Is E8 Lattice the True Nature of Reality? Or Theory of Everything?

แชร์
ฝัง

ความคิดเห็น • 2.4K

  • @VVyzard
    @VVyzard 5 ปีที่แล้ว +575

    Explains what I've been seeing in my perfectly legal activities that take place in some occasions of social events.

    • @salpertia
      @salpertia 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Heh

    • @christophluger793
      @christophluger793 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Yeah I'm at the same events, different location though.

    • @solefood7477
      @solefood7477 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Facts

    • @jakubvohrna1715
      @jakubvohrna1715 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @Deaven Does Not Exist DMT bro

    • @jakubvohrna1715
      @jakubvohrna1715 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @Deaven Does Not Exist I did all three (shrooms too) several times and I have have to say you are right at some point, but I expected a lot from DMT and still I was absolutly amazed what the the fuck just happened. Absolutly nothing similar to our reality and "world"

  • @christophtrispec3083
    @christophtrispec3083 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1129

    Coolest sentence ever, “this is a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D projection of an 8D object."

    • @alal792
      @alal792 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @Solutions Exist Neol DeGrass on Tyson would be seriously flubbergasted...being that this is outside of his script and acting ability :) yeah his name is real important to me, sure you can tell! Haha!

    • @medexamtoolscom
      @medexamtoolscom 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      It's excessive, because a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D projection is just a 2D representation of a 4D projection.

    • @psionicxxx
      @psionicxxx 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Oh my god. I feel uncomfortable surrounded with such dimwits. You can't imagine 8D objects ?? Really ??? It's simple: just imagine n-dimensional space... and take some dimensions out (yeah, this is a real sentence from my math professor. I gave up the university after that - real story)

    • @mydogbrian4814
      @mydogbrian4814 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      - Yes it's just a way to "really" dumb down a concept to where it loses a credibility as being a valid aid to comprehension.
      - It would be worse than 2d flatlanders understand not just 3 dim. reality, or even a 4th dim. one, but a 5 dim reality.
      - a Flatlander): " Now a fifth dim. object is a line that does even more crazy things than we can imagine a 4th dim. line can do or a 3 dim. line which we call a cube and does crazy things that our scientists call volume, time & gravity, all at once."
      - Just Forget it.

    • @ffggddss
      @ffggddss 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@medexamtoolscom Even more than that, a 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D projection of an 8D object, is just:
      • a 2D projection of an 8D object.
      Fred

  • @spruce117
    @spruce117 4 ปีที่แล้ว +255

    This video was so clear, concise, and logical that I watched all the ads so that Arvin will get paid.

    • @robseau
      @robseau 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Because God knows a physicist salary is a pittance.

    • @Salmanul_
      @Salmanul_ 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@robseau oh really?

    • @Dooality
      @Dooality 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Watching the ads instead of skipping them makes no difference for how much content creators get paid for them.

    • @4pharaoh
      @4pharaoh 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Oh! You suck up! ;-)

    • @gordonconlogue5686
      @gordonconlogue5686 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Dooality source?

  • @malcolmhays2726
    @malcolmhays2726 4 ปีที่แล้ว +63

    Interesting concept. Reminds me of how when the periodic table was developed we found new elements due to the "gaps" that were uncovered. By noticing the gaps, we could focus our energies on searching for the obvious missing elements.

    • @humane143imperfection6
      @humane143imperfection6 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      👆 take every new experimental science with a grain of salt, lest you be bogged down by the hippies for the rest of your life.

    • @Joseph-C
      @Joseph-C 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@humane143imperfection6okay dad

    • @SlinkShady
      @SlinkShady หลายเดือนก่อน

      yeah, it's nothing like that.

  • @laykehicks8413
    @laykehicks8413 5 ปีที่แล้ว +45

    "Took 18 mathematicians 4 years.." you know a granny would've knitted this shit in a hot minute.

    • @quanta2k
      @quanta2k 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      🤣🤣

    • @advikdutta
      @advikdutta 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      lol

    • @A_Stereotypical_Heretic
      @A_Stereotypical_Heretic 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      I got a doily in my bathroom that my grandma knitted with 512 dimensions

  • @خليهاأسهل
    @خليهاأسهل 5 ปีที่แล้ว +176

    ( . ) You see first a point, but if you watch closely you can see that this is a 1D representation of 2D representation of a 3D representation of a 4D projection of an 8D object.

    • @PVComedy
      @PVComedy 4 ปีที่แล้ว +48

      I see tittie

    • @TheDavidlloydjones
      @TheDavidlloydjones 4 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      Funny, that looks like a two-dimensional dot representing a zero-dimensional point to me.

    • @sthoughtsarchive2791
      @sthoughtsarchive2791 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@TheDavidlloydjones ikr

    • @TheDavidlloydjones
      @TheDavidlloydjones 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      ​@Little Red
      Physics is working just fine in the practical sense: we have a strong industrial civilization puttering along, and we can probably solve the carbon and climate problems in fifty or a hundred years flat.
      The epistemological cul-de-sac is more difficult, and I think this "dimensions" thingie is a large part of the brain-rot that is holding us back.
      A dot occupies a place. On a sheet of paper, you can go not in two dimensions but in a conceptually infinite number of directions, an actual number limited only by the grain of the graphite in your pencil.
      Space *is* a dimension, like time, mass, and the various charges, attractions, and repulsions.
      If your mathematics-du-jour requires eight or ten or eleven degrees of freedom (like directions, degrees of freedom are also called "dimensions" by the lazy people who got us into this mess) there are enough different forces around for you to conjure up the number you need. For today's presentation, that is.
      To answer your question, Little Red, the way you make things visible is by opening your eyes. Conceiving of what you see in useful ways is a bit more difficult, and getting the words right helps. Search under Rectification of Names, zheng ming or 正名, " to replace the current name or title of sth with a new one that reflects its true nature, a tenet of Confucian philosophy."

    • @themagicalcapricorn
      @themagicalcapricorn 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@TheDavidlloydjones 0k k vVO

  • @raphaella11120
    @raphaella11120 5 ปีที่แล้ว +206

    I really like the way you handle the scientific arguments. You point out the weaknesses of this theory and that. Especially the part about the Gravity Research Group was my favorite. I watched that movie you mentioned in the video (from which I learned the concept E8) and I didnt know it was including pseudo science. Thanks for introducing topics with every possible perspective! I appreciate your work!

