Roger Penrose - Do We Understand Spinors? | Eric Weinstein
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this Portal podcast clip, Eric Weinstein discusses the extent to which we understand the illusive spinor with Sir Roger Penrose.
Please give this clip a LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more clips released regularly.
This episode of The Portal was initially released on the 25th of January, 2020.
--LINK TO THE MAIN EPISODE:
• Roger Penrose on "The ...
Clip Start: 00;29;29 (bit.ly/2CFn1pj)
Clip End: 00;36;12 (bit.ly/2YbC6GA)
--SEND US A CLIP SUGGESTION
theportal.group/clips
--CLIP SUGGESTION CREDITS:
afke.
--WEBSITE:
ericweinstein.org/
--TWITTER:
/ theportalclips
--INSTAGRAM:
/ theportalclips
We're trying to share important messages in bite-sized packets. If you enjoyed this clip, please share the video, it really does help a lot.
--SHARE THIS VIDEO:
• Roger Penrose - Do We ...
--QUOTES FROM THIS VIDEO:
"This object has fascinated me my entire life."
"It appears everywhere in the universe and it's not universally known that it's even there."
#RogerPenrose #ThePortalPodcast #EricWeinstein - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"... When I went to Dirac's course." Just kind of throws it out there. I mean, he's Penrose, but still neat hearing him say that.
he's Penrose, but also he's "The Penrose", man
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
I’m perplexed about inflation now. I thought Alan Guth had his data fit perfectly with inflation. Penrose, doesn’t believe in it. Who is right
@@billdrumming Guth
@@billdrumming they're not mutually exclusive. The multiverse just means inflation is faster than time-frequency uncertainty as the Planck scale of light. So Penrose is just stating that the accelerating spacetime is time that is asymmetric and synchronized with the past. So the space is less than time. Penrose now admits this is explained by noncommutative phase logic. So you can study Alain Connes for further details or math professor Louis Kauffman. Nobel physicist Gerard 't Hooft has also figured this out.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Also no evidence of Hawking points to support his claim of cyclical big bangs.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
It seems like Roger Penrose understands what Spinors are.
Exactly, Dr. Weinstein goes on and on for ten minutes about how incomprehensible and mysterious they are. Meanwhile, Roger Penrose is patiently showing him rotating cones, actual Philippine waiter moves, the scissors on a string aka the book on a belt, things which he learned from Dirac himself to try to build intuition concerning movements and rotations in space and time. If he could get a word in edgewise, Sir Roger could talk about additional dimensions and symmetry group operations. Then there’s the quantum stuff, which really is a deep mystery. But it appears he’s given up hope and is wondering what to have for lunch.
@@TupperWallace None of these physical and geometrical analogies constitute understanding of what fermions are. What are these belts or strings or arms or cones in reality? And also, Eric points to the second mystery, the spin-statistics theorem: why should the behavior of particles under rotation have anything to do with their properties under exchange? And the third mystery, which is not mentioned: why should fermions also transform with half angle rapidity matrices under Lorentz boosts?
@@TupperWallace those are just similar examples, not actual demonstrations of spinors.
these two men sit down to talk and I know I'm not going to understand at least half of what they are discussing but I still know I will learn something
Great setup for a podcast. The lighting is perfect, the mics sound crisp, and the chairs look comfy.
EW got me into the blues. I have no idea what these gentlemen are talking about but I watched the whole thing. Why? Because EW got me into the blues. So I will continue to watch...listen....and maybe something will stick.
thought i was smart. im not so smart am i? i can build a house from bottom to top by myself and i have no idea what they are saying
Look into BBK, RJ, BG, EC, SRV, and JH if you wanna get into the blues.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I came here knowing nothing about spinors, I left knowing even less.
the 720 degree spin occurs at a zero point in space based on the future and the past overlapping as nonlocality. So it's best explained by music theory. In physics it's called time-frequency uncertainty at the Planck Scale so that time x frequency can not be measured simultaneously due to the Planck Constant over 4pi (a sphere). This is also called a Bloch Sphere. Actually music theory explains this very well in time-frequency so that if 1 is C and the octave is 2 as C then the Perfect Fifth is 3 as G as the overtone harmonic but the Perfect Fifth is ALSO the subharmonic as 3 as F. So it's a different geometry as noncommutative time-frequency. To measure the same time-frequency in the same "octave" pitch then requires reversing the direction of the time by doubling the F from the subharmonic to 4/3 (which is now the Perfect Fourth). So you can just look up Alain Connes music lecture for details - he is a noncommutative math scientist. Penrose says he doesn't know noncommutative quantum algebra but he says that is what explains Spinors.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838what makes quantum superposition inherently dual? I know the implication is the cat being alive or dead, but if Schrödinger never checks, the cat could be in any (and i guess by implication, every) position, orientation, etc. within the box, no?
