The Geometry of Particle Physics: Garrett Lisi at TEDxMaui 2013
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มี.ค. 2013
- About the Presenter:
After getting his Ph.D. in physics from UC San Diego, Garrett moved to Maui, seeking an optimum balance between surfing and his theoretical research. While pursuing an unanswered question at the heart of Quantum Field Theory, he began to develop what he called "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything," which proposed a unified field theory combining particle physics and Albert Einstein's theory of gravitation. His story and work have been featured at TED, in Outside Magazine, The New Yorker, Surfer, and recently in Scientific American.
#FQXiVideoContest2014
About TEDx
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
The color 3D E8 orbit graphics I saw on "Wormhole" left me hungry to see more quantum art models of this. Outstanding and inspiring work.
Unlike strings, if this hypothesis fails, at least we have a beautiful mathematical shape as a consolation prize
You should see the spirograph version of the E8. That's the one I want on my t-shirt.
This is not Lisi's personal stuff. It's mainstream quantum field theory.
Well, Garrett misspoke slightly at about 2:40. The arrow doesn't "choose" a direction. If you balance it perfectly, and nothing disturbs it, it will just sit there. But something does disturb it. Something external to the arrow, and the arrow responds. It's not some magic thing - it's absolutely due to some tiny tiny bit of noise in the environment.
I agree. This bothered me a lot.
Does anyone know where i can buy this shirt?
Thanks man!
I consider myself fairly scientifically minded...but this was just whooosh
Thats because its math
already general relativity is graduate level, so are (when taught) QED and QCD. This are very complex topics indeed
Wow! An actual Good and interesting TED talk
Love the way he presents the entire concept
He legit lives in a van down by the river (snl) actually the ocean, saw him on through the wormhole, good dude.
Funny how both Lisi and Nassim Haramein, two of the brightest minds in physics today, both live in Hawaii.
Getting so close to a theory of everything!
Without space and time, it wouldn't be a 4-dimensional fabric, it would be a non-dimensional pre-fabric
Do I have to pre-treat the pre-fabric before I wash it in a dimensional machine, and then in a 4-dimensional dryer?
Thanks for your clarification, is great as well as you tShirt. Where may i get one?
of the 30% I was able to follow- it was fascinating
3:35 We ARE accelerating downwards, AND we're prevented from moving further downwards by our chairs (and all of the other matter between us and the center of the earth). That matter is the "potential energy" being continually expended to maintain that matter's existence, and our stable presence resting on the surface.
So, what is accelerating us downward?
We are like fish in a stream, but being pressed against a grate or a screen, and wondering why we're not able swim upstream.
"Turns out they take forever to inflate... lmao... gotta love hyperbola
Great stuff.
I dispute that we seek to find out what the universe "is." What we seek is to understand how the universe behaves. We postulate models, our goal being the simplest possible model, that allow us to make correct predictions about future measurements. We actually have no idea whether these things truly exist or not. We don't see them. We don't feel or smell them. We see an indicator on some instrument wiggle, and that wiggle confirms or contradicts our prediction.
Those physicists that deny consciousness will not say they want to know the behavior. But if those waves of energy and light at the core of this reality were not consciousness itself, we would not be here on this planet.
"magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons". These words come from the book THE QUANTUM WORLD written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. All physicists have their own behaviors and quirks. This is one I choose to follow.
In the book HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan are many pictures/diagrams of what we look like as eternal holograms and eternal electrical energy fields. I learned how to heal myself super quick reading books like these.
I recall mention that Garrett's Lisi's e8 Lie Group possibly predicts some potential characteristics of the Higgs Boson as it did for other particles. Did the recent discovery at LHC match any of those predicted characteristics?
I assume not, since he still seems to be working on the theory: arxiv.org/abs/1506.08073
@Ben you mad? Lmaoo
Cool dude he makes alot of sense
I would like to note that there are many new theories stating that no matter what we do, in terms of particle collision, we will never find a base molecule. This is based on new studies of the actual base geometry of particles themselves in relationship to their physics. Examples of this for one are shown in the nutrino effect. Although, this certainly is a very interesting piece, yet based on my studies at my university there is a strong pull in a new directions of physics. Surprise surprise.
