eg Technobabble
His theory might look conclusive, but so did string theory, before being a dead end.
He can't do all the work alone to make predictions. Even if he is right, it's a tremendous amount of work.
He needs the science community. But he also won't trust it, because of his experience with the politics of publications.
He needs to jump over his shadow and find allies like Sabine.
Because he's an outsider nobody should give him the benefit of the doubt - so he needs to give some actual predictions and solve problems. That is what Sabine is saying.
I wish him the best!
i cannot like this comment enough
Once I see prof. Sabine, I watch the video.. simple... 😎😎
Check out my one on one interview with her on the channel ! Let me know if you want her back
Have her back she keeps things simple and for what I see tried to be objective
Once I see prof dumb dumb skip the video..
She’s wonderful and keeps it real
Indeed
Brian you need to change your interview style. You seem intent on asking a checklist of questions rather than letting a conversation happen. Listening to your interviews is like watching TV news, the guest has 60 seconds to answer a question then the anchor moves on to the next thing no matter how interesting it would be dive deeper into the answer. Throw away all your pre-prepared questions and just let the conversation flow.
This is brilliant advice.
When you have so many people, you have to moderate.
Actually I think there are too many clowns in the circus arena. A one on one moderation is far more interesting otherwise you get a clash for popular soundbites which Sabine wins. Eric for sure has the brightest mind, and all the others have failed for 4 decades now on our Expensenses. I would love to redo this with lee and Eric....
Bruh..if u had a podcast with impt ppl..whose knowledge exceed the course of an hour....YOU TRY TO STRUCTURE every second of interaction...i thought this was obvious
yes
Sabine: I dont think anyone has any clue what your talking about, Eric.
Eric: Sabina, thats not true. *continutes to talk in a mysterious language*
that language is called mathematics. he's a mathematician. that's how mathematicians talk about complex geometry.
@@shaunhumphreys6714 Stephen Wolfram is arguably the better mathematician and he also laughs at Eric's mumbo jumbo.
@@jesperburns Wolfram kind of laughs at everything though. He's not a humble man.
@@billlyons7024 Very true but I was responding to a thinly veiled argument from authority, with someone who has authority on this subject.
Sabine Hossenfelder also scoffs at Weinstein, if you like her better.
😂😂 Brilliant!
I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder's comment to Eric Weinstein regarding communication. Now that he is sharing strong opinions on various scientific efforts from career researchers and institutions, he should fully engage the science world regarding his Geometric unity theory and commit to communicate about it in as many ways as possible.
Yeah I'm not sure why he isn't publishing his work in an open and public forum. Put it on github.
He is a conman
@@Shelmerdine745, if that is true, I want to Physics community to get to whatever the truth is. If they do not, then Sabine's criticisms of the Physics community are not strong enough and then everyone loses.
9999tech
The good physicists are not debating on TH-cam, they are researching and writing papers.
Weinstein is just spreading conspiracy theories not matter what you ask him, totally paranoid narcissist. Runs in the family, unfortunately.
@@Shelmerdine745, no, I was in no way referring to TH-cam, but the science world, papers, conferences, etc.
Sabine has a problem with "good physicists" and their decades long lack of real progress and spending 10's of billion on the next collider, which is wasteful since it will not reach the necessary eV levels to see new things which will be useful. Her points are valid.
Sabine does not have a problem with Eric, since she spends no time focused on him.
I remember I was once tackling a mathematical conjecture and I created a simplified structure that was so beautiful and perfect that I actually worked on it for months before realizing the original idea of the problem had lost itself and the structure became just tangentially interesting
Ya sure you did
BEST EPISODE BY FAR ! Well done for having Eric and Matt and Sabine together, been hoping to see this for a long time
As a generic unsolicited advice : Don't wind up your guests into an argument just to intervene to wrap up and ask the lamest question that no young scientist ever wonders.
also, cuts of video, in scientific discussions, even when they would not lead to loss of information, are extreamely annoying.
This totally. Super awkward man
"We're gonna have to leave it there."
Smolin and Hossenfelder have many decades of peer-reviewed papers and highly influential books and lectures. But Eric has “provocative quotes” he’s devised. So, equal.
Lol yeah. I hope he at least makes an effort release a review on his theory. Start from the basics, and make the tools available, then explain the theory. The way he formulates his Unity theory is so confusing. There are better ways.
Let's not forget the ptolemaic astronomers, who spent decades fine-tuning those epicycles. Sometimes the echo-chamber needs to be shattered by fresh ideas.
If Smolin isn't getting along with Eric then that's a major red flag. Smolin hates string theory and wants a beautiful and logical grand unified theory. He went out of his way to support and develop Garrett Lisi's multi-dimensional E8 theory and should be the exact type of person that would help Eric.
@Sean What you just said is an argument from authority and an invitation to group thinking, which is what Hossenfelder is cautioning everyone about, so she wouldn't agree with you.
I agree that Eric could do a better job of explaining his theory to someone who doesn't yet have a physics phd, but having many decades of peer reviewed papers is merely community approval of previous activity. It doesn't guarantee that their approaches to current problems are correct.
@@cosminstanescu1469 Not an argument from authority. That *might* be something that was in play if Weinstein actually had any argument, whatsoever, to present, after years of stringing his marks along with the pretense that he does. He’s just buzzwords and fairy tales, all the way down. Every nut on a street corner has a “theory” about how the universe works, and if it gives your life meaning to pretend that their specific views on PHYSICS are equally valid to people who have actually spent their lives doing the work, and, yes, acquiring hard-earned credibility from their peers, then good luck hiring some random goof next time you need your plumbing fixed.
WHOA, why was I not recommended this 3 months ago???
The A L G O R I T H M!!!
Eric Weinstein reminds me of Deepak Chopra talking about quantum physics.
Why 10. Think about it.
Dr. Sabine isn't being tongue in cheek. She's in your face and calling you out.
@viralshield that’s the problem. With Sabine and her fans. There’s nothing in the world that’s wrong with genuine skepticism, but you can’t just become a preacher fo the orthodoxy either. Sabine needs to remember science and the nature of our understanding is always changing.