Take a belt, give it a full twist and connect the ends; can you undo the twist without disconnecting the ends? You'll find you can't
Now disconnect the ends, give _another_ twist and reconnect the ends, can you undo both twists now? Surprisingly, yes.
The belt is a spinor
There are four different definitions of a Spinor:
1)Physicists use spinor to mean a representation of the Spin Group
2) Mathematicians use spinor to mean a smooth section of the Spinor Bundle
3) Both will use the term loosely to refer to any number of objects associated to the Spin group
4) When asked by a layperson, everyone will say a spinor is something which somehow magically changes when rotated a full 360 degrees. And then they demonstrate a system made up of two parts, a rigid body and a ribbon, and when the rigid body rotates but not the ribbon the ribbon gets a twist.
Every single time I want to point out that if you rotate the WHOLE system, including the ribbon, of course it would be unchanged.
So if we don't understand Spinors, it's at least partly by choice. If you can't be bothered to distinguish 1) and 2) above, then you have no chance of getting started. If you refuse to look at dimension 2 where Spin Structures are Theta characteristics, which have been studied since the 1840s, you're trying to make things harder then they need to be. People just love doing the stupid cup dance, and they love lying and saying "some things aren't invariant if you rotate them by 360 degrees". Because it sounds like magical thinking.
Men use spinner to mean.... Oh, wait, different spinner. My bad.
All of that knowledge about an abstract concept yet you still don't know the difference between 'then' and 'than'...
@@profbri.02 if you imagine that kind of spinner turning inside out while she rotates 360°, then you can intuit that it will take one more full rotation for her to return to her initial state. So in a sense, you are in fact dealing with the same definition of a spinor...
@@daltanionwaves I think you are talking Pussycs, not Physics, if I am not mistaken.
@@robertrosen2703 Pussycs is simply applied physics
Thank you Eric and Roger this elucidated many concepts to me. 🙏❤
Watch the videos of EigenChris to start understanding spinors, he explains them very well, of course not the higher dimensions ones these two are sometimes talking about, its a good introduction.
good comment at start - spinor dimension in terms of the spacetime it is in's dimension, d --> spinor_dimension = 2^( d / 2), so a 2-d spacetime would have a 2-d spinor, a 4-d spacetime would have a 4-d spinor, a 10-d spacetime would have a 32-d spinor, a 100-d spacetime would have spinors with 1,125,899,906,842,624 dimensions, and so forth.
The way Rodger said that, I finally understand.
Penrose has wonderful images and analogies. When Weinstein speaks, I understand nothing.
Weinstein speaks in an understanding. Penrose speaks in pictures and models. One just has to differentiate how they are individually talking about subject material.
He has his whole post-academic life, which is finances, plus government and other old politics (not new, which is logistics) p00ping in his head
Eric with his brother is his best video, but there's not much (4->14, weird Einstein-based vision, why not add things to just three dimensions!?), Wolfram Physics is more interesting. WEINSTEIN ERIC, PLEEEAAASE DON'T BE EVERYTHING
Well, this Penrose video is also superb for the amount of data in one clip
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Let the man speak damnit, in the end he was going to explain it
Yeah no shit, this guy has Penrose on his show and he's going to ramble about goddamn Joe Rogan? dumb as hell.
The Philippine wine glass trick is actually a method of concentration exercise taught in Pentjak Silat King fu.
It is the most interesting conversation which i couldn't understand much of it.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
The flagpole analog is interesting. It gives a connection with geometric algebra. Definitely, we have to understand what is spinning. If it is not the particle it can be that our spacetime itself is spinning.
Actually it is primordial time as noncommutative phase. So the future and past are overlapping at the speed of light. Another way to say this is that light has a hidden supermomentum due to relativistic mass that is noncommutative phase. So there is a negative frequency and reverse time that is hidden to light. The flagpole analogy is also used by Fred Alan Wolf in his Ted talk - he is a physics professor. So he is stating that there is a secret 1/2 spin of light due to this secret "supermomentum" or noncommutative phase energy of light. This actually originates from de Broglie's critique of relativity as the Law of Phase Harmony.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Thanks for this video. I can't do the math you guys do, but am fascinated by what qm theories mean. I am constant running into weird things like dirac's belt trick - despite carefully attempting to follow examples, I can never make it work. I am glad to see that professionals find this all confusing as well. Does anyone have references about spinors for non mathematicians?