    • @alal792
      @alal792 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      gravity is the hoax of scalar longitudinal energy hidden in plain sight. (the OTHER component of magnetism besides the horizontal - + which is really just OUR label for it as there is no - or + in that field, it's just energy).

    • @1SpudderR
      @1SpudderR 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Hmm....E8.....seems like the brain has some of those...seems like the Universe also is E8 + DNA + Unlimited Electromagnetic Wavelengths + Flat strings. And to get really flexible instead of adding these together “multiply” them! With 7,500,000,000 human brains..and You end up with “Nothing” But The Unlimited!

    • @nekoeko500
      @nekoeko500 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Didn't know of this gravity research whatever, but it sounds like bs... The e8 thing, in the other hand, even if it's not a valid theory of everything, just like other theory of everything wannabes, might be useful at making some predictions, or in any casezpoint us where to research to either prove orndisprove the existence of such theoretical particles.

    • @1SpudderR
      @1SpudderR 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      nekoeko500 Hmm....What is a Particle from your point of view?

    • @nekoeko500
      @nekoeko500 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Robert Rudd I'm no scientist, but I would say a type and amount of energy on a point in quantum field. My turn now: what's pseudoscience from your point of view?

  • @InvisibleJesus1919
    @InvisibleJesus1919 5 ปีที่แล้ว +394

    6:38 😂 it says "Large Hardon Collider" *Hadron 😂😂

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  5 ปีที่แล้ว +110

      Mike G Not intentional, but probably a Freudian slip. Lol.

    • @InvisibleJesus1919
      @InvisibleJesus1919 5 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@ArvinAsh it was probably autocorrect though we have no proof, though these people do have a lot on their minds like huge hard on's colliding with dark stars

    • @RoySherfan
      @RoySherfan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I don't get it. I have played that section several times and I'm hearing him say "hadron".

    • @InvisibleJesus1919
      @InvisibleJesus1919 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@RoySherfan its written on the screen

    • @RoySherfan
      @RoySherfan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@InvisibleJesus1919 aaah! XD

  • @NNiSYS
    @NNiSYS 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Hi Arvin. Your transparency, your simplicity and your scrutiny elicits my TRUST. Don't lose these gifts and thank you for them. Your work has now a place in my computer and in my own work.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Thanks. I appreciate that!

    • @NNiSYS
      @NNiSYS 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ArvinAsh feedback is important Arvin.

  • @joseville
    @joseville 4 ปีที่แล้ว +55

    Great video! Question about the 24 = 248 - 224 remaining points. Previously, it was stated that 28 known particles correspond to 224 (28x8) points. So wouldn't the remaining 24 points correspond to 3 particles?

    • @general7436
      @general7436 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Yes

    • @advikdutta
      @advikdutta 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      yes i think

    • @ashkanrouzbehnia2839
      @ashkanrouzbehnia2839 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      And CERN just discovered 3 new 'exotic' particles using LHC🌊👽

    • @geometron3646
      @geometron3646 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      quick google on a suspicion says it's not as simple... a photon for example doesn't have an antiparticle, it's a singlet, so multiplying that by 8 twice is a bit dodgy! There's multiple gluons, only some of which have anti-gluons, but apparently should be considered just another gluon really.
      "In the case of the gluons, because the color SU(3) symmetry is exact, the entire 8-element sets of gluons is its own "antiparticle set", but consists of three pairs of distinct particles which are antiparticle of each other (for instance R¯B and B¯R), plus two more, each of which is its own antiparticle."

    • @fuseteam
      @fuseteam 9 วันที่ผ่านมา

      that's a good point.....and then the higgs isn't included.....

  • @phdtobe
    @phdtobe 5 ปีที่แล้ว +38

    Great introduction to this concept for lay folk who have a hobby interest in theoretical physics but not the math background needed to have more than a cursory understanding.

  • @leoghpe
    @leoghpe 5 ปีที่แล้ว +65

    I I watched some videos of Quantum Gravity Researc. I found the E8 very interesting, however, when they started with pseudo science my bullshit alert rang. After that I was in doubt, and it's great to see that I was not the only one. With every video I watch from Arvin Ash, I really like his lucid, intellectually honest style.

    • @leoghpe
      @leoghpe 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@acidskies4348 ahahahah, funny guy.

    • @justinwinter4908
      @justinwinter4908 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Yes I agree "quantum gravity research " total quack, psuedo science. I am glad it was clarified here for those that may have been tricked by the well made videos from Q.G.R... and by "well made" I mean expensive, with actors and production, not with the content, lol

    • @b.michaelbrown1117
      @b.michaelbrown1117 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Why do we always dismiss things as psuedo science? But people cling to religious beliefs as fact. The only thing we know for certain, is that we know nothing. And the universe proves that to be true, time and time again.

    • @notmybestmoment
      @notmybestmoment 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@b.michaelbrown1117 @Justin Winter There is truth to be found in the universe. I don't believe it is beneficial to immediately dismiss what one may see as ridiculous or "pseudo-science". I think it is important to *at least* consider the implications, for it can lead us to fantastic conclusions about our purpose in the world, and the universe. We will soon discover that the world was not as it seemed before, and that as far as scientific consensus goes, there are many who deny obvious truths in their minds for fear of retribution or ridicule. It is only when we can freely speculate on seemingly crazy ideas that we might stumble upon something that is very true for us, so to speak.
      Physics and science has always been in a process of "aha! i've found the truth!" followed by cries of "no, that's stupid. that can't be the truth. you're crazy". Then, sooner or later, something about what they said eventually rings true in the context of new knowledge. The process repeats again, until we have finally found the truth.

  • @cesarb714
    @cesarb714 3 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    I’m so glad you did a video on e8. Been following it for years now. I’m not a scientist so my opinion doesn’t matter but from my limited understanding of physics, this seems to be a strong contender for a theory of everything. Thanks Arvin!

  • @nmarcel
    @nmarcel 5 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    The best part is that this simple and beautiful model is too good to be true, so it's ideal to be used in pseudo-science spiritual crap.