@viralshield you are treating science as a religion and Sabine as your preacher .
That's tongue in cheek for her lol
I certainly can't claim to understand much of this conversation, but it was unparalleled as an exposition of the current state of fundamental physics. Thanks, Spacetime!
Eric , keep researching and trying to understand. I spent the past 10 years trying to understand, im still researching every day.
If there was any more intellectual capacity added to a single conversation than this one, that conversation would likely collapse into a conversational black hole and what was said couldn't be comprehended by those outside the event horizon.
with these guys your critique winds up on the bottom of the list.
I don't think this was a critique
@@MacNif Bingo
I wish Eric would give Penrose credit for the Escher hand drawing a hand idea. Road to Reality is a great book.
Great video thank you to everyone involved! :)
Thanks that means a lot!
How did I miss this talk? I'm so glad I found this.... Came up in my recommended after watching Dr Keaton's video on his small aperture telescope experiments..... I kind of follow Eric on his podcasts and others I've seen. He's a very interesting guy.
I think when Eric talks it’s more to do with showing how smart he is rather than crisply conveying concepts to the people listening to him
Weinstein would be onto a winner if there was a Nobel Prize for word salad lmao
Mmm salad sounds good.
Or old lady haircuts
Aww, you’re just saying that…because he’s so, so much smarter than you. There, there.
Truly
Or weird moles
Forget Buffy the Vampire Slayer, let's talk about Sabine the Incomprehensible Slayer. She slayed Eric and his gibberish, which he has yet to adequately explain to this day, not only in terms for the lay, but for those professionals in various fields of academic study as well. When will Eric stop trying to force people to understand his language and actually parse it down in colloquialisms with well formed definitions for what he's trying to convey? He's so angry with the established norm and so hell bent on breaking the system that he's completely forgotten his roots.
@@guyincognito8440 I highly doubt you understand anywhere near the level of math/physics they do, and to just claim someone is a con man, is just ignorant and irresponsible. And this kind of dogmatism is what is precisely killing academia.
I bet you don't understand even half of what they're talking about.
@@sombra1111 more than realise,
I wish Carlo roveli and abay ashtekar also joined the talk
Yes! So glad to see such company in one place! This is fantastic
59:40 if Sabine is struggling understanding Eric, where should that leave the rest of us.
@viralshield The heck you mean he can't finish a university semester? The guy has a phd in mathematical physics from Havard, also he has promised to publish written copies of his theory this year, we will see if he delivers on that, but the reality is not a lot of people are knowledgeable to understand GU, takes high level math that certain physicist don't even get to, and deep knowledge about quantum field theory, the average person's basic understanding of QM and GR are not enough to help them understand GU.
@viralshield You clearly have no idea what Mathematical physics is, and what do leftists have to do with the quality of the phd program?
@viralshield never read such nonsense , he has a maths PHD from Harvard , God almighty there's some lunatics on TH-cam.
@viralshield you are the one who couldn't understand it. which isn't an insult as a lot of people wont understand it that's fine in my book. It was your ludicrous claim that was very funny and complete nonsense. Read what you wrote , it was completely silly and childish . If you aren't even man enough to admit it that's fine . Keep saying a man with a PHD from Harvard in maths couldn't pass an exam at a decent uni. You make yourself look silly.
Well, Eric makes it clear later on. Where it leaves the rest of us is to bankrupt our societies giving particle physicists whatever toys they request, no matter how astronomical the cost and how unlikely and minimally beneficial the results they might achieve.
Very good. I appreciated the confrontational but honest energy.
Professor Keating, what are your currents thoughts about Eric's responses to the Nugyen, et al, critique of Eric's -GU?
I suggest that you host a new podcast episode with Tim Nguyen and Eric Weinstein.
Eric Weinstein is a crank. Either accept it or just be one of his zealots.
59:00 love how straightforward Sabine is. Burn…
Eric, 1M views on youtube likely come from Rogan and other podcast listeners who have no idea what you are talking about, like myself. Publish a paper on the arxiv, it's not that hard, and it won't turn you into all the things you hate.
I think he should publish it on github.
But then he actually have to be held accountable for what he says
You can read his thesis, you just have to ask the university for a copy, which is what I think he wants.
he is in the process of doing the arxiv paper.
Tentatively April 1 2021 as announced by Eric on the Lex Fridman's Podcast of February 23rd.
Oh my goodness! Dr Keating, Sabine, Eric Weinstein and Lee Smolin (I loved Time Reborn!). My introduction to Dr O'Dowd - looking forward to it!
Goody goody goody :) :) :)
I think the ongoing effort to create more and more massive entangled objects (mostly from engineers in quantum computing and cryptography, and solid state physicists) will lead us to quantum objects whose gravitational properties ought to be measurable somehow.
This is basically what Sabine said: quantum objects are just no longer so small!
We might then be able to get sufficiently large ensembles of particles so that other emergent properties, e.g. capillarity, whose behavior in gravity is well known, can be measured.
From an outside perspective (I'm but a humble engineer) it appears as though there's a culture of enforced orthodox thinking within science. The fact that you're facilitating the passage of great external minds like weinstein, wolfram and many more into this realm is incredibly important to the entire project of science. Thankyou Dr Keating.
Thanks very much ! Please join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php to stay in touch!!
I also think the more those involved that are at the 'tip of the spear' of break through knowledge can engage their ideas in a more open forum (like Dr Keating's show ) the better they will be at informing the world on what they're up to and also there is a greater chance of injecting others ideas and perspectives into their own work.
As eric said, there is a joint russian/chinese attack on academia, this explains the enforced othodoxic culture not just in math and physics, but everywhere within academia. Our nation, and the west at large, is being subverted in order to stall progress.
It doesn’t seem to me that Weinstein is a great man at all. Nothing he says makes an atom of sense. It’s just word salads that impress people who have no clue because it sounds deep and intelligent.
I have no problem with outsiders and heterodoxy, but this guy is a joke.