I keep finding the absence a constant like Planck and Graviton, even more than 9 years ago. SJC TGO (turbo-gyro-oscillator).
Never went anywhere, well now we know. Woo woo science.
Hi could someone give me the name of the picture of the Higgs particle at 1:28 seconds into the video I would love to get a copy. Thanks!!
curt31tom www.firstcovers.net/thumbnail/13/1383.jpg
I released little to no real details on the subject as I have my own papers I wish to publish in the next few years but, I did release the most noticeable geometric shape that is particle physics. Everyone is definitely going to want to go watch. Today's time, to get my name out there, I'm going to use the internet the way I feel it was intended for. This is how you quickly reach masses of people. When the time comes to release my papers, in defense to not sound crazy, I released the visual picture of my research, and my theories. Everyone should check it out.
Your.Own.Universe -Tube
I want to see it.
Thank you Garrett, well done, Ted, Maui, peace and love, Doug.
The number of times smaller in diameter than The Planck Length the particles of The Standard model or other particles for sure would probably be a big notational array.
''Complex geometry?'' He told us? No....😏😏😏
Just magnificent By our dear GARETT LISI!!!!! I'm just waiting for your THEORY OF QUANTIC GRAVITY!!!👍💪🌞🏄
Badass tshirt. I'm getting one.
Very good info!!! Could the potential for human mathematics and physics be formed by the dynamic geometry of the Universe? This is an invitation to see a theory on 'time' with an emergent uncertain future that gives us a new understanding of quantum mechanics.
2 books I have read say time is simultaneous. The authors are physicists. THE QUANTUM WORLD by Ford and HANDS OF LIGHT by Brennan. Stop the world from spinning and what do you have? NOW, always the present now where energy is spinning and vibrating and rotating and pulsating, always in the now. Energy cannot spin, vibrate, rotate, or pulsate yesterday or tomorrow. We are always suspended in the NOW.
What General and Special Relativity did for physics, Einstein brought geometry to spacetime, so geometry was brought to particle physics? I will probably look for their tests on this.
NASSIM HARAMEIN!
TH-cam that name. he's been on top of these theories for decades!
add Garrett to the nobel list imho
Is it just me or is there nothing knew that he mention at all, all i understood is that hes basically talking about string theory but in a different way lol.
Doesn't seem like he's talking about string theory to me.
He is plotting the different "charges" particles have in various fields into N-dimensional space but that isn't "real" space. In his case the "dimensions" are just different fields overlaid on each other. So there are dimensions to represent the electroweak field, more dimensions for the strong field, etc but all of the dimensions of the plot are representations of certain values of the individual fields at a specific location of spacetime.
This seems to run counter to what I have seen explained in string theory that there actually are additional real dimensions that are too small for us to experience but are what strings vibrate in.
Of course my understanding of both theories is sorely limited.
I thought it very honest of him to keep saying 'we think'. Too often, we forget that what is presented by science is essentially mid-experiment. In addition, what he is presenting is of a physical experiment and until scientists factor in consciousness and it's creative power for producing the results sought, literally creating what is believed to be true, no result will be final. We're already popping into and out of existence particles every so many trillionth seconds. Building bigger machines cannot prove anything except big budgets. What we are looking for is what we are looking with.
"What we are looking for is what we are looking with" I like this one
True
Now that we are past the LHC upgrades and so many years since they looked for Strings, supersymmetry, and other particles predicted by Garrett's geometric interpretation, perhaps it is time to give up this line of search?
What do you propose?
According to Charle’s law
(and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics) as the
thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero
the volume of particles approach zero too.
It means the quantum particles at T=0K must have flat forms.
The most ideal flat geometrical form is form of circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . .
These circle -particles are without thickness. It means, we cannot reach
the T=0K and we cannot reach the density of these vacuum-particles.
We cannot observe vacuum - particles with tools, but thanks to
mathematics (physical-mathematical laws) we can understand their
real geometrical forms.
======
How about a 30 trillion yes....TRILLION dollar particle accelerator somewhere in the world,like the atlantic,a mt or something like that that,srsly if we as mankind could only get our shit together and realise physics is the one thing thats really worth pouring money into,fuck that would be awesome,that or the alcubierre drive...fucking amazing
Poor Lisi, it almost visibly hurts him when he tries to dumb the subject down enough so that audience can understand at least something.