    • @2Worlds_and_InBetween
      @2Worlds_and_InBetween 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      yeah nutters
      the sun goes round the earth
      and that bs about radio waves and x-rays
      bunk
      the sky isn't the limit
      your belief system is

    • @mydogbrian4814
      @mydogbrian4814 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      SIMPLE? ____My ass.

    • @monkmane2345
      @monkmane2345 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      You could have been studying this for the past 4 years and I bet you still couldnt just simply explain this to me like I'm 5 😊

  • @Scorch428
    @Scorch428 5 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    I remember drawing that with a stencil pattern when I was like 5! Who would have guessed I solved everything?

    • @masicbemester
      @masicbemester 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      when you were 120? wait nvm

  • @anthonyiodice
    @anthonyiodice 5 ปีที่แล้ว +166

    Make a geometric shape complicated enough and any equation can be expressed in it

    • @dave2.077
      @dave2.077 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      mandala for big boys

    • @greatbriton8425
      @greatbriton8425 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Every known particle has known exact properties which can be expressed in relation (proportion) to the others. To make a symmetrical pattern in which 224 points' proportional relations matches the proportions and relations of all 224 known particles, would be difficult indeed. Presumably the symmetry of the pattern covers the up/down positive negative aspect of the known particles, so in actual fact the matching only has 12 unique factors to go on, however you also have to match up with the proportional accumulations of particle combinations, for example photon + lepton = electron; and the total has to match as well. This pattern has 24 too many but that's not a stretch to accommodate.

    • @EliCarlton
      @EliCarlton 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @timwins31 idk much about this level of math ive onl gone through calc 3 but i do know that this theory end at E8 because of group theory. E8 is for octonians which is like complex numbers but with less properties in common than the real numbers.
      I do not understand I will be honest but ive heard that going past E8 means you lose enough symmetries/properties that something diverges to infinity, thus making 8-dimensional numbers the highest order discrete lie group

    • @SteffiMarshall
      @SteffiMarshall 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Bravo!! Finally truth. And I'm saying Sophius Lie I think he said his name was..🤔 Sophia's Lie possibly

    • @anthonyiodice
      @anthonyiodice 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      There are no perfect 9 dimensional shapes

  • @denystull355
    @denystull355 5 ปีที่แล้ว +27

    Lie algebras were the reason I decided a bachelor's degree in Math was all I needed...things get really complex after that.

    • @mywifesboyfriendisfire
      @mywifesboyfriendisfire 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You missed out on the good stuff.

    • @denystull355
      @denystull355 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@mywifesboyfriendisfire Nah, I went into statistics and mathematical modeling...

  • @unintentionallydramatic
    @unintentionallydramatic 5 ปีที่แล้ว +44

    I've got an open mind about a lot of things but this really sounds more intended for the Spirit Science crowd.

    • @strategen9124
      @strategen9124 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Why

    • @strategen9124
      @strategen9124 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      What do you mean be spirit science

    • @MiqelDotCom
      @MiqelDotCom 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      @@strategen9124 - It's a new age youtube channel that uses pseudoscience when "explaining" metaphysical concepts using goofy animation. There's a heavy emphasis on geometry, and they make many ridiculous claims.

    • @darthutah6649
      @darthutah6649 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      you may be referring to quantum gravity research

    • @LANSl0t
      @LANSl0t 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@darthutah6649 quantum stuff actually exists?

  • @hannoverfist5628
    @hannoverfist5628 5 ปีที่แล้ว +183

    When you look for patterns......will always find them

    • @DonVigaDeFierro
      @DonVigaDeFierro 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Yeah, but one thing is looking for patterns, and the other is looking for mathematical predictions on how the universe behaves.

    • @justinwinter4908
      @justinwinter4908 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Exactly, you will always find what your looking for.
      Plus all the particles that dont exist, like the guy said that wrote the paper, "a long shot"

    • @dragonbane44
      @dragonbane44 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@justinwinter4908 Jury is still out. E8 lattice may still be right.

    • @matiasrisso5917
      @matiasrisso5917 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I mean if with his mapping he can make predictions of the undiscovered particles and then once found they match, that means something. Like Mendeleev with the first periodic table.

    • @stormtrooper9404
      @stormtrooper9404 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Matías Risso That's the problem with the E8 lattice! If the model is correct,than it can predict the missing particles... which he cannot! Long shot indeed..

  • @Euquila
    @Euquila 5 ปีที่แล้ว +51

    E8 lattice: "my 8-dimensional world will blow your mind"
    Hilbert space: "hold my infinite mindfuck"

    • @kobilica999
      @kobilica999 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's not problem with it being 8 dimensional, it's a structure (group) inside it thats mindfuck.

    • @Gam1n4eva
      @Gam1n4eva 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@kobilica999 anything beyond 4-D is a problem for us mortals

    • @milanstevic8424
      @milanstevic8424 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm not sure what's the practical difference between infinity and singularity, other than both signifying a similar type of incomprehensible boundary condition.

    • @TheYahmez
      @TheYahmez 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@milanstevic8424 'Conformal cyclic cosmology', have a gander.

    • @milanstevic8424
      @milanstevic8424 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@TheYahmez I know about CCC. Thanks!
      I also learned in the meantime that the only practical difference is in the assumption that all infinities are bound to mathematics, while we're not so sure in physics (there is no evidence), hence singularities. But the two terms denote two similar concepts when it comes to depicting spatial deformation.
      And then we can speculate about it, hence the idea of having a universe inside a singularity. We don't know if any given universe is infinite.

  • @bigredinfinity3126
    @bigredinfinity3126 5 ปีที่แล้ว +70

    Did you know there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity? Think about it!

    • @marccram6584
      @marccram6584 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Seems about right ..

    • @gerloke914
      @gerloke914 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Smart people...

    • @rn6045
      @rn6045 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Theres also a link between people going to the bathroom and dying after the age of 2.
      What I'm trying to say is that, that link you've created has no effective relation whatsoever.

    • @bigredinfinity3126
      @bigredinfinity3126 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@rn6045 it is a simpson reference th-cam.com/video/PbSG5JEfrVY/w-d-xo.html

    • @9and7
      @9and7 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      LMAO!!!

  • @radbrickdad7252
    @radbrickdad7252 5 ปีที่แล้ว +132

    This is great, but I lost it at "Large HARDON Collider" :D

    • @IncyzionEdits
      @IncyzionEdits 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      lmfao!