@@funkmonsterjones4753 what? that sounds really conspiracy, there is no russian or chinesse "attack" on academia, I've only see politicians attack academia like when some republicans deny climate change. if there is such attack i would like to see a reputable source. there might be certain currents in academia but those come from anywhere many have been born in US, other in Europe.
Good job. Keep these coming.
Sabine Hossenfelder is a unique personality. Her bluntness is a bit awkward at first, but then you begin to appreciate it. She definitely comes to play. I could see someone who was not familiar with her before could feel strongly offended. But maybe some of these folks know her from before so they take it in their stride.
Her problem is that her criticism is cheap because she doesn't have anything constructive to offer in return. You can read her own papers, if you wish, and you will find that she circles the very same drains that she criticizes. She doesn't have new ideas, either.
@@lepidoptera9337 In science, you don't need the alternative because may be we don't have enough data to do anything yet. If you just try to give an alternative, it's just pure guessing and in that case, the idea has a large possibility to be wrong. That's why people try not to jump the gun in science
@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 You don't need the alternative to be credible if you acknowledge that the problem is the available data from nature. That is not what she does, though. She keeps bashing her colleagues, including the ones that are much much smarter than she is herself. That is her mistake. Don't make the same one.
@@lepidoptera9337 the ability to call and explain BS is invaluable to science. As is refusing to add to it.
I’m amused that Eric Weinstein chose toilet paper tubes in attempting to explain himself. Perfectly appropriate.
As a so-called “lay person” I’ve nevertheless have had an enormous love for Physics etc. , which has afforded me - I believe - a relatively significant understanding , enough so that I can generally follow various conversations / lectures etc. on the subject(s) … I never understand what Eric Weinstein is saying and I don’t think I’m alone in that regard . I can’t help feeling that he’s rather passive -aggressively arrogant and condescending?
I'm not like a genius or anything but I have an MS in applied math and I'm doing a second MS in computer science. During my math years I took physics courses all the way up to Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics.
I have no fucking idea what Eric is saying. Which is really amazing because the only reason this guy is famous is because he is basically a youtube "science popularizer", much like Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, etc... all of them brought physics to an audience of non-mathematicians and non-physicists.
Except there is a HUGE difference between Eric and the other people mentioned.
1) Eric has ZERO academic accomplishments outside of getting a PhD.
2) Eric, for some reason, cannot fucking explain anything to anyone. His only talent seems to be that he can mystify people, who haven't taken a high-school level course in calculus, with big math words.
@@xAssailantx supposedly if you knew these big math words, would you say the same?
if you wouldn't know, why are you quick to judge? should he approach your curiosity with Simple English? how and when do we reach the complexity of a universe by doing that? it is obviously true that the complex ideas require complex vocabulary because the human cognitive span is limited only to a certain length of coherent thought.
and btw, I think I've just answered why scientists seek beauty and elegance. there is no other way to grasp it and maneuver between the folds of a theory if it weren't simple enough. these things are already at the edge of what human intelligence is comfortable with.
this is quite clearly the true reason why it is easier to pretend to do physics than otherwise. the rules of the game are very discouraging for the true thinkers. even you are doing this with this comment, and for no particular reason. I'm not claiming that Eric is inventing a language, at least when it comes to consensual mathematics, but even Tolkien had to invent his own languages to express himself better. but as with anything with life, it's a life's work to then try and describe this language to disinterested conformists like you, who wish to do everything by the book, and expect a paycheck for repeating the same thing over and over.
Think you are right with this one. I am doing a PhD in Mathematical Physics, so I have at least a rough understanding of most of the stuff Eric is talking about. I think he vastly overestimates his own efforts and capabilities, seeing himself as a misunderstood and excluded genius, and he is very happy to dish out lots of criticism to the Mathematical Physics community. Meanwhile what he puts forth himself as a "theory of everything" is at the moment at best a rough sketch of an idea and obviously at that level, many ideas can look pretty clever. It's certainly not unnatural to think like he does, that gravity using curvature tensors and then gauge theory doing so as well, hints at some idea where maybe it all can be formulated as a gauge theory or all in some kind of unified framework. A lot of the (mathematical) physics research is at least related to such ideas, including the string theory mainstream that he hates so much.
He is just very set to contrast himself of the "mainstream", while I feel like the kind of stuff he does at best falls into the same issues we've been seeing in said mainstream, with a kinda focus on maths over physics. And then some of the ideas he sketches out that he thinks warrant further investigation have been investigated quite thoroughly and were pretty much dead ends. It's just that his "theory" is not nearly fleshed out enough to have even encountered major technical problems.
I honestly am frustrated with the fact that he is even invited and played nice with in this discussion, since he really doesn't bring much to the table at all. He is just good at delivering a bunch of smart talk with a very overconfident attitude, name dropping various concepts from Mathematical Physics, while also somehow slamming the Mathematical Physics research that exists. Tbf he does put forth some legit criticisms, e.g. how the research institutions kinda developed a life on their own, where research direction is more determined by internal politics than by efficacy, but other people (e.g. Sabien Hossenfelder) present that criticism way better, and can point at least towards something akin to solutions, while his proposition seems to be that everyone should just listen to him, because he is (by his own assessment) a genius.
@@xAssailantx I think he is so popular because he is getting people to question our reality, intentionally or not. I don't know whether his goals have anything to do with the breakdown of the social/economic/political realm and people realizing how things there are not how they have seemed to be either. Is it more about getting people to think about all-encompassing esoteric, mystical/religious, meaning of life - nature of reality & consciousness things, as well as the sciences?
To me on the other hand, what Eric says sounds like the only adult in the room (except Lee).
Only him is pushing the envelope, being serious and exploratory here.
How did I not know this conversation happened?! AWESOME!
Please subscribe and hit the bell!
For someone who is just learning physics, it would be helpful to give a basic video to explain some of the ideas being discussed here so that it is easier to understand the various theories. Thank you'
Check out any of their TH-cam channels.
Stay tuned for some introduction content on black holes
There are a lot and a lot and a lot. They will guide you to your own personal interest. Eventually. It’s big enough for everyone.