No. The level of explanations in this lecture is nowhere near enough for audience to actually get a grip on what's going on. You need, at the bare minimum, understand complex numbers and matrices.
Lisi does try as hard as possible to convey it, but since he can't use neither of those concepts... it's a butchery of the actual theory.
No, it's probably your elitist-ego projecting that into his mimic. He seems to be actually pretty casual about it.
And also, the de-coding, abstraction and re-coding of all that uber-menschly concepts you seem to be a nobel expert of, is a very ambitious goal. And if you have some criticism, well just state out what you have to criticise explicitely. Just standing there and ranting about how un-dignified the ambition to teach those vulgar plebs some of the high arts is just makes you look as if you would rather keep it mystified to the bigger public so you can play the role of the elite intellectual. What do you study it for? To climb social hierarchy or to enjoy learning and the expansion of knowledge and application? If its mainly the first one, maybe you should consider a different occupation which actually gives you more self-value so maybe one day. you'll consider yourself getting on a stage and trying to share all that knowledge and fascination with others.
Nah, he just sucks at it. You see this kind of explanation with a lot of things. The context in which he is thinking is so vastly different from that of the audience, but he only uses one layer of analogy (pool toys). The rest is like "Just accept it at face value and trust that it makes sense", which makes it incredibly difficult to internalize that information and use it when he tries to move forward. Take the phrase "All of the charges of all of the known particles in physics.. match charges in this geometric structure".
Obviously there is no charge to the geometry, and by attempting to simplify to that resolution he is completely obscuring the point. The relationships between the particles across different properties map to the points in E8 across different dimensions. It's a mouthful, but conveying that in the form of "The shape of E8 looks like all the particles when we chart them out based on their properties", it sounds much more digestible, and leaves the impression that this is a leap in terms of belief (without secondary evidence), rather than a leap of definition (without primary context).
Anybody that wants to try to understand these things needs to watch more than a Ted talk...lmao
You want to discover an particule predicted with an knowing experiment but you create just the condittions to see it so you will see it like predicted but does it works like this in nature how a fourmiz know the geodesic .....
I like this guy
+Tom P. i wish he was my dad
It's called Group Theory , of anyone was wondering
particules look like flowers cause due to the incertitude on the position of the electron is kind of the electron let a trace behind him but this trace is discontinue and between the electron and the nucleus it has traped light so all of this form petals
Very interesting shtuff. Hurts my brain though.
ive not understood one word of what this guy has said, what is he talking about when he says time?
ok i'll try and think about it
dont force it man. over time you'll understand if you remain curious
Time is a causal, meaning logically interconnected, chain of events. It is a "dimension"(imagine a 3d object in a 3d graph with x,y,z. If it moves in a direction or collides with something else, it changes coordinates. To illustrate that, you would need multiple graphs which depict each movement frame by frame. This is basically the "fourth" of the dimensions which depict 4-dimensional space. It means that it is not static). This dimension is apperently not uniform for the whole universe, but if I understood it right, seems to relate differently to space (defined by the other 3 dimensions), dependent on gravity and other influences. So there are causal chains in point A and point B, and let's assume it's the same causal chains of events, but dependant on gravitational forces and the speed of their movement, they will go through different stages in different "speeds". So if you have to clocks and both start to move at different speeds and one is moving in double the speed of the other, and both are attempting to move around the earth, the faster clock could move twice around the earth while the slower moves only once around, both arriving at the same time, you would have the faster clock showing a slighlty earlier timetable than the slower one.
The question is, of course, why. And I think the big challenge is to explain that
He lost me at spherical balls
aka the flower of life!
@Ben Kahrmann Send me a link that debunks this
Yes, yes, we know next to nothing, I know. But that´s good and it´s a lot more than we knew 200 years ago. There aint any other creature that can do this on planet Earth and my bet is ( it´ll never be verified) that there´s nowhere else in the Universe where this is going on.
LOOK at his shirt.. :)
He could have explained it better, but I guess 12 minutes isn't a lot of time to do much of that.