    • @monkeyrobotsinc.9875
      @monkeyrobotsinc.9875 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @Greg Moonen seriously?

    • @Prutswerk
      @Prutswerk 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Greg Moonen
      Maybe you should leave the priding to others, it could be that they would have spotted 999 more of those missed opportunities.

    • @Prutswerk
      @Prutswerk 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're the smart one, you figure it out.

    • @Prutswerk
      @Prutswerk 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Good night to you, sir.

  • @SoulDelSol
    @SoulDelSol 5 ปีที่แล้ว +275

    Is this why i saw that when i took hallucinogens? It felt like i saw nature of reality

    • @Upstreamprovider
      @Upstreamprovider 5 ปีที่แล้ว +34

      DMT? It's certainly intriguing...who knows?

    • @SoulDelSol
      @SoulDelSol 5 ปีที่แล้ว +47

      I was thinking of closed eye visuals on mushrooms and acid but actually yes i did see something similar to this open eyed with dmt. That was 14 years ago and still stands out. Any tryptamine really

    • @danno6169
      @danno6169 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      I had similar visuals (closed eye) on mushrooms.

    • @Melissa-nd8qc
      @Melissa-nd8qc 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@danno6169 same

    • @walmartshoppingcart2163
      @walmartshoppingcart2163 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      On Lucy Whenever I look at the ground like dirt or carpet or any flat surface I always see these Aztec type shapes that swirl

  • @timbuckthe2nd642
    @timbuckthe2nd642 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Interesting because people have reported seeing the same thing when they do DMT.
    It is called "The Chrysanthemum" aka the tunnel you go in when you "break through"

  • @markzambelli
    @markzambelli 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    r.e. Quantumn Gravity Research vids... omg I'm sooo glad you pointed out the pseudo-nonsense in these. I, too, was in awe of the production quality until midway through the first vid when the 'grain-of-salt' required became so big it broke their message, and my back! Thankyou.
    I still hold an almost guilty-pleasure for E8 being on the right track though, because of its sheer 'Diraq-ian' beauty... the very thing (ie beauty) that has influenced so many breakthroughs in physics (and kinda rings in with a superficial(?) connection with "The Eightfold Way")
    Thankyou for this vid and take care, one and all of you out there.
    Regards, Mark

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thank you. I share in your guilty pleasure. Well put!

  • @nameless9790
    @nameless9790 5 ปีที่แล้ว +68

    Thats the portal I saw when I broke through on dmt.

    • @suzukispider
      @suzukispider 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      cool, i hope to do that soon

    • @LowMedow
      @LowMedow 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Yea exaxtly what i was thinking.
      Your consciousness is moving about in that higher dimensional symmetry. The complexity is overwhelming, almost like a room of mirrors but yet your the center of everything, there is no up down left right. Everything moves around you.

    • @mattc420
      @mattc420 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I was gonna say that too. Shapes like this are everything and everything on dmt. It's a massive inflow of information. The chick sitting beside me was pissing herself during all this. That's how intense it was. Cool video.

  • @RightOne1
    @RightOne1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    This has given me a severe headache... an intellectual one.. I feel elevated.!

  • @RaffikiK
    @RaffikiK 5 ปีที่แล้ว +337

    The "Large Hard-on collider" sounds like the name of a very hip and nerdy gay bar.

    • @Burialofagod
      @Burialofagod 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      No it doesn't

    • @RaffikiK
      @RaffikiK 4 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      @@Burialofagod kind of

    • @uncleouch9795
      @uncleouch9795 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Ouch

    • @DaisyPusher
      @DaisyPusher 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      I want to go to there

    • @tmengucor
      @tmengucor 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      No.

  • @Pupsi
    @Pupsi 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    A theoretical shape. Purely mathematical. Like a cube. The mathematical idea of a cube.
    This is just the same. Just with more symmetry and dimensions.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Sums it up pretty well!

    • @PVComedy
      @PVComedy 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The theoretical shape of my pp is larger than the reality can u help pls

    • @alecmisra4964
      @alecmisra4964 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah its all about the cubes with these people.

  • @TinyFoxTom
    @TinyFoxTom 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Imagine you are a living 6-sided prism. You can move forward and back, left and right, but your third axis is fixed because it runs the entire height of the universe. All of your sensory organs are also this tall, and all other people and objects in the universe are this tall. If your eyes detect a photon at any height, you register it at all heights. You would effectively live in a 2-dimensional world, and would need some pretty wacky physics to prove it was 3-dimensional.
    In such a universe, let us assume the particles themselves are not the height of the universe. All particles would travel at the speed of light, but the ones traveling along the height axis would appear to travel slower. Mass would then be a function of the angle at which a particle travels with respect to the horizontal. For photons, the angle is zero, so the mass is zero. Objects which should collide instead seem to pass through one another most of the time because we do not see them going over or under particles in their way. We just see them passing through or colliding with each other arbitrarily. We would use probability functions to describe these interactions.
    This model might not explain our universe, but it is an example of the kind of imagination you need to understand even a sliver of our reality. That is how the physicist do.

    • @shorn7711
      @shorn7711 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      this was a fun thought exercise -- thank you!

  • @theloniousMac
    @theloniousMac 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    When looking at the moving depiction of the E8 Lie Group, I found it very unsettling. Like looking over the edge of a very tall building.

  • @JunkyardDigs
    @JunkyardDigs 2 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    The fact that I laughed at "Large Hardon Collider" 6:42 shows just how little of this video I was able to understand 😂

    • @JorJor812
      @JorJor812 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lol I saw that too

  • @LegareProd
    @LegareProd 5 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    if the connections equate to how things react to each other in real interactions, couldnt that be used in reverse to find these 24 generations of matter? im an artist not a math or science boy.

    • @oscill8ocelot
      @oscill8ocelot 4 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      This is basically how the early Periodic Table of Elements was used to predict the properties of elements that hadn't been discovered yet.

    • @amurrjuan
      @amurrjuan 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      Exactly, that how you would test the theory. You use the model to predict the properties of the missing particles, then you use the hadron collider to try to find matching particles. If you find them, it’s likely true, if you find particles that have no match to those in the model, then it’s false.