I’m shocked no one stopped Eric from conducting a lecture with toilet paper cardboard cartridges with a scrunchie wrapped around it! No one knows WTF he was saying as Sabine freely admitted! Didn’t Eric get it! Lol jeez...
I bursted out LAUGHING lol
Lee Smolin rocks!
Lee Smolin 2020 :
"What is the dynamical mechanism by which laws evolve"?
"space will turn out to be an emergent structure"
"What is local and not local will turn out to be dynamical and emergent".
From a non-Platonist philosophical perspective his manner of thinking is very attractive.
The second sentence is too much for me to take
He has nothing to back it up, he just think that it's like that.
I'm excited about how the cosmological evolution theories of Professor Smolin could work within the context of the Universe of possible hypergraph updating rules in Wolfram's model. Could the rules evolve to generate the universe we see now? What would define the fitness of a rule and what would the selection pressure be?
OMG! Sabine Hossenfelder and Eric Weinstein in the SAME conversation? This should be delightfully interesting.
It was !!
th-cam.com/video/5gmtAeqRs14/w-d-xo.html Sabine is a boss!
@@DrBrianKeating
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
"I think that's what a lot of people can for"
And Peter Dinklage too!!!
Mildly chaotic episode but charming to listen nontheless.
I would like to quote Einstein again: Imagination is more important than knowledge.
I would stamp it at every budding physicist's bedroom wall. In flashing lights.
Thanks to the hosts and all the participants. We're looking forward to more episodes!
There's lots of people with very active imaginations coming up with their own "theories" that have nothing to do with the world and that make no predictions about anything.
@@MrCmon113
You're right. But its easy to spot a wild un-critical, unbriddled imagination from a nobody.
It's much harder to cope with a dull, wrong argument based on accepted consensus. Specially when it comes from a widely recognised PhD authority.
Was it Hossenfelder who dismissed studying gravitational quantum mechanics because particles are too "light"? Whoever said it, I was surprised with that adjective for mass, because the word has a double meaning. In any event, Roger Penrose went unmentioned here while his unification theory does pivot on the effect of gravity in disambiguating the Schrodinger cat paradox, an approach that is refreshingly different and deserves more discussion.
Everything (Matter), everywhere (Space) all at once (Time). So nice to see Professor Lee Smolin show up.
Prof Lee Smolin seems like such a nice guy...
You forgot songwriter/singer in Sabine's titles!!!! Jk lol we are talking science, not music. I love her channel.
Great job on getting everyone together to talk! I'll have to check out all their channels as well now!
Lol. Thanks !!
What is truly disappointing with Eric is that the seriousness he says he craves has been given in thoughtful critiques, all of which point out that the "shiab operator" - a mathematical transformation entity on which the entire Geometric Unity conjecture hinges - isn't even defined. The theory is therefore a mirage, yet Weinstein continues these talk and is taken seriously. I see more of a peacock than I down an owl.
Why isn't Stephen Wolfram in this chat?
Φυσικός είσαι ρε τρελέ;
I like how matt didn't bother introducing brian at all
Because he's the host?
Do any of these people have PhD's? I can't tell.
😂
@@DrBrianKeating It's always a bit cringey to me when people on these podcasts feel the need to state that they're a PhD. It doesn't really matter to a youtube audience, and just comes off as a bit of self-congratulatory elitism (even to those of us who also have advanced training). You can have no degree and have great ideas, just as you can have many degrees and shit ideas. So let's hear about the ideas, and let them stand on their own merit. I'll be more impressed when I'm intrigued enough to google you, find your academic background, and be impressed that you were humble enough to not need to mention it.
Who has multiple PhDs though?
Agree 100%. But this wasn’t my branding or graphics.
@Mr. H My point is, a PhD doesn't qualify you for anything. You can have one and still be a complete idiot. (And plenty of great ideas in history have come from non-specialists.)
When is Eric going to address Nguyen's concerns about geometric unity?
He'll never do that, he can only make up word salads to confuse people even more. He's a crank.
Eric only published his draft because everyone (more importantly Joe Rogan) pressure him. Eric likes the attention he gets from bashing String Theory but his theory isn't any better. I am not a physicist so perhaps my opinion is worth anything.
Never question a theory that belongs to a narcissist, in the presence of the narcissist. He will take it as an attack on the legitimacy of his very existence.
Very enjoyable talk. Thanks everybody.
Watching this for Sabine. She makes this video worth watching.
@58:35 who is he refering to ?
pulled out the toilet paper rolls 😭😭😭
Because you can wipe your derriere with his theory 😂😂😂
This was another substantive discussion, for 2/3 of the video. Wonderful to hear most of the ideas. I found myself needing to cognitively exclude one part, one thread, that consistently kept trying to take over and divert from the debate's primary exposition. Lee Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder were wonderfully clear speakers. Matt O'Dowd and Brian Keating were helpful hosts and moderators.
This had one serious flaw. One panelist contributed to the topic only at the onset then began disrupting with tangential issues, even claiming the physics community has taken too much time and failed to accomplish this (very complicated) unification. That person did rightfully say physicists need to think differently, yet he seemed to ignore the fact that most physicists have said the same for decades, repeatedly.
Unfortunately, 1/3 into the video, that person continued behaving as a kid who felt excluded from "the club", so inclined to attack "the club". It's bad when an angry person disrupts a serious debate in a field they themselves say they're unskilled in. I had the feeling Lee Smolin left early per the negativity & fighting from one character sitting on a high chair.
Eric contributes very little to ideas, his contribution is words. He obfuscates and complains.
Hay Brian! Last comment! You need to be sent to an economics course that never ends til you understand the first law of economics: satisfying unlimited wants, with limited means!
Scientific method is the radio edit of great science. That is a great quote
Does “beauty” have to be simple, symmetrical, or clean? Cant beauty also be scary, complex and chaotic, yet still contain beauty?
An immaculate home with simple decor and simple style can share beauty with a grungy, dingy, worn out house, which a photographer may prefer as scenery.
Both perfection and in-perfection are beautiful. Both simplicity and complexity are beautiful.