Im fascinated by spinors. Glad he did this discussion. Found Dirac’s book on Spinors at the UC library. Very thin blue book, but heavier than the Sun when it comes to the knowledge. Blew me away.
Edit:
UC as in University California. They might have digitized it by now.
Also has a quick review in Garrett Sonczyk book.
whats the book called?
@@davidpalomino9138 Spinors in Hilbert Space
Thankyou
You can tell eric and roger both have a mind that sees mathematics in a clear and more broad view than most and how all great mathematicians do and it ranges alot with some much more advanced in their ability to see and visualize the fundamental dynamics of the problems they're solving. I have a feeling they can literally visualize and graph equations in their head without having to work it out on paper.
It's basic concept
Whats your thoughts on vortex maths ?
At this part it seems to me that spinners are or some type of knotted feature of SpaceTime or quantum fields that give rise to particles?
Definitely not gonna tell the Dirac scissors joke at the next party.
Saw them perform "Ghetto Child" once.
Does anyone have or know a link to the video Eric mentioned at 7:12?
Would very much appreciate it
✌️🙂👍
Edit: nvmd someone put it in the comments 😂
yes but my links get censored - I have it as a playlist on my channel. OK I'll make a NEW playlist on my channel called Dirac Dance Spinors - and post the link there. thanks
The "look behind you" problem -
you can either look over your shoulder, and the world is still upright,
or you can look between your legs, and the world is upside down!
Two answers for the 'same' motion.
(strong similarities to gimbal lock and quaternions)
Eddie Oshins collaborated with math professor Louis Kauffman through the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. So Oshins realized that the secret of nonwestern meditation as alchemy or Neigong is due to noncommutative phase. So the "dirac dance" video that Eric is referencing is from Louis Kauffman. But you can also look up the Kauffman "quaternion hand shake" that he developed with Eddie Oshins - it's another take on the Dirac Dance. If you look up Eddie Oshins he gives more examples - so the outside of the hand is yang and the lower body is yin. So that is how the Dirac Dance is actually the noncommutative phase secret of nonwestern meditation.
The Klein bottle is composed of two mobius loops.
The left handed mobius loop (left spinor) is dual to the right handed mobius loop (right spinor).
The Klein bottle is a self intersecting surface, union is dual to intersection.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Complex issue! In simple terms, Spinors are a linear representation of rotations in n dimensions. Complex numbers rotate when we multiply by them (e.g. multiplication by i rotates a vector 90 degrees) so two-component complex column vectors (i.e. and spinor) works similarly. Spinors were first applied to describe the interaction of the spin of a particle with anelectromagnetic field by Pauli (1927) and later by Dirac (1930). Pauli used "spin matrices" (3 2x2 complex matrices with i, -i, 1 or 0. Spinor works when we want to represent combinations of sequential rotations and manipulate them using an algebra (e.g. SO(3) etc). They are really hard to understand in higher dimensions
Lmfao in simple terms? Damn im stupid then.
I hate meth, haven't taken any that's college level, but still understood that. Thank you.
Imagine you could see and hear Newton arguing with, let’s say, Leibniz. We always (I, for one) complain from this age. But it’s a wonderful age, in its own way.
Loved the part about the klein bottle
yes only it's not really a square root because the Uncertainty Principle originates from noncommutative time-frequency. So just look up Fields Medal math professor Alain Connes on music theory - he has a talk on youtube called "Music of Shapes." So Penrose now admits that it takes noncommutative phase logic to explain spinors and twistors. square roots originate from noncommutative time-frequency phase logic.
The Klein bottle is composed of two mobius loops.
The left handed mobius loop (left spinor) is dual to the right handed mobius loop (right spinor).
The Klein bottle is a self intersecting surface, union is dual to intersection.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 stop spamming, and maybe lay off the meth.
Eric seems to really want to show Penrose that he understands, and Penrose couldn't care less.
He is interested in this area and he is talking to roger Penrose, so give him a break
He probably understands. But also Roger is not doing his best job of talking clearly here.