    • @JessieJussMessy
      @JessieJussMessy 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yaknow, I really wonder now if this can be tested using our accelerators. Perhaps even the planned geneva one that may or may not come to fruition. Would be cool if e8 lie lattice or w.e could be used as a way to predict possible particles as of yet unknown

    • @iCore7Gaming
      @iCore7Gaming 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@oscill8ocelot exactly, even though this is quite far fetched this could be like a periodic table for sub atomic particles

  • @allisonchains113
    @allisonchains113 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Garrett Lisi is brilliant. Quantum Gravity Research center is working on this right now. Physics is changing with our technology and with new technology, we are proving that String Theory is becoming obsolete. E8 lattice is why I started my undergraduate studies in Physics.

    • @ashkanrouzbehnia2839
      @ashkanrouzbehnia2839 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      And guess what CERN just discovered 3 new 'exotic' particles using LHC🌊👽

  • @mike814031
    @mike814031 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I absolutely love how interesting this is and I love how he explains it so well

  • @cyrilio
    @cyrilio 5 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    It would be cool if someone could 3D print a representation of this.

    • @carissakinney3356
      @carissakinney3356 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      But you would need an 8D printer or it won't be 8 dimensional.

    • @lordkrythic6246
      @lordkrythic6246 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      It's clear you didn't understand anything in this video. The diagram is a 2D projection from an 8D shape.

    • @monkeyrobotsinc.9875
      @monkeyrobotsinc.9875 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @@lordkrythic6246 its clear youre a douche.

    • @Oxxygen_io
      @Oxxygen_io 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@lordkrythic6246 Actually, its a flattened 3D representation of a 4D projection. say you interpolate the interactions between them like you can do with a light if you have 2 pieces 2D grids or holed shapes and move them on top of each other. Although 4D is still kind of problematic for our brains to comprehend.

    • @lordkrythic6246
      @lordkrythic6246 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Oxxygen_io
      So you just admitted that it's an orthographic projection, and is therefore 2D? God, you're an idiot.

  • @RandomActsofSkill
    @RandomActsofSkill 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I went into a high dose DMT trip with the intention of learning the nature of reality. I was transported to the center of this pattern but everything was shiny gold. It was moving all around me, never static.

  • @ffggddss
    @ffggddss 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    The effect of all those projections, from 8 dimensions to 4 to 3 to 2, is really just a 2-dimensional projection of an 8-dimensional object.
    The complexity isn't in the succession of many projections - *it's in the fact that the object itself is 8-dimensional!!*
    Fred

  • @sharma866
    @sharma866 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Hey dude I love the way you put up your work segregated without deviation from the main stream..
    Your contribution to science is significant.. I appreciate..keep it up..

  • @ahmjamil0
    @ahmjamil0 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Excellent video ! Incidentally, you posted this on 14th March, which happens to be my birthday and also that of a very famous Physicist. When I shared the Lie group to the Facebook, a friend of mine was awestruck and informed me that he had just registered for this course in Mathematics ! I was surprised !!

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Nice! Quite a coincidence.

  • @beansnrice321
    @beansnrice321 5 ปีที่แล้ว +92

    Thanks for calling bs on that Quantum Gravity Research group.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  5 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      Yeah, I know what you mean. I still love their videos Great productions I have to say. And of course, the narrator is excellent.

    • @FrancisGoForever
      @FrancisGoForever 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      When Klee Irwin brings up the conjecture of a Planck scale decision making operator, he clearly says that it's conjecture and that we don't necessarily have to anthropomorphize it. He literally says doing so would be new agey.
      Nowhere did he speculate that this Planck scale operator is god, but I suppose that's the way you've taken it.
      Think of all the mathematicians who did literally believe in god. There's no shortage of them. Why read between the lines and find belief in god where it may not exist when both of the inventors of calculus have plenty of that sort of thing that you can pour through?
      (asking for a friend)

    • @MrBollocks10
      @MrBollocks10 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @UCVshWPY8Tx1e5l608H3dIWA It seems to me belief in the original old G grows the closer they get to the end

    • @arunavaghatak8614
      @arunavaghatak8614 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @@ArvinAsh They are trying to mathematically model consciousness. I believe consciousness exists independent of the physical reality. We need more scientists like them who try to figure out the mathematics behind consciousness and it's interaction with matter. (In the same way physicists have been figuring out the workings of nature since the last 300 years).

    • @MrBollocks10
      @MrBollocks10 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      P.S. Amazing name

  • @umityayla5051
    @umityayla5051 5 ปีที่แล้ว +76

    Well am I the only one who does not understand even 1% of this video and watched it till the end?

    • @kyjo72682
      @kyjo72682 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      No, you are not. I don't see any connection whatsoever between this E8 object and the standard model. Seems like mumbo jumbo.

    • @sk8nplayguitar
      @sk8nplayguitar 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      UMIT YAYLA 🙋🏽‍♂️

    • @ukaszMarianszki
      @ukaszMarianszki 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      yes

    • @sammysam2615
      @sammysam2615 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'll translate when the psilocybin kicks in

    • @haha-kk8mo
      @haha-kk8mo 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      DATING HARLEY QUINN Alright buddy, then explain the gravity correlation thing to us

  • @gijsbarmentlo6607
    @gijsbarmentlo6607 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    They lose a lot of credibility saying you would need to find 24 new particle, it's 24/8 without acounting for supersymmetry. Makes it feel like they didn't do their research properly

    • @danielfisher587
      @danielfisher587 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I was thinking the same thing. Also, Z is really two particles (Z+ and Z-) and the Higgs boson is not included. So that's 30 particles. That leaves one missing particle of the 248/8 = 31 particles "predicted" by E8. Dark matter? Also, what are the 8 quantum numbers Lisi associates to each particle?

  • @paulwallis7586
    @paulwallis7586 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    That E8 image is geometry, and it's balanced geometry. Good enough to create a series of balanced, consistent functional relationships. I'd suggest using the Mandelbrot function to explore the relationships to give a consistent if time-consuming formula to map E8. Thing is that I think you'd wind up with a mandala.