Great points
There is an idea in japanese aesthetic tradition called wabi- sabi that I think reflect what you've pointed out. In some sense is the idea of finding beauty in imperfection. It can be applied here 👍.
Beauty of complexity comes from the perspective. A good perspective locates hidden order in chaos, that’s why a photographer is needed to simplify/beautify a messy room by cutting out the order with a frame.
@@diegocolomes Snap! I was gonna comment the same thing!😊
A full panel! 👍💯
Sabine Hossenfelder 59:00 "First maybe let me make a comment about what Eric just said you complained that there has not been any substantive discussion about geometric unity i think that's because no one has any idea what you're talking about."
Ouch haha 🤣
She has hosted a critique of _Geometric Unity_ on her blog by two individuals who:
1. didn't wait for Eric's paper even though they knew it was about to be published
2. published their response to his speculative eight year old Oxford University lecture
3. misrepresented his work in progress that aspires to be a _Unified Field Theory_ as being a _Theory of Everything_
4. criticised it for not being a _Theory of Everything_
5. misrepresented his equations of motion, leaving out 195 of them so it only works in a one dimensional Universe
6. misrepresented or misunderstood that his concept of the Observerse includes space-time (they think it does not)
7. criticised his theory for not making sense as they can not see how to get from the Observerse to space-time (space-time observes the observerse)
8. changed his notation from what he used in the lecture so their critique of his work was obfuscated to anyone wanting to critique their work
9. changed his theory by 'complexifying it' because they thought it needed to be and they were helping him out because they thought he had forgot to
10. criticised his theory for being complexified (in the way they had just changed it) as it doesn't fit within an uncomplexified structure group
11. overlooked an important slide in the 2013 lecture which showed that it was using a complexified structure group
12. gave interviews questioning whether Eric was a "crackpot" where they admitted to not having read his paper since it came out
13. gave whiteboard explanations explaining what was wrong with Eric's theory based on their flawed critique of it, where all of their four concerns were invalid as they had guessed what might be in Eric's upcoming paper (chiral, space-time supersymmetric, uncomplexified) and guessed totally wrong (non-chiral, optionally non space-time supersymmetric, complexified) even though they had had ample opportunity to read Eric's paper and realise their critique was entirely flawed
14. ambush Eric on DISCORD and try to trip him up about what he knows about the Seiberg-Witten equations he did his PhD thesis on
15. use Eric's wife's work in a TH-cam video without credit, annoying Eric
16. publish another critique of Eric and his wife's work, this time of _An Extention of Intertemporal Ordinal Welfare to Changing Tastes: Economics as Gauge Theory._ by Pia N. Malaney and Eric R. Weinstein.
17. chase down sceptic Michael Shermer, who Eric has spoken to, and get him to arbitrate a discussion about what is wrong with _Geometric Unity_ (nothing at all that he has thus far alleged, besides it is a work in progress), instigating for this on Elon Musk's X
18. no criticisms have come from the second anonymous critic who we are meant to suppose coauthored the response paper, but it could be that this second critic is actually a sock account being run by one critic seeking to gain fame from being seen to tear holes in Eric's work based off his misrepresentation of it, which means he has gaslit a lot of people who were curious to read Eric's work and have been dissuaded because they trust the joint authority claimed by two authors who could well be one person (who knows _Quantum Field Theory_ but not _General Relativity_ ), bolstering his credibility by having a coauthor who people will suppose has the expert knowledge in _General Relativity_ to be able to critique Eric's elaboration of it to 14-dimensions after mixing it with _Chern-Simons theory_ despite him never saying anything in the way of a substantive criticism about the _General Relativity_ aspect of _Geometric Unity_ in the response paper or in the two and a half years since Eric published his, which they apparently still haven't read other than to check §8 and do CTRL+F to search for "Spinᶜ(4)" expecting that its absence would conclusively prove something when other authors represent this with different notation.
Resource question. I would put it into advanced space propulsion systems. There are some scientific questions that are best resolved by being there to do the experiments and exploration and not on a chalk board or inside a computer simulation.
Lee raising his hand 😂🤣
Eric, as Dirac said( I’m paraphrasing): “can your model compute the mass of the electron? Please come back when it does!”
"Let him finish. Let him finish"
Lmao
Eric knows he could solve these communication problems about GU if he provided predictions. That's physics 101. Make predictions based on GU Eric and let the scientist see it work or not work in this universe.
But he's not a physicist, sooooooooooooooo..... he can play in the physics sandbox but not have to play by their rules (at least in his inflated head).
@@chuckschillingvideos I'm so glad you trolled. Eric is a master math guru. However, Eric has no fucking clue about physics. Hey like to act like he's physics badass, but he has the skills of a fucking 20 yr old. It's fucking embarrassing. Especially for us that love him.
Like a string theory?
What’s hard about physics if you know the math? The math describes the physics...
Please make timestamps
Its amazing to see these people in discussions with Eric Weinstein.
It's like, the people you've grown up to admire the past 10 years of youtubes revolution of long-form intelligent podcasts, somehow magically all seem to come together now.
Clearly, I have little or no tolerance for people who ask complex questions and then lose all interest when the answer cannot be expressed in 2 sentences or less .
Rogan was certainly a leader of long format interviews and all too often, Rogan is not acknowledged for this contribution.. But I noticed the difference immediately because I have struggled with this question most of my life. I've found that if a person asks a question whose answer must justifiably begin with "it depends" they will generally not be capable of listening to the answer. Not everyone, mind you. but nevertheless signifixant.
E. Weistein: ..it happens that you have to create in geometric unity an ambient space... horizontal tangent space... the spin 10 unified theory... they're two generations plus an imposter generation...