@Ben Kahrmann what are you talking about? E8 ties General Relativity and Quantum Theory together; indeed, all sciences and mathematics of physics together - neatly and easily too. And with the finding of the Higgs Boson particle, E8 explains this Theory of Everything much better than String Theory; almost perfectly mathematically. There's a few minor discrepancies that need to be worked out, but not nearly as much or as grievous as in String Theory. This guy is just not exactly a great presenter/lecturer; his skill points are all dumped into Intelligence with little put into Charisma. But his work is still absolutely incredible and will only be explored with time.
Is everything just everything wrapped up inside itself?
Calabi-Yau manifold ?
E8 crystallization creates 4d reality.aka anti-matter
Plus plus plus...
Makes sense; the largest machine ever built - to detect the smallest observable particle for the shortest possible time. Astronomical bucks for a microscopical bang.
+Ralph Latham More use than the Kardashians though.
lol.
but seriously it takes a long track to accelerate a proton to 99.99% c
I want that shirt
Massive mindgasum
Can we fry a chiggen with the LHC?
I really like this guy, he's a little arrogant, but so was Einstein sooooo,..... 🤘😎🤘
At 1 time or another ppl ate pigeons & squirrels that's y when u approach them their weary
It's amazing that scientists can extrapolate anything from the soup of creation
I want whatever he's on.
Seriously...We're looking at Creative Physics
substanciated by math & experimentation.
The only question remaining is who will do the funding.'
i.e. CERN costs billions.
Point:
Looking forward to a "Mass Alphabet" by GL so a "clear & concise" language
can be used for math & experimentation.
Note:
Once you have the alphabet the next step is the "Dictionary".
All for Free Enterprise at work,
hmm,
And in all the glory of what we have learned over years you still tell me renewable and free energy is out of our hands for some reason? that's always been funny to me.
energy is not important. there are laws of physics that say energy cannot be created or destroyed.
the problem is that we loose organized energy over time, according to the second law of thermodynamics.
fossil fuels are great examples of organized energy. but making organized energy requires energy so you can't really win
the laws of physics say ur a dirty hippie
That guy cannot hold still
Pretty sure the higgs is the relativistic fabric of space.
thats what i was thinking..I WANT ONE!!!...do you think i can follow Garrets simple instructions and create one out of particles of my other clothes!!!
Basically the reason why all matter exists is due to the Higgs Boson aka "God particle" because at the subatomic level particles interact with it. Notices that photons are not listed. Light is a strange creature to say the least.
Well, not "exists", rather, the Higg's Boson gives things mass (so we're not all acting like photons flying around at the speed limit of the universe). Only a theory, though. They never found the Higg's Boson, it was announced after some time of the discovery that they had made a mistake.
Sky T no they found it
Also light doesnt interact with the field
there is no flow of time, there is a flow of matter the creates the illusion of time
haha same name!
17 miles of machinery to get the same inklings as DMT. Good job nerds.
To detect the other particules this is not a matter of accelerator with an accelerator you can detect only 1% of all particule to detect the other i can give you an idea the balay keyboard magnetic laser musical you will understand why there is wind cause i renember to you it is impossible to push from fixe you need an other kind of force called soundeo with his own particule the soun .......
The hand move with the arms dummy ....
Essayer de pousser sans bouger you have the illusion that there is a move cause you use different system to emplifiate the wind but the soun is all about pressure gravity and temperature why if you put a candle sous cloche it still move like there is wind ..... the move is just used to amplify ... the palme of a plane will be impossible without soun cause if you calculate the good angle of the move force with the density of the air you will remark a lack in power mais je peux encore vous expliquer mieux avec les cyclones pourquoi les vents sont de plus en plus rapide plus on seloigne du centre cest logic si le centre tourne plus vite mais il est immobile......
Another thing johny sins is good at
Makes no sense to me how "time" can just "arrive" without reference... I think he is calling this "thing" that chooses to go "in some random direction" at "the beggining of time"... "time"....
This feels wrong.
Grab a pencil, hold it point up on your desk, drop it, see which direction it's pointing in. Imagine the same for the arrow of time at the beginning of the universe, the direction being 'where' the arrow of time propagates onward. If it feels wrong, it's probably because you're assuming this is an answer to the 'why' question. It's not, physics answers the 'how' question. If you want 'why', study some philosophy.