  • @gutentagproduktion
    @gutentagproduktion 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Well said. Thanks for coming up with quantum gravity research. Always wondered about their „business model“

  • @robertschlesinger1342
    @robertschlesinger1342 5 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Excellent video. Skip Garibaldi has links to several of his mathematically rigorous papers and a more general explanation of the group on his home page. The most relevant papers by Garibaldi and Lisi may be found on arXiv.org

  • @divingbird7421
    @divingbird7421 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Dear Arvin could you please make a video about Donald Hoffman's "The Case against reality..." I am specifically interested in your analysis of the mathematics he is using and also if Quantum Theory emerges naturally out of his model?
    That would be really awsome.

  • @hightiernub1313
    @hightiernub1313 5 ปีที่แล้ว +45

    The predicted particles missing could be dark matter.

    • @hightiernub1313
      @hightiernub1313 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @Steve Owen There is a category type for dark matter and it is put of two subcategories of particles. Weakly Interacting Small Particles (WISPs) and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) which try to theorize the quanta of Dark Matter like Axions (WISPs) which interact weakly with photons and mostly with the Graviton field or General Relativity.

  • @jack.d7873
    @jack.d7873 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I've viewed the Quantum Gravity Research video's which admittedly launched me on my insatiable physics journey. Their video's are very entertaining but until 3 years later (now), watching Arvin Ash's interpretation of it, I thought that it was an entirely separate theory to Einstein and Neils Bhor. It seemed too far fetched. But now I see where it's originating from, so thank you Arvin Ash for that. But their video definitely let them down by not explaining the basics to physics noobs like I used to be.
    And Arvin Ash does say that they begin speaking of strange concepts of consciousness which could be emotionally influenced by the creator. But a Theory of Everything must include the radical concept of Einsteins deterministic universe which has SERIOUS implications on human experience. So this is most likely where consciousness gets tied into it.
    It's still a fascinating viewing experience that stretches your mind and is fun to watch. Do recommend. If only to get more peoples minds thinking outside the box in search of the truth of reality.

  • @aliviajeffreys4080
    @aliviajeffreys4080 4 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    Someone needs to study the relationship between dmt and e8 lattice. You literally experience e8 lattice as a type of 8d awareness on high dose dmt. Like e8 lattice is everything connected into one thing. Almost like it’s god. Like your god. Your e8 lattice. You are all of reality.
    At the very base of it all you are a high dimensional geometric awareness

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Interesting. I have heard that before.

  • @jasongann8535
    @jasongann8535 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    He’s so spot on about that one channel trying to force feed pseudoscience down koolo

  • @floyd3276
    @floyd3276 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I thought E8 was one of the 5 versions of string theory before M-theory unified the 5 in a major development.

    • @beri4138
      @beri4138 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's not. It's a different theory.

  • @johgranger1304
    @johgranger1304 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    It's 2023 and we now have Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks... so what now?

  • @gyurbanvikrenc8267
    @gyurbanvikrenc8267 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I drew almost exactly the same shape from a vision in 2004 (I connected the nodes with circles instead of straight lines). I didn't know what it was, but I knew it was impactful and the whole experience of drawing and observing it for hours made my personality change from someone who was into arts and humanities into someone interested in science. So much so that I left my history course and switched to a technical university and became an engineer instead of a historian.

  • @BryanDraffen
    @BryanDraffen 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Thank you so much for this!! Some of these concepts seemed to me to have legit origins, but QGR clearly has an agenda. Their founder likes to point the finger at established scientists in general for being closed minded... this instead of focusing on his own research. Much like the advocates of water memory.

  • @Kapiwolf123
    @Kapiwolf123 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Excellent videos Arvin. I am a fan. You are my favorite on this topic, and I can see that your number of subscribers is growing fast.

  • @bill-zy6dg
    @bill-zy6dg 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Richard Dawkins says he made the "Hardon" typo in one of his books, and wanted his editor to leave it in. The stet was denied.

  • @blobicusgaming3601
    @blobicusgaming3601 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Don’t they only have to find 12 particles? Cuz they each may have their anti equivalents

    • @kapsi
      @kapsi 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      And shouldn't that be divided by 8?

    • @Tsudico
      @Tsudico 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Not if the anti equivalent is already a known particle. I don't know if the Higgs, or some of the gauge bosons have anti-matter equivalents in the current understanding of the standard model.

    • @firebladetenn6633
      @firebladetenn6633 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      It seems almost like they only need to find three, which presents a problem with symmetry. Each particle has an antiparticle, and each one has eight quantum numbers. 24 missing particles, only three are missing, meaning either one of them is in both symmetries, or some aspect of the theory is wrong.
      Or I need to learn more about Quantum Mechanics, because I’ve learned from TH-cam and other google searches rather than decades of university study. I’m willing to hear how I’m misunderstanding this.

    • @matiasrisso5917
      @matiasrisso5917 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@firebladetenn6633 If one of them is the gravitron then it should not have an antiparticle.

    • @beri4138
      @beri4138 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I think the missing particles are the supersymmetric particles

  • @jeanmanuforti
    @jeanmanuforti 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The universe is the play, the dance, of absolute, infinite, eternal, unlimited Consciousness. Since it is unlimited it cannot be dualistically described using limiting relativisms. Love the vid! Thanks!

  • @swamihuman9395
    @swamihuman9395 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Kudos, well done. Thx for an objective, balanced presentation. It's often disappointing to check out a video on a truly interesting topic, only to find it tainted w/ misinformation/subjectivity while masquerading as science/math. FYI, I'm a math teacher, and science promoter, and as such, have a vested interest in properly presented science/math. So, great job. Thx. Keep up the awesome vids...

  • @PPYTAO
    @PPYTAO 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I feel like I’ve just stumbled upon a new favourite channel 👍

  • @darektidwell1158
    @darektidwell1158 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    props for calling out the Quantum Gravity Research weirdo

  • @richbuckley6917
    @richbuckley6917 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Taking it at face value, I plotted consciousness data points on to Lie’s figure and it seem to complete the schematic...then it spoke to me telepathically.

  • @ajchambers2211
    @ajchambers2211 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I am glad he touched on 'Quantum Gravity Research Group'. Call 'em how ya see 'em.

  • @MelissaThompson432
    @MelissaThompson432 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I did enjoy it. I think it's important (and I know there are other people doing it; I appreciate them, too) that there are people explaining things to those of us who dont have higher math backgrounds. I think it's often ignored that one doesnt have to have the math to understand the structure.

  • @JerseyMiller
    @JerseyMiller 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I love hearing about E8. Great video.