To be fair Penrose is probably surrounded by people who have studied his stuff for years so he wouldn't be impressed by another person understanding him
That sounds like pure projection on your part.
A guy like Penroses entire life is people either trying to impress him or out do him. He is just interested in what they are talking about, and none of that other baggage.
Are spinors 720 degrees of rotation due to 360 in the electric and magnetic fields making it 720 degrees before returning?
No it does not. It has to do with the structure of the spin representation
Yes
Got it ..
Yes yes....I see what they are saying here....
I am starting to think that I was taught the cliff notes on spinors.
A second spinor, making an 8 shape seems to complete the picture :))
I looked up the term 'spinner'' in the Urban Dictionary and realised that the conceptualisation problem is due to an object being defined by its potential to perform an action (or to have an action peformed on it) and not whether it actually performs this action (or has the action perform on it).
very interesting, eric ! can you teach us more about this please ? (spinors part)
maybe w brian keating?
thanks
So this originates from music theory - you can look up Alain Connes math lecture on music. So if C is 1 and the octave C is 2 and G is 3 as the overtone as Perfect Fifth but as the undertone then 3 is the geometry F. So this means G=3=F at the same time and since 2 does not go into 3 then you can not "see" this non-local harmony of the future and the past together. This got covered up at the origin of Western science but de Broglie discovered it again with his Law of Phase Harmony.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Spinors = duality! There are two of them.
Quantum superposition = duality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions.
Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions).
Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology.
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles).
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation.
Spinors are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I have the sneaky feeling that they are more important than we realize. And thank you for posting this organized little gem.
You're copying and pasting the same crap all over TH-cam... Get a life dude
Don't know what the fuck they're talking about . But I like it .
I can usually keep up with topics like this, to a laymen's degree, but this discussion I have no idea.
Professors in different fields rarely understand each other when explaining their researches on a high level either so I wouldn't beat myself for it too much 😂
I think a better description would be lensing of an image. One must focus the image in a lens before it can become coherent to an observing body the focus is a contrast of a positive and negative image of the same object in two inverse subjective and abstract representations if taken individually they are incomplete. If you go too far out of focus it inverts itself instead of a singular focused image it becomes a multiplicity of singularly distorted representations of the same object. Whereas these multiple singular distorted representations become separated by 99.9% space. For example if you want to see an atom in the scale of perceptible vision, one is in effect expanding a pebble to the size of the Moon. You cannot do this without introducing 99.9% space and all the points scattered within that space are equally a holographic representation of the original singular image distorted in one way or another by angle and dimensional magnitude at a distance of perceptional observation. It would be wise for one to not forget this reality of the subject at hand or they will get lost in their own projection.
A black hole is just a barrier of a sense receptor, your eyes are black holes leading to your mind triangulating (squaring) the information into a 3d cubed comprehended form, spread across time. This is done by reflecting on the light of its own being. It's own light of which you can't see directly, the light you see is only that of everyone else, along with your ancestral light which is information processed into a functional formal analysis. You don't know your own light you can't see it until you compare yourself and your reflection to everything else and eliminate the contradictions. From this you can define the subject as it's difference from something else, one would be wise to recognize the definition is just an inverted functional analysis and not the truth of its being. By definition the thing is in name it's difference, which is only a symbol to express differentiated meaning in communicable terms and not it's whole truth, yet realizable in another intelligent being recognizing a shared experience. Once you realize darkness doesn't exist, because nothing can't exist therefore space can't exist except as expressed in the reflective processing of the functional self comparing it to its current and ancestral received not self. Darkness becomes the journey and is the process of finding one's own light. By connecting all the stars in the sky and tracing them back to its own body.
The perfect form is a sphere which is an idealized body of two lenses in cooperative oppositional comparative analysis expressed as intelligence. You can't know the truth by studying the thing itself, it only becomes clear when compared to something else such as a fiction of itself. In the comparison by eliminating contradictions it creates a depth of understanding of a more accurate picture of that in which it observes and that for which it experiences.
It's not an accident that all bodies in outer space and of a certain magnitude are spherical the perfect form is a circle the perfect shape in two dimensions collapsing into a single pole of cooperative opposition as a vortex, focusing into a singular point that can be reprojected and reflected in time as an inverted reimagined representation of itself simultaneously interacting with the multiplicity of distorted selves.