James Hansen Physicists would like to apply the concept of degree of freedom enjoyed by space to time so that symmetry breaking would have some reference point. I think Nicolas' comment is valid as one must make the assumption about this mysterious degree of freedom when applied to time in order to say there is symmetry breaking. Fiber bundles only beg the question and the division between physics and philosophy may have to be bridged at some point if we are to ever understand this phenomena with any degree of satisfaction.
I agree with you about philosophy, but still only within the domain of the 'why' versus the 'how' question. That's the only distinction I'm trying to make. That rationalistic science will become better and better at describing 'how' but will not touch on 'why', because the latter is qualitative, subjective, and relative. Perhaps if one could aggregate the trajectories of every single point-consciousness in a given physical universe you could extrapolate an abstraction of 'why'.
Gene Catrambone Could of not put it better myself on the matter of division between science and philosophy. I believe it is all a subset of philosophy.
As for the question of 'why', this seems irrelevant to me. You dont have to ask why, it's instead a notion of cause. While Bell's inequalities predict causality is violated on the quantum level, I argue how can that be based on two unrelated premises.
For one, if causality is violated on the quantum level or on the fundamental scales of physics the universe is non deterministic, then there simply is no way for certainty and cause to ever come about, yet it does seemingly on the macroscopic scale.
An alternative approach is by analogy of the very same experiment Bell used to prove his inequalities, showing the inherent differences between classical and non classical theories and that of the work of Turing on universal turing machines and computation. Turing machines are generally divided into probabilistic(non deterministic) turing machines and deterministic turing machines. a probabilistic turing machine is more powerful then a deterministic turing machine in that it can compute things a deterministic turing machine can not. That being said it is always possible for a deterministic turing machine to simulate a probabilistic turing machine. In analogous way as our universe can be thought of a form of computation, our universe obviously always is able to know just what to do. I am not convinced that cause and effect are merely an illusion. Surely a classical theory could simulate a probabilistic one.
" The Hadron collider stretches for 17 miles...." How big is it if you don't stretch it ?
NEWKNOWLEDGE 😂😂😂
So what are you guys trying to do with this technology build a bomb or something?
Mene Mene Tekel Parsin
What people REALLY want to know is why physics continues to say the words mass and matter, when these are words that describe the waves of energy and light at the core of this existence. There is nothing solid or physical about any of this. SO........there is no such thing as death. We are the same energy and light beings here on earth as when we leave these bodies at what is called death. To create our presence on earth, our intentions cause waves to bunch up more heavily/thickly so that we don't see through each other. But still, we are not physical or solid. These are misleading words that have caused all the tortures in this world. When people believe that death exists, then they go out and "kill" someone. But someone killed just leaves their body to go on to other dimensions. There is at least one physicist that built a college to teach this. The book is HANDS OF LIGHT written by the physicist Barbara Brennan.
You are convinced to solve it but there is one detail which all the coming and going wannabe messiahs have in common: you are definitely not that guy...pal.
@@TuranciHareket BUT, YOU are that guy, that guy whose name I surely saw in that book MERCHANTS OF DOUBT.
I know what I say is true because I have read over 200 books written by professionals called physicists and psychologists and psychiatrists and nutritionists. Physics 101 and Electricity 101 teach that at the core of this existence are waves of energy and light. These are the energy at the core of us and everything else. From there burst forth quarks which are spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light forming protons and neutrons, which are atoms. You can find this sentence in the book THE QUANTUM WORLD. The physicist Kahili says electrons and quarks are the smallest of the small subatomic particles from which we are derived. He is not alone.
Meanwhile, you have no information at all to share with anyone. No information to teach or enlighten the world, so what would YOU know about messiahs?
I don't even?
I had a feeling geometry would be the surprise in quantum physics
huck shmuck AntMan shrinking scene
It is more related to mysticism than science.
I don't understand why people describe time as a thing, when it's a measurement of things. Time doesn't speed up, particles in certain pockets of space speed up and time measures that increase or decrease of speed. Time doesn't exist without things that move, because time is just the measurement of the speed things move from one place to another.