  • @mn-ru4li
    @mn-ru4li 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Thanks for the simple explanation and for highlighting the Quantum Gravity Research grey areas. I'm a complete layman, and while I found their vids easy to understand, there was something very cultish about their approach. I couldn't put my finger on it, but it felt like they were trying to indoctrinate me rather then educate.

  • @ffggddss
    @ffggddss 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    248?
    But that diagram has 240 vertices - 8 rings, each having 30 vertices. Are 8 of those, actually double?
    6:39 - 6:44 - Trouble!! "hadron" is misspelled in a way that will trigger Beavis and Butthead.
    Fred

    • @Cyber_Kriss
      @Cyber_Kriss 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Maybe its because science is... exciting !

    • @maxfmfdm
      @maxfmfdm 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      its the name for my man part

    • @IncyzionEdits
      @IncyzionEdits 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Benjamin Kahrmann it's painfully obvious by your profile pic that every concept in this video went miles over your head. Open a book.

  • @RickinHKG
    @RickinHKG 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Did I enjoy that? Yes. A great simplification of what I have no doubt is an incredibly complex subject, ... but mathematical and conceptually.

  • @Baekstrom
    @Baekstrom 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I like that you addressed the pseudo science nonsense that those people promote. I was a bit interested in this E8 Lie group theory I had heard about, but when I saw those unsubstantiated pseudo science claims I ended up rejecting the whole thing, and directed my interests elsewhere. It's a shame if some new age BS stands in the way for attention to, and funding for, some otherwise promising research.

  • @stargarz3735
    @stargarz3735 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    That E8 structure looks exactly like the objects the DMT entities show you. When looking into it you’re seeing it from inside, outside, all sides at once. Nothing can prepare you for when one of these entities hand you a higher dimension object.
    As for Quantum Research they’re right ! Consciousness is fundamental to the universe. It’s fundamental to collapse the wave function. It should be obvious! Consciousness is a quantum process.
    The main thing you should understand is that we are imprisoned in some kind of work of art. Let’s just call it what it is... a simulation. Enjoy your life and have fun!

    • @Creatorof3000
      @Creatorof3000 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      I was hoping someone would mention DMT in this thread. The first thing that came to mind when I first learned about the E8 was other people's accounts on DMT being shown the "profound, impossible objects". I will be taking my first trip soon. :)

  • @drlegendre
    @drlegendre 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    'Wow.. sounds like a bunch of woo-woo crap to me! What was that bit about the 24 missing particles again? You know, the one that you just kind of swept under the rug?

    • @KrustyKlown
      @KrustyKlown 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      drlegendre: There are 24 dark matter particles!!! EUREKA !!! Where's my Noble Prize?

    • @joegibbskins
      @joegibbskins 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      He didnt sweep it under the rug. He mentioned it several times, and even said that the guy who came up with the idea said it’s probably not true

    • @justinwinter4908
      @justinwinter4908 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Lol... that's a big missing piece. Plus the inclusion of the force carrying particles... yes there probably undiscovered particles, but to make the jump to 24, or to the e8 is a stretch.

  • @shazanali692
    @shazanali692 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Great explanation awesom

  • @TheKevphil
    @TheKevphil 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I appreciate your clarification of the Quantum Gravity people.

  • @capoeirastronaut
    @capoeirastronaut 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This is great. Excellent balanced critique of Quantum Gravity Research. Ace.

  • @QuantumPeter
    @QuantumPeter 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    *- Hinduism: "So,it's basicaly a Mandala. Nice job western science,we are on the same page now!"*

    • @rob28803
      @rob28803 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well Hindus are from indo-european stock, what do you expect?

    • @AliKandirr
      @AliKandirr 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      That sounds condescending

  • @MrJujuthedude
    @MrJujuthedude 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    After having watched this. Take a look at the North Rose Window, Notre Dame, Paris, France. Does it now look somewhat familiar?

  • @TrTriTrippin
    @TrTriTrippin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    we are the aliens on a rock floating through space, why is it so crazy that we could discover this ourselfs and not expect some ''alien race'' to reveal it to us....

  • @jackpistone8015
    @jackpistone8015 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    that is also what I really love about your videos... they go like...
    "is everything made of peanut butter and jelly? maybe - lets find out..................righttttttttttttttttttttt now"
    later:
    "yeah no not at all"

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hey, Nice! I'll have use that line in a future video!

  • @charleshudson5330
    @charleshudson5330 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nicely balanced view. Clear. Intriguing. Hopeful, rather than dismissive.

  • @atomicsamurai4001
    @atomicsamurai4001 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Love you from India

  • @eliovw
    @eliovw 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    "the large hardon collider" totally disrupted my attention on the physics 😂 sorry

    • @Amghannam
      @Amghannam 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      it's *Hadron Collider, but lol.
      Edit: Nvm, it was misspelled like that in the video.

  • @kaiserredgamer8943
    @kaiserredgamer8943 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Student: I want to know the basic code of the universe!
    Physicist: *shows E8* Now look at it.

    • @MouseGoat
      @MouseGoat 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      that's like looking at raw binary when trying to learn how to code a program.
      tho that is the what we will have to do.

  • @kerycktotebag8164
    @kerycktotebag8164 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    i just watched part of Mathemaniac's ongoing series about Lie algebra/groups/etc... and it was tempting to pattern‐seek into mysticism for inspiration (for me), but i wanna limit that catharsis‐driven over‐mathematicalization of physics, and this video helped me see E8 as a highly useful transformation that includes reductions (of maths elegance and notions of representative beauty) that are thoroughly broken by physics.
    It's a highly useful tool, but it's not everything even if it feels better that it be everything or possibly everything.

  • @averyrowan4544
    @averyrowan4544 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I like it when you comment on other science channels and explain their validity or invalidity. Yea I don’t always know what is true versus pseudoscience so I appreciate your input. Love your channel, it’s so approachable and clear. Uh, but I don’t understand E8 still.

  • @amoghskulkarni
    @amoghskulkarni 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Am I the only one who was waiting for him to explain what's in the center of E8?