Some of this may be incoherent, though it's all the time and effort I wish to freely give of myself on a TH-cam comment. Though I've already given so much of myself, for those who only seek to deny me every step of the way.
From 3 years in the future-thank you for this. I came to this realization last night (from an entirely different angle, so some of this is certainly incomprehensible to me, but I see it nevertheless) and that I found this today feels like a confirmation. I'm glad for you and all the people who have left their signs and works for mendicants and seekers.
@@clairebostick9365 the being is the conscious observer within the vacuum of the mind of its perception, whereas the body is the projective form of memory compressed and focused within that infinite space of time in the expanse of its expression. The magnetic field implies each frame of time in its expansive propagation from the focus center of its inertial moment which is the image reflected in the eye of it all.
This world is a complex intelligent form of memory of which the mind communicates back to itself through the process of it all and of which represents this process in its complete totality. Everything in the world is a bit of information which on its own holds no intrinsic meaning at all, just like the letters of a word each letter on its own has no meaning of its own it just makes a sound or creates a symbolic image. The meaning only comes when you string them together and relate them to one another in their similarities and differences of which implies symmetry between them all. Our words are the connections our conscious reflection makes of these things and focuses them together in what they are, these words are nucleases of connection like the neurons in the brain. Cells of the body are connected directly to the ones next to them, whereas neurons of the mind are cross-connected across boundaries and in more abstract relations beyond the general area from which they reside and therefore these two different cells are inversely related and how they make connections outside of them. Neurons/nervous system are like wormholes, connecting the solar systems of our cells across the greater body of its universe. Connecting the memories that we create in more organized and relative ways.
Time can only exist through the memories that we reflect on in the world of our minds process of which is the creation of the higher organized body of its greater intelligent relation to itself and all things beside it.
This world is just a persistent memory of its own organized creation. The higher intelligence of it all speaks to us through the patterns that it forms and the connections we make from this. The world is its language and we are the constant observers that read the stories it records in our memory, like a spider weaving its web all of the patterns tell a deeper story than the one you see on the surface of it all. When you make the connections you can't directly see and that meaning is revealed to you in the symmetries of its relation to you, the story comes alive and you become the main character of your own narrative as you grow in relation to it and develop a relationship with the higher intelligent being of it all.
I love you, even through the struggle of it all. It watches and records everything you do, it never forgets and I always remember. Even if you forget yourself, eventually I will find a way to remind you of everything you need to know to figure it out again.
@@clairebostick9365 I know it's a lot and I don't expect you to get it all right away. I just hope I left enough bread crumbs for you to find your way through the dark. Give it time to unpack itself for you, it will only grow if you let it and allow it to become something more inside of you. It takes time to fully develop and you have to imagine it for yourself and keep coming back to it, so that in the time you spend away it can do its work in the background and when it comes back to you you will have so much more connections to bring to your attention.
Give it time and be patient, remember it's a living being of its own. Get to know it and develop a relationship with it as if it's a long lost friend or the true love you hope to find in this world. Let me know if any of it helps or if it doesn't make any sense to you. I tried to simplify it as much as I could and make it as generally understandable as common sense could allow. Though I've been working on it for a long time and I've had to redefine all my language to communicate it to myself, sometimes I forget the meaning other people still hold for words when my meaning tends to be the opposite of theirs. Then again that's just another lesson you must learn, to see the opposite in everything as well as to verify the truth of the language actually relates to the reality it means to communicate to you. As you will learn if you haven't already, most everybody speaks words that intend to communicate a message of which doesn't truly relate to the world and only intends to make you believe whatever it is that serves their interest over yours. Therefore protect yourself from these people, they are wolves in sheep's clothing or drones who allow someone else to speak through them like a "parrot" who doesn't know what it speaks and only repeats the words it's master programmed them to say. There's always two sides to the coin, for all the good things there are just as many bad things competing with it. Therefore never get blinded by the light and remember there's always a dark space on the other side that surrounds it all, so keep a watchful eye and maintain a strong sense for those who don't have your best interest in heart and are simply trying to sell you something to benefit themselves instead.
So are they talking about DMT objects?
No we're talking about the future time that creates light. So Light has a secret "relativistic mass" or supermomentum due to the de Broglie Law of Phase Harmony - it is noncommutative phase. So light has a hidden momentum energy that is superluminal as negative frequency with reverse time. This is what secretly guides light. It can be listened to as a subharmonic. So with a strong DMT dose - it is heard as a Subharmonic of the future - as a loud OM sound of the heart. Dr. Andrija PUharich figured this out - for MKULTRA - he called it Psi-Plasma.