Dawisk t
temerature also..
de link between d speed and measurement.
. mm
Time does not and cannot exist, for time is an illusion. Everything was made from Source Consciousness, an eternal, timeless void of potential. Which is why matter is also an illusion. We are, imho, pieces of consciousness experiencing a very convincing 3D hologram.
When was the last time that you wanted something and that pope out of nothing? It takes a little thinking to realize this is a designed universe. Look at your own body and bow down to the creator.
Shut up !
Saranjeet Singh The comment section of every science video has to have at least one of them. What a tool.
Hey you're right, so no matter how much you want your god to exist, it won't :)
+COGG Here we go with the invisible space daddy again
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm lime polo.
See... TED Talks does have a comedy section. It sure isn't...science.
Except they never found the Higg's Boson, they made a mistake. Announced it and said we have much more to learn, and media was silent on it.
Sky T reality is discovery of Higgs is finding hidden gem by applying statistics in huge data.
Well, that's a given. we cannot directly observe particles like a normal object in the macro-scale. And in that massive amount of data mined out of the collisions that year, they made a mistake in the calculation, wrongfully announced the discovery of the Higg's Boson. Later they found the number they calculated (after correction) was actually not a match to the Higg's Boson's number (constant in the equation). Which means there is much we actually don't understand especially having to do with the standard model. I looked into this is because I am a data scientist. You should look into it. I believe they did not want to publicize this because there is so much vested interest in the standard model, which is inherently flawed to begin with.
Sky T Source?
Source?
In July 2017, CERN confirmed that all measurements still agree with the predictions of the Standard Model, and called the discovered particle simply "the Higgs boson".[1] As of April 2018, the Large Hadron Collider has continued to produce findings that confirm the 2013 understanding of the Higgs field and particle.
so we will finally find out the speed of dark now?
I may be too blond for this :P
it's spelled blonde
jk no offense
Your IQ is probably in the 90-percentile of the entire world population.
So, its just goes one step deeper, what created that then? who created god..
As a layman, who reads pop science and watch youtube videos on science and physics, I prefer this to string theory. I think he's on to something.
Disproven by Skip Garibaldi.
There is no fondamentale particule cause the moon will fall on Earth ....
So then you can get something from nothing?
Too complex to understand!
After the 5th time it starts to make sense. ^^
Haha... ok will watch again! :)
You should see the math.. !
Wtf... Badly explained lecture
It’s a mandala welcome to Hinduism
uuuit somewhat sounds as though a lot of smelly excuses gotta be conjoured in a failed model in order to smear over the huge investment efforts that have thus far led up to this stage of 'sciences'
And that was the only particle they discovered congrats. Now the collider is a giant useless piece of junk
So, except for the 96% of the universe made up of stuff that we can't see or explain, we're pretty sure we understand how everything works now?
Eric Weinstein's nemesis!
how is he Weinstein's nemesis?
@@ethiopianphenomenon6574 Eric had always referred to having a nemesis, but nobody knew who he was referring to until episode 15 of the Portal podcast where Garrett Lisi was the guest and it was confirmed. Weinstein and Lisi are both brilliant rogues who have made attempts at understanding the source code of the universe, but in their own separate ways, something like that. So I guess it's like a rivalry to see who can crack the code first on their own - nemesis.
@@DerekMoore82 Interesting, I had no clue Garret Lisi was on "The Portal". I'm going to go check it out.
Thats nice and all but still only theroy. With tons of hole. This guy doesnt even believe himself.
Mathew Payne -- Who's Theroy?
I'm sure you have a much more consistent theory for us, but until then the rational ones will get by by questioning it systematically instead of criticising the speaker's enthusiasm.
Mathew Payne you are funny.
Mathew Payne Not a theory, but an hypotheses. To be classified as a scientific theory, it first need to be verified through experiments and the correct data.
Vapor Wave - sama at least is falsifiable
possibly the worst presenter ever
FantastyckplastycK you can compare this to how you can try to explain calculus to a kindergarten student about how we get value of pie and how it creates shape of a ball it’s shape.
Tedx talks are overrated in general.
This guy has no credibility whatsoever.