    • @cazymike87
      @cazymike87 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It doesnt work like this. The math people think that reality is made up be very tiny cristals ( Quasicristals ) that are on the Plank scale.
      There are 8 spatial dimensions and 1 for time. And this quasicristals move (rotate) . When they move you get an electron , or a neutrino...etc. Its like a puzzle made up by this cristals on planck scale , that are on an E8 shape themselves.
      There is no center! Because only one point of this 248 points is real , on a time given period ! You get a reallity made up by particles and forces that are rendering itself. But, very important !!! Its not random - because there are rules...those depicted by Feyneman diagrames for example.
      Thats why , you need the counsciensce and outhers to depict reallity....because observing kinda change the whole game. See the double slit experiment.

    • @cazymike87
      @cazymike87 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      You get it why there is no center for the E8? Because, first try to find the center of this quasicristals . But this are on Planck scale , and if you try to find the center for them its useless , there are the building blocks of spatial reallity.
      You wanted the center for the E8 i belived- again useless, because only 1 point of this E8 is real on a time given period, on the next Planck scale the cristals rotate and another point render itself into reallity . Now you understand?

    • @cazymike87
      @cazymike87 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      There is no center because of the 248 points only 1 its in our reallity ...the rest of 247 arent

    • @amoghskulkarni
      @amoghskulkarni 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      So in other words, the points on the *surface* of E8 represent the particles, and not the interior. Since the interior doesn't mean anything, the question "what is at the center?" is an invalid one. Is that a good layman summary?

    • @cazymike87
      @cazymike87 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@amoghskulkarni Not really! The picture you see its in 2D . Try to imagine a ball that its toss in 2D space. You will see a small cercle that it gets bigger while moving into direction that its tossed the ball. Untill the circle gets to have the balls diametre. Then it goes smaller and smaller, untill it disapear.
      Now put a 8D ball into a 2D space. Your question : where its the centre its totally missplaced, like you see for yourself.

  • @bobthebassman7066
    @bobthebassman7066 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    I might light a blunt then come back and watch this again

  • @Erzmann255
    @Erzmann255 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    This seems suspiciously close to Bible numerology where you just keep interpreting until you get the result you want.

  • @kevinmccarthy8746
    @kevinmccarthy8746 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Great show Arvin. I like Astronomy and during Covid 19 shut down I was learning about the formation of stars and the elements. Next thing I know I am learning about the Standard Model, Quantum Entanglement and the Double Slit experiments. I enjoy reviewing a subject in physics like say it is Quantum Entanglement. I will watch several different shows on that subject to get a more comprehensive idea of what is going on which is a lot of fun for me. Thank you. Kevin from sunny Mexico.

  • @ryxd100
    @ryxd100 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Bro, thank you for criticizing things instead of just leaving it off without a counter argument.

  • @noegojimmy
    @noegojimmy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Anyone seen this before?
    Naughty little... Ofc you did. Psychedelics are illegal for a reason. In few generations there would be no mass control and Earth would be much better place to live on and Who would wish such an amazing circumstance.

    • @kyjo72682
      @kyjo72682 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Literally everyone? Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense... ;)

  • @nathb3315
    @nathb3315 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    i really like you're videos. You're the best!! Keep making new video's!

    • @armandonava03
      @armandonava03 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      People need to stop spreading this bullshit

  • @Thedeepseanomad
    @Thedeepseanomad 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    If this geometry is a correct or correct enough representation of how the universe works, then it should reveal some of the properties of these unknown particles and their relation to one another right? Like what energies and particle interactions are needed to create them?

    • @hendrik2765
      @hendrik2765 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      This is exactly what I was thinking. If there are missing points we at least know their connections, which means that we do have info about it. If not we are also missing forces according to the E8 model then.

    • @masticloxpoker1006
      @masticloxpoker1006 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I wonder, when you will be able to go to the 23th dimension, teleport yourself 45 googoplex light years away, create 523 googol universes by simulation, will you even then, bother to think? . HELLO, I AM YOU, WAKE UP, This is how reality works, hello, its nothingness and everything at the same time, you are interacting with yourself, Hello, description of appearances does not say how appearances come into being. Why cant you get it, are you so dellusional that you think this comment is written by someone else? You are writting this comment now yourself. Yes lets see how we can link appearances but we will have to use them in the most profound way possible, science is amazing, and discovering all the 2nd order reality is amazing, but what reality is? we are nothing , understand it, contemplate this.

    • @berlintanker
      @berlintanker 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thedeepseanomad
      Have you ever heard of TheMyCockInYourMouth theory??

    • @coreycantwell2019
      @coreycantwell2019 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lines connect the dots that you arbitrarily assign to particles, duh.
      The rest is magic or something, I don't know.

    • @masticloxpoker1006
      @masticloxpoker1006 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@coreycantwell2019 read my comment, thats it, you dont think it deep enough

  • @bmwolfe2786
    @bmwolfe2786 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thanks for shedding some light on those quantum gravity research videos. They're so well done, but my problem was they give off some strong "woowoo" vibes while also talking about stuff that rang true. I'm definitely not an expert so this clears things up. They seem to have some beef with Einstein lol. Thanks!

    • @justinwinter4908
      @justinwinter4908 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Totally psuedo science, presented to people as if it was real science

  • @ZiessRides
    @ZiessRides 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I did stumble upon the Quantum Gravity Research videos and immediately found their production values and style very enjoyable. Alas, I also found myself questioning as to what it was they were promoting. The pseudoscience can get heavy, but I do think they are worth a watch if you are looking for something thought provoking before bed.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I agree they are enjoyable to watch.

  • @nomdplume1606
    @nomdplume1606 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    “Large hardon” *snort* 6:37
    Anyway. Sophomore jokes aside. Nice video!

    • @williamthomas5780
      @williamthomas5780 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Just saw this. "snort"... That's even funnier.

  • @TheMagicat
    @TheMagicat 4 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Why do I always say "and that's coming up right now?"
    *And that's coming up... right now.*

  • @martinngina95
    @martinngina95 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    The surfer dude said string theory is all wrong.

  • @lpmet
    @lpmet 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thanks for brining this one Arvin, keep up the good work.

  • @travissheard6425
    @travissheard6425 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    This I like. Reminds me of a quote... "Which is gonna give first Bruce, your Spirit or ya body?" Wonderfully described. This is how I see the merkaba or how ever you wanna spell it. The auric energy field of the human spirit. Shit math just got more complicated. Love it!