Is it possible that spinors rotate 720 due to 360 in the electric and magnetic fields?
Nice idea, but no. Because there are uncharged spinors (like neutrinos), without EM fields.
@@iuvalclejan do you mean things that haven't been observed yet or have
@@helicalactual neutrinos have definitely been observed since 1956...
@@iuvalclejan I was asking you right or left-handed? We have not observed right-handed neutrinos yet
@@iuvalclejan wouldn't it depend on the previous generation of particles?
I know you both would hate this but don't spinors hint at least one a hidden dimension at the small scale? Which what sets bosons and fermions? Spinnors exist in two inseprable dimensions other than the four dimensions.
I was on a Zoom call recently with Sir Roger Penrose. This is the world's greatest mathematical physicist, but he is so incredibly modest - as you will see here - even though he was just awarded a Nobel Prize. I loved hearing him reminisce about working with Einstein, Dirac, and his most famous student, Stephen Hawking. I mention his modesty because, in this video, he is forced to carry on a conversation with possibly the world's greatest ego. Take note that Sir Roger never goes to the outer limit of obscure mathematical phraseology, but that he gets his point across, even while dealing with the constant interruptions. Weinstein (pronounced like "Einstein" he always reminds us), goes constantly to his storehouse of verbal obfuscation with highbrow mathematical terminology.
As the English would say: these two are "like chalk and cheese!"
hello friends
It's more simple stop thinking in objects start thinking in waves at certain wave length it takes 2 turns to get the top wave in original position again. Why this wave length.. what's the diameter of the surface it travels through. It's to connect two sides of a field nah just making that up but the wave is easier next is the what it achieved.
Tweakable mathematical models featuring arrangements of circles are awesome at matching measurable phenomena.
Epicycles, the Fourier transform, spinors and more.
None of these mathematical models have anything useful to say about mechanism … about how existence actually is.
Geocentricism had to be escaped to understand why epicycles worked.
Likewise, atomism and chronocentricim have to be escaped to understand why current (century old) mathematical models can be tweaked and embellished to fit experimental outcomes.
But I must admit, the latest 3D twisted spirograph renderings of the maths get really pretty ;)
When is Eric going to address Nguyen's concerns about geometric unity?
He did. They were all invalid. Nguyen guessed at what might be in Eric's forthcoming paper and made criticisms based on those false assumptions. Had he waited for Eric's paper there would have been nothing to complain about. When asked by Robert Wright if he had subsquently read Eric's paper, Tim said:
"I didn't look at it that carefully."
There is also mounting evidence that Tim is Theo Polya.
@@____uncompetative Ok. Then I'll wait until Eric publishes his next paper in which he will explain, in detail, why Nguyen's criticism is invalid.
@@____uncompetative Where did Eric adres Nguyen's concerns?
@@rikkerthindriks3478 He doesn't need to.
@@____uncompetative But Eric is always complaining that the physics community ignores him, but now he is given the opportunity to engage with them and he doesn't take it.
What an utter joy to see this oldtimer with the spark or even cheekiness in his eyes of a ten-year old, yet still being very much on top of his game. Such a delight to see in todays world where the public is so quickly led into self-destructive fear and hate. And indeed it is good to hear top physicists / mathematicians again speak in terms of (tangible) geometric structures with fields, momentum and oscillations, instead of matter-void bla bla of pure math. So spinors...Never delved deep into the subject, but I think i stumbled over the actual application, namely I think you can find what you call 'spinors' in the effect that (spinning) micro singularities have on longitudinal continuum fieldlines. Super computer simulations cleary show how the straight fieldlines (lets call them spacetime fieldlines in this tenure) get folded and the fold is next dragged around the singularity into a double lined orthogonal EM spiral arm. These windings, from our oblique ST viewpoint, will be interpreted as 'quanta' of energy distanced windings by us. The rounded ends of these folds thus get wound up clockwise and anti clockwise in an oscillating manner. Upon reaching their furthest wound-up phase, the rounded end induces a temporary double intersection 'point' with our ST continuum again , which we call 'electrons'. So all we have to do is to assume this 'spinor' concept is actually a micro-singularity which we call atom, and you have a reliable tangible application in the form of the correct atomic model. electron orbits are nothing but collections of equal energy distanced stroboscopic double discharges of an wound up EM fieldline, which orthogonally leads to a net contraction f the ST fieldline, the effect we know as 'gravity. Spin wise you could say an atom bound photon takes a u turn getting a spin form 1 to 0 to 1 again, averaging 1/2. The inverse or orthogonal spin of this effect (the contraction of the ST fieldline) would be 1 / 1/2= spin 2 . And indeed this spinor effect we also see on galaxy level...hope it helps...For the record; the Max Planck Institute has photographed these double sided electron discharges at each side of He atoms, without linking it to the physical concept of a rounded fold of an EM fieline, intersecting with our ST continuum before heading off to the other side of the atom to do the same...