S. Hossenfelder: please tell me, what's the gravitational field of an electron in a superposition?
E. Weinstein:
eric weinstein absolutely won this discussion hands down. when he was on like podcast shows, he has explained geometric unity more simply than that, so i understood most of Weinstein's explanation of geometric unity after his joe rogan podcast, tat least i understand the space-and dimensions part, not the particles part as that was not discused in the podcast. but talking to physicists he probably felt he could be technical. what he forgot is as an almost pure mathematician,they can talk in such an abstract way, that normal physicists do not understand them. this was the case in weinsteins final comment where he gave an extremely complicated purely mathematical description of the space of geometric unity, sabine did not comprehend. i think matt probably understood it.
sabine is all she cares about is quantising gravity. i can solve that right now. gravity cannot be quantised. all the other three forces were quantised really really accurately-so we have QED, QCD, QFD, for electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak force. gravity isnt a force.gravity is negligible at quantum scales, or atomic scales. wanting to know the gravitational field of an electron. it's barely anything. so it's not important. if you have a black hole singularity, then you have alot of curvature of a small amount of space-producing either a spacelike or a weak singularity-the latter is likely for a rotation kerr blackhole in the latest computer simulations of them. so that produces the most curved space in the universe. it curves space so much, because so much mass in such a small volume means maximum curvature of spacetime that dimensionality allows. so forget quantum gravity. we want to look inside a blackhole at the singularity, and it will be a kerr type black hole and a super mssive one for sure. we would try the one that is best for survivability. and be looking to exist a supermasive fast spinning kerr black hole weak ring singularity into another universe, or another galaxy,. bit of a suicide mission but there are people out there willing to do it. train a deathrow inmate as an astronaut. so basically in smaller volumes with more mass, you get greater curvature of the spacetime. so this is still general relativity not quantum theory at all.stop applying particle theory to spacetime. relativity is violated otherwise. and the invariance of the lorentz stuff has been tested now below the planck length and so the relativity holds even below the planck scale. spacetime must be continuous not discrete otherwise relativity id violated.,which is impossible. so there is no quantum gravity. there is gravity, which is always expressed by general relativity. ring singularity of a kerr black hole is not quantum. it is small but non quantum sized. that you get extreme rotations in four dimensions so time and space switch their roles with space becoming one directional and minkowski found mathematically that time acts like space except with a factor of c, the speed of light in vacuum, and a factor of i, the imaginary number √(-1). increasing your motion through space decreases your motion through time, and vice versa. (Mathematically, this is where the i comes in .
in minkowski diagram speak, which is in worldtubes or worldlines, in flat space you have inertial motion of a particle which is basically a default state-this is unaccelerated motion, and newton's laws of motion still apply there. the worldline for the inertial motion next an accelerated particle-this is a deformed worldline and represented as such by a deformed or curved line on the spacetime diagram. now a third possible worldline is formed in the case of gravity, which is curved space, where we get a curved worldline but it is not deformed. in flat space that is not possible. but space with the ricci curvature tensor is curved spacetime, it's pure geometry-shapes. a particle's worldline in a gravity well is going to be steeply curved like going down a valley. what eric weinstein was talking about is the unified field theories in einsteins time, which were not the theories of everything of today, and that is the tradition which weinstein has returned to. it had no'thing to do with quantum gravity. they were geometrical theories.spacetime specialists and mathematians who exceled in geometry knew that.
kaluzas attempt to get electromagnetism by extending einstein's general relativity and minkowskis spacetime to five dimensions is the kind of work weinstein is doing. it's in that tradition of the twenties and thirties. smolin mentioned cohl furey-i've been following her avidly-her work on division algebras -with reals, compelx numbers, quaternions, octonians, these number groups correspond to dimensions and to parts of physics e.g. special relativity. the point eric weinstein was making to sabine is the standard model is hollow. we dont know why it is as it is. sabine doesnt care about this. but science can and does need to answer why. she just wants to do the basic 'shut up and calculate. but the true goal of physics is to find the why is it like this? we answered why there is gravity, and we were not content with newtons universal gravitation that only calculated the amount of gravity generated by masses, and therefore in simple cases could calculate the orbits of celestial bodies to a good degree of accuracy. the why answer was-spacetime curved by alot of mass to form a gravity well, like a valley, and you are actually moving along a curved spacetime path when under gravity, which is every day on earth. sabines philosophy of science is hollow. weinstein also explained these are not TOEs. these are more like the old unified field theories of Einstein's early career. higher dimensions has always been thought to be a thing. ive myself re gone over the very beginning of modern physics. from maxwell onwards, to the michelon-morley experiment, the birth or relativity, the early atom models, the precursors to string theory-such as the kaluza and kaluza klein five dimensional manifold explanation of the electromanetic force, as motion throii
this is why sabine is such an unimaginative physicist. we do not know why the standard model is based on the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)/Z_6, and not some other gauge group. Even given that gauge group, the standard model does not specify why it uses such a long, apparently arbitrary, list of particles to represent that group. The standard model does not explain why its quarks and leptons are organized into three generations. It does not explain why SU(2) weak isospin acts only on left-handed states. Finally, the standard model does not explain the values of its 19 parameters. These questions, and others, have gone unanswered now for nearly 40 years. mathematicians are the ones who are answering these things-in cohl furey and eric weinstein. btw weinstein is a mathematics research fellow so he is an academic now. plus his phd was in mathematical physics. einstein when working on special relativity was a complete unknown-he would therefore be regarded by sabine and the panel as an ousider, a non physicist. minkowski-einsteins maths professor is the author of spacetime itself, along with the concepts of worldlines, light cones, plus his far more detailed paper on special relativity than einstein, published three years after including famous lecture explained the deep physical meaning behind length contraction and time dilation-that we live in a four dimensional world. and that not only do different people in different reference frames-e.g one person stationary-in inertial motion, and other one being accelerated very fast, they both have their own time, which means they hsve their own space too, so there are many spaces. my only disappointment in eric weinstein is that he didnt include minkowski in the list of his most admired twentieth century scientific figures. but it took a pure mathematician to discover the real spacetime structure of the cosmos. in hermann minkowski, with credit particularly to lorentz and poincare. lorentz would have penned special; relativity instead of einatein if only we've got cohl furey a mathematical physicisdt who again has found the number ten that weinstein mentioned keeps coming up, she found a foundational matrix, with nine numbers corresponding to spatial dimensions, and one that behaves as a time dimension. weinstein again with ten.