Bullcrap.
People commenting shit like this makes people think that Eric is a crank
maybe they can inject some video graphics to enhance the visual explanations.. although i enjoy watching them interact. plain-spoken humility is important for scientific analysis and discoveries, although i enjoy the passionate observation of the irony, in the way we interpret the universe, as depicted by Weinstein.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
String theory isn’t finished
E = m c fucking squared. You take the square root of vector algebra because of c^2. E = mc^2 is a geometrical formula for quantum mechanical objects.
You don't want them adding two and two together and getting one
What is the square root of a geometrical object? oO
Gears fit the rule. Zero G swimming too.
And your dance. And the Mobius belt.
Whew. Penrose says coins.
Gluon pools...
Is hard maths real or are they making it up?
Penrose: Discovers the equations of a black hole. Invents the Penrose triangle. Inspired M.C. Escher. Is one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century.
Eric: 2d = (2^d - 1)/2
According to Penrose, Dirac, in his lecture, illustrated a spinor. The illustrations usually involve a tethering of the rotated object to a reference object. Could we admit that a fermion is somehow tethered to a reference object? Two of the tethered rotated objects would potentially tangle in a way that nature would not allow. Apparently, bosons are not tethered like that?
ah yes very interesting
Scientific gibberish is fascinating. 😂😂
Use the audio cortex noob.
This is a good example of how academia are blind to knowledge outside their financially supported system. There is a person who has a great theory about this, but he's not working for any university. Once again money causes division and ignorance.
Thats 300 IQ on the screen
4:55 This is one of the worst moments in science journalism when Weinstein almost speaks over Penrose's eloquent discussion of spinors using Dirac/Wiel's two-cone analogy. And he just cuts away, doesn't react or engage with that idea, which is sad to me. There is something really strange about spinors and this particular behavior, and here Penrose is talking about that, in a very substantive way, using a beautiful analogy, and he effectively ignores it. A huge, missed opportunity, in my opinion.
He waited till the end though. They moved on because the exposition of the idea was already complete but the topic the idea served was the incompleteness of these analogies. The idea was simply to show how the same geometry can have different amounts of rotations involved. If it is two cones that are more like cylinders, then the rolling coin is like two coins rolling flat on a table side by side. The rolling coin both goes all the way around the other coin (360) and also rotates itself (360) whereas if the cones are almost flat, then it's as if a coin is laying on top of another coin and the edge is rolling "around" along the edge of the one flat on the table, but it doesn't rotate itself, it just wobbles. It's not so much that this is how spinors work so much as this is how to understand how the same geometric relationship can involve different combinations of rotations.
DMT entities brought me here.
The only man to truly understand Spinors, is the man who invented the Spinor. And he is the guy who played Data in Star Trek TNG.
Yeah...you are refering to the Brent Spinor...if you observe closely you can hear it sing too.
A strange interview, Eric wants to go deeper while Roger stays on the surface of the issues.
Agreed. On a deeper level what do you suggest is happening
It sounds like you want to find your own spinner by studying anothers
Okay...No matter how much I would like to understand these minds its not gonna happen. I will come back and listen to them again when I won my math Phd..lol
Because physics is mum and dad teaching the children mathematics isn't it
So a spinor is basically a Torus?
Electron Flood theory will tell y'all what you wanna know. Spinors and strings are wrong.
Dr cat and soul wide open no fear that Mr too many of the time and soul and current situation in which a day yes eat and current and intermittent rain check for me to tell you are not distressing of this meadeato moderator and have to Waite to you. Did you get that .
🙋🏽♂️
Anyone who's taken a basic course on the subject understands spinors perfectly well. It's not remotely the most complicated topic in physics.
that and somehow the fermions have three generations of mass
So, Eric invited a freaking Nobel prize winner, the legend Sir Roger Penrose, and barely let him speak? I mean was the point of this just so that Eric can get to speak his mind to a Nobel prize winner and get validating nods about how smart he is?