@@shaunhumphreys6714 thank you for painstakingly commenting your counter argument. Very valuable.
@viralshield sabine was exposed. Weinstein owned her
@@shaunhumphreys6714 thanks for the read my friend although that was more than I bargained for. Some of that went over my head but love it gave me a bit to think about as I begin this being fans of all the speakers here. Praised be
@@shaunhumphreys6714 are you familiar with the modern criticisms of GU from Tim Nguyen? Gu has some serious mathematical deficiencies, namely an undefined "shiab" operator that Nguyen shows would break the theory with any valid definition.
34:16 Sabine is just the greatest badass of our time!
I love toward the end when Sabine accused Eric of being a poor communicator and that inspired him to launch into an "explanation" that probably virtually no one on the planet could follow. I listened to it mesmerized like I was listening to Putin give a speech (I enjoy just hearing Russian being spoken for some reason). I was expecting Sabine to counter all this by inviting Eric to devise experiments that would prove what he was saying was correct concerning Geometric Unity. Eric would have gotten angry at that and proclaimed that he was not an experimental physicist and that it was not his job to design experiments. Then Sabine might have commented that, since Eric was so dependent on experimental physicists to actually be interested in what he was saying -- which they are not -- then he should be nicer to them. I think Sabine was being deliberately non combative.
Eric is fairly wealthy. Maybe he should consider hiring an experimental physicist to work directly with him. Interest in his theories would increase in direct proportion to the fee he was offering.
Also, Eric stating that the public should just toss funding into whatever science wants is hard to take seriously. Is he really that naive? Even incredible projects that well deserve funding (like the James Webb Telescope) are regularly threatened with defunding. Even the military doesn't automatically get everything it asks for. No one does.
Agree with much of what you're saying. Sabine is the better communicator but Eric is the one who at least talks about physics in terms of (tangible) geometric deformaties, where objects get their material of existence from the material that normally forms the grid itself. At least if this is what he means, than thats correct and a great beakthrough in thinking. With respect to financing , I agree that Eric is a bit naive here. More money is not the solution , it is the problem. 100 years ago, fundamental physics used to be the realm of the few. It was not a great career choice and often involved finding sponsors for their passion to examine the true genesis of all. Fast forward to today we have literally 10's of thousands trying the same in government sponsored academia. Some may be gifted, the majority statistically will be mediocre at best. What is their main concern? To keep their bread and butter and still have a job at the end at the month. What is the biggest threat to them? Actually FINDING the solution to fundamental physics. If the fundaments are found, they can all pack and go home. No more budgets, prestige, prizes, nothing. So there is a MASSIVE incentive NOT to find what you say you are looking for. If anything you have to tout that fundaments are exponentially more complex then thought (which by the way is a contradictio in terminis). So no, anybody with potential and who is on to something will be sidelined, silenced or moved over to DARPA where they are far more advanced in their knowledge than these talking heads....Again...I like Eric's view, no-nonsense posture , but he is off on the politics behind academia.....
Let me summarize what you just said. Eric is talking out of his ass mostly. He does this on almost all topics. The bluster never matches the threat.
Eric would make a great politician
He is.
Lol. True
He obfuscates, to enthrall the naive, _who can't differentiate gibberish from intelligence._
I wanted two more hours of this, the subject deserves it.
Seriously man, they gotta stop putting time limits on most of these. I know peeps are busy but man, this stuff is important to the public.
Instead of looking for away forward first you should find away back. What came first the question or the answer or are they both the same.
John Dewey liked to say that even when we fail, progress is made. I support any progress in working for a democracy without any humiliation happening. We all have our own interests which we take to. I like to look at Gravity as the change in subject matter, with that little photon as the only particle. Yet, maybe the wave function has collapsed again, because it seems to need more hope (not knowledge) to keep it going. Thus, I look for what hopeful colors which I am missing in my own spectrum. That's why I am here. Thanks for the group video!
We all of us seem to appreciate some beauty, but I think hope is the best to go for.
If there is surface, is there matter? But when is there not surface? Wallace Stevens liked to say that the only poverty is not living in a physical world.
How did I not see this?!!!
So smart but couldn’t figure out how to remove the noise from the background 🤔😂 Just teasing 😉 Love all you brilliant minds but audio was too bad so wasn’t able to listen for more than a few minutes.
18:16 look at Matt he is so happy, he knows Eric doesn't know what's coming..
I like Lee’s thinking re: evolution, such as natural selection, as providing the mechanism for the emergence of laws. The book, Quantum Darwinism, suggests some of this. But I think it’s a foundational principle that underlies the unfolding of everything-whether we’re talking about time, space, matter, galaxies, life, etc. His statement about space being an emergent property which, as such, can explain the enigma of non-locality really struck me as logical!
Yeah but what is the criteria that defines successful replication? In biology it's mating. To my understand of Lee he suggests black hole propagation? That seems totally random but if it turns out that we can create universe's in a lab then it's possible that intelligence and self knowledge is the replication mechanism on our framework of reality. Any universal framework (constants of nature) that construct objects that can gain enough self knowledge to replicate their own universe/framework then they will in fact do that.
beauty is not a cherry picking. because the beauty emerges after the individual makes a discovery. then realizing how simple it was. beauty is parabolic. beauty is symmetric. beauty is the inherent simplicity itself.
Its a good conversation, Insightful. We must all read in between the lines for ourselves. And fit the pieces together for ourselves. There are beautiful things that Can be observed. Its Beautiful that we can Observe! Pierce the Holomorphic double cover(interesting operators under the hood). May the Long Strange Force be with us.
Again, to reiterate (for whoever happens to be reading my comments), the "atoms of spacetime" are very, very, very likely to be electrons. I think Finster made that leap of understanding, it fits excellently with emergent gravity, CDTs, and loop quantum gravity. It provides a neat explanation of the vacuum energy (i.e. electrons merely absorb photons from one location in the universe, tunnel, then deposit them elsewhere), and I'd propose an exchange of Z particles (i.e. a neutral current) to explain neutrino flavour oscillations.
1:13:42 About sums it up.
Sabine is the Nietzsche of physics.
No, she's the reincarnation of feynman.
More like Schopenhauer
I don't understand what that is supposed to mean lol.
@C hrist I can actually somewhat see the connection here. I have no clue what she has to do with Nietzsche.
@C hrist I don't really see in what way even that would connect to Nietzsche. Just a weird comparison lol
But Wittgenstein? Yeah I can kinda see that.
Lee was right - Eric and Sabine were arguing about different concepts of TOE in the first place.
Lee Smolin is a strange fella, but I love his books and his Darwinia universe hypothesis.
1:10 like the fight
It's not taxpayer dollars it's physics dollars that the taxpayer uses? How ridiculous is that? Eric Weinstein thinks anyone is entitled to anyone else's labour? The aristocracy is strong with that one.
Science is a public investment. You have gotten your money back many many times over. Why are you complaining? Was living in flea infested mud huts really that much fun?
@@lepidoptera9337 no one is entitled to anyone's labour, it doesn't matter what profession you're in. That's slavery. If your physics isn't immediately marketable, then raise capital privately or raise the money yourself working a job.
This is quite a beautiful discussion 😅
Translation: Humanity needs a mathematical model that predicts the conversion of electromagnetism into gravity.
To Eric Weinstein:
Change your number base from 10 to 8 and see if the "10" correspondence remains or changes to an "8" correspondence. If the "8" correspondence replaces the "10" correspondence then you are looking at a mathematical artifact and not reality.
If locality is an emergent phenomena like Smolin suspects, does this validate something like the "one electron hypothesis?"
Eric didn't need to be a part of this discussion. It would have been better off without him.
Eric, sweetie, send a paper to "Physical Review".
Why is that not the way to do it anymore?
Eric Weinstein: Look this is really simple concept: blah blah blah
Me: flies so high above my head I don't even feel the breeze.
It wasn't above your head, it went by the side of your head because Eric was throwing tons of jargon terms, and people often think that means it's valuable or smart. But a 7-year-old could tell Leonardo Da Vinci what he did after school and Da Vinci would have no idea what the kid was saying, because Da Vinci didn't speak English. Intelligence is not in obscurity complexity. You can watch Richard Feynman's video "knowing the name of something is not the same as knowing something" to see the same concept also. Eric Weinstein never learned this and goes out of his way to try to sound smart through jargon and not answering questions. It's honestly embarrassing and he's a complete waste of time. Both his own and that of thousands of other people.
Feynman lecturers were often aimed at teaching layman simple physics in a fun and exciting way. In one awesome video he said himself that explaining magnetic to any depth is extremely difficult to a person who lacks the theoretical framework. Here Eric is explaining his theories to a group of physics phD. I know it makes you feel inadequate not understand the man but let us not going on the attack and pretend that he is the one with the problem.
The fact that Rric Wienstein is included has lessened my respect for everyone involved.
For goodness sake. Physics cannot have a fundamental theory. Questions concerning the fundamental belong in metaphysics. This is physics 101. When physicists say 'theory of everything' or 'fundamental theory' this is just a manner of speaking, and not a helpful one.
A theory of the effect on gravity from a superposition of a particle would be equivalent to one that describes how that same particle in parallel universes affects gravity in its original universe.
Weistein is obviously very clever. He may be right or totally wrong, but gosh he's a pompous speaker.
I watch his portal thing over time I reckon he is pretty humble and likes to raise others up. I reckon clever people can always come over pompous and sometimes indeed simply are but there's more to everyone usually 😉
He speaks in so many analogies while describing his mathematics that it makes him impossible to understand. Save the analogies for literature, just speak in mathematical terms while talking about mathematics. It’s like every sentence Eric speaks must contain 3 analogies and be able to win a game of scrabble.
These people are like sculptures with no knowledge of materials.
58:35 -- Who is 'Coumarin' 'Ed' and 'David'?
Great people to define the problem statement. But, the high concentration and overall awesome atmosphere is a bit distracted by your crappy microphone.
So "Geometric Unity" doesn't unite gravity with the standard model, its just an alternative mathematical basis for the standard model?
I don’t think anyone has yet understood what Geometry Unity is. As far as I have read, it’s just a lot of nothing with very good PR and an uncanny ability to make word salads that make answering the “theory” impossible.
My particular view on this is that we can get very close to a theory of 'everything' with the (not unjustified) assumption that gravity is equal to the force of electromagnetism less radiation pressure. I started with the thought experiment of two atoms of ordinary hydrogen in a 1cm^3 box with no external sources of gravitational interference, say at a Lagrange point, and then compared the electromagnetic force augmented with the ration between gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion, and the ordinary force of gravity between the two atoms anticipated in Newton's law. I discovered that, if you augment the force of electromagnetism in this way, you bring it very nearly into alignment with the (tiny) force anticipated in Newton's law, and that the remainder can be explained as the force of radiation pressure created by intervening photons in the background. To give a little more detail, the idea rests on the assumption that tunneling electron from one hydrogen atom exerts an electrostatic (or van der Waals) force of attraction over the proton in the nucleus of the other atom, and vice versa. Augmenting the anticipated force of gravity by dividing the number of particles in the system by the ratio between the force of gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion (4.17 x 10^42) yields an extraneous electrical force roughly concomitant with the anticipated force of gravity; however, this would be the force of 'gravity' explained in terms of some quantity of a tunneling elementary particle, namely the electron. This also allows us to perform a calculation which disregards the overwhelming majority of the electromagnetic force on the (I think reasonable) assumption that most of that force is bound up in the atom itself, i.e. it consists exclusively between the proton and electron of a given hydrogen atom and doesn't travel beyond the atoms' radius. Hence, 'gravity' is explicable as a very sight residual electromagnetic/electrostatic interaction resulting from an electron which, very occasionally, tunnels to within the appropriate range of a foreign proton to exert a force of attraction over it. That is, one time in every ~4.17 x 10^42nd times, it tunnels close enough to a foreign nucleus to exchange gauge particles with that nucleus and create an attractive force. Obviously I'm a crank though, so no one believes me :)