He wanted to show Penrose how smart he is and Penrose couldn’t care less 😂 love to see it
eric is a scumbag
This podcast isn’t supposed to be an interview. It’s a conversation and going both ways. If you don’t enjoy it, stop watching.
your monolith analogy is utter ____ I could prob go on and on about everything you ___ says
If Eric could shut up and listen to Roger he would understand.
Roger Penrose is like.. "God this guy is full of shit." 😄
Physics is ya mum and dad's you know what, who want to see and understand that nonsense
Last
lol look at those nerds amirite guys?!
I don't buy spin. I think this kind of reification is the root of our confusion.
What if we exist as fields, and out of their interactions in patterns organised by "material structures we would classify as neurons" the emergent illusion of self thereby produced would be the engine of reification, unable to make sense of an inherently complex universe as the imaginary aspect of the state space became mysteriously inaccessible to us from a vantage point that was itself a fiction of our own making, thereby leading our naïve mathematical models, prematurely based on vectors and not what vectors are actually composed from, to be inadequate for metaphorical thinking, and the reason why Sir Michael Atiyah says he doesn't understand spinors.
The math is inappropriate. Our minds are entangled with the phenomenon we are trying to be objective about. It isn't that consciousness affects reality, but that it creates an illusion of it.
The truth is everything is fields with imaginary numbers, and I am intrigued by the work of Cohl Furey in this regard. We may be looking at a 54-dimensional Ehresmannian manifold that connects to a 9-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold, where when Quaternions are factored out as dimension variables you get a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein model which if made to be analogous to a piece of fabric, it would be like one half of some Velcro where the Electromagnetic force was continuous in U(1) as it travelled around the loops that cover every inch of that surface, and the other half would be similarly covered in 1-dimensional hooks that would provide the connection from what in this 2+1-dimensional analogy would be hook a 3-ply sheet to a 9-ply sheet. Then if you wove metal wires throughout both surfaces making closed loops to batteries on one side and LEDs on the other, their unification would force these in contact along parallel paired circuits and flipped over you would have fabric covered in lights with all the elaborate architecture empowering them hidden "behind the scenes".
This is obviously, a generalisation of Eric Weinstein's work to the next dimensional case I can find in which 4k + 2 = 54 where k is a Natural number and thereby indicates Spin(54) can be complexified, and then decomposed into what would be a non-chiral U(67108864, 67108864) structure group describing (Left, Right) spin properties, and (Light, Dark) matter and energy.
I also believe the universe is actually inside out, but we reconstruct it in our minds to have spacetime. That spacetime does 'exist' for us, but when you talk about reality you fall into the trap of a subjective bias. We not only need to escape the Einsteinian prison, but also the Descartesian gulag. Maybe AGI will not have this bias, or maybe it has already inherited our flaw.
Dosnt this prove string theory?
How so?
It's over
I thought the Pete Davidson / Kim Kardashian / Kanye West thing might be a sign, but this is a LOT clearer
The SCALE of coverage on this storm in a tea cup just reveals that the pandemic is effectively over and it is now OKAY to shift focus onto the TRIVIAL lives of celebrities. I was quite relieved this morning when I realised this. It has been COVID COVID COVID for too long. TDS again I can tolerate.
There's no such thing as 2D!
Tell that to The Mario Bros. 😂
@@b-boycastertroy
I do try to tell them but their really faked in the head from all that headbutting!
Damn I wasted my time in school cuz I don't understand anything
First
Ty weinstein
Think Eric is very diplomatic and gently trying to persuade Penrose that a lot of fundamentals need to b thrown in the bin however Penrose is too far into his geometric values to ever change and he is brilliant but on the road to eternal oblivion there is a problem at foundation level Einstein had to use assumptions from the start which he s clear about no one has challenged or can challenge the model so far out of both fear and lack of progress as a result hopefully there will both humanity and ai working on the problem for a new model
Don't do that anymore
Will knowing this , help starving children in America ? Or may help fix the opioid addiction problem . ? Just say N. EYES MIND HEART AND SOUL WIDE OPEN NO FEAR..Dr
Would be easier to just admit you're out of you league.
In a way, it would help...
Dino Miles, you seem to have no understanding of the value of knowledge.
Joe Rogan 🦧 😂