Eigenbros ep 120 - Timothy Nguyen (Problems with Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity)
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 07. 2024
- Juan & Terence interview mathematician PhD, with a background in gauge theory, Timothy Nguyen. Tim along with Theo Polya wrote a paper titled "A Response to Geometric Unity," which went through the major flaws in Eric's Weinstein's theory of physics. 1) Problems with the shiab operator, 2) gauge anomalies, 3) Supersymmetry issues in 14 dimensions, and 4) a lack of technical details.
#GeometricUnity #EricWeinstein #TOE
Timestamps:
0:00 : Eigenbros intro
1:41 : Introduction
6:43 : Comment about level of presentation
7:31 : Basic setup (manifolds, observerse, metrics)
11:40 : Fiber bundles
15:24 : Gauge theory
21:29 : Trivial fiber bundle
22:17 : Why fiber bundles?
25:20 : Which way is the wind blowing? Example of a nontrivial fiber bundle
29:28 : Hairy Ball Theorem
34:48 : Start of Geometric Unity; unitary matrices
39:38 : U(128)
42:40 : Start of GU as a Theory of Everything
42:47 : Standard Model
46:18 : General Relativity
46:48 : What is a Theory of Everything?
49:55 : Red flag for GU as a Theory of Everything
54:41 : A more modest proposal
56:20 : Why is Eric presenting GU in his way?
58:08 : Start of technical details of GU
1:06:29 : Equations of motion
1:08:22 : Shiab operator
1:15:50 : Objection #1: Shiab operator
1:26:59 : What is a cotangent space?
1:29:01 : Momentum is a cotangent vector
1:31:11 : A very concrete way to understand Objection #1 in dimension 2
1:32:36 : Mistakes in science
1:36:35 : Pauli matrices
1:38:00 : Multiplication rule is with respect to the Clifford algebra structure, not the exterior algebra structure. (Forgot to state this!)
1:42:14 : Quaternions
1:46:45 : Complexification and explicit failure mode
1:50:58 : Bott periodicity (Raoul Bott was Eric’s advisor)
1:54:14 : Shiab operator wrapup
1:56:10 : Objection #2: Gauge Anomaly
1:57:08 : Renormalization
1:57:50 : Anomalies
2:01:22 : Qualitative, simple illustration example of anomalies in terms of 1D integrals
2:12:05 : Why is it a gauge anomaly?
2:15:48 : Objection #3: Supersymmetry
2:18:08 : Objection #4: Numerous Omissions
2:19:33 : Seiberg-Witten equations
2:22:57 : First red flag: the right sign
2:24:24 : Second red flag: no mention of Spin^c
2:26:44 : Closing words: Terence hopes Eric Weinstein responds
Corrections:
2:07:44 : Should be no e^(i*theta)
2:17:57 : You can’t have fermions in 14 dimensions and super symmetry without additional work
2:20:50 : There should be a + superscript over F (to denote the self-dual part of the curvature)
References:
Books:
Differential geometry / fiber bundles / spinors: Jost, Riemannian geometry
Seiberg-Witten equations: See Morgan, The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds or Kronheimer & Mrowka, Monopoles and Three-Manifolds
Momentum is a cotangent vector: See Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics
Response to Geometric Unity: timothynguyen.files.wordpress...
Decoding the Gurus podcast episode with Tim Nguyen: decoding-the-gurus.captivate....
________________________________________________________________________________
Follow us on twitter: / eigenbros
Support our channel: / eigenbros
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/1OIg3Px...
Social Media: linktr.ee/Eigenbros - Věda a technologie
I hope Eric watches this and responds to where he thinks Tim goes wrong in his analysis. I don’t understand Eric’s disdain for Theo Polya being anonymous since it was explained on decoding the gurus that Theo is trying to transition into industry away from academic physics, and he doesn’t want this weird internet drama to come up if they google his name. That sounds pretty reasonable to me, and all that matters is their technical arguments to begin with.
I also don’t understand Eric trying to associate Tim and Theo with the nasty people he describes making misogynistic remarks about Sabine when they themselves didn’t say it, and it was just a random person on some discord server. Rightly or wrongly, to me it just sounds like Eric is trying to make excuses to not engage the rebuttal, which is disappointing. Eric needs to approach the physics community and explain GU/market it or else it will be ignored as just a crank paper some guy self published on his website.
Eric will probably never reply. He has too big of an ego. I used to like him and he's a very bright guy but the fact that he doesn't address any type of criticism is dissapointing.
It’s because Erica fraud is at risk if he engages with people who see through his nonsense.
@Vebunkd if you google his name and Eric’s pops up there could be issues since he’s associated with the IDW, which is controversial. They won’t necessarily figure out the exact reason why Eric’s name is appearing.
@Vebunkd Eric has all the power in this relationship. If this controversy devolves, as it is likely, knowing Eric, into ad hominem (he has already accused them in public of making mysogynistic comments) and all kinds of acrimonious online drama, this will certainly make most HR managers look at this candidate as a crazy person who gets involved with shady characters and are obsessed with meaningless drama. Not to mention that Eric has a lot of clout in science- and engineering-based businesses. He's highly connected in Silicon Valley, and he is known for being very vindictive.
Not realizing this is not being quite in tune with the real employment world.
If "Theo" doesn't want his name in then he's not doing this for publicity. Plus he's not established (non-tenured, trying to leave academia) meaning he has a lot in common with Eric, ironically, (and Tim) so why does Eric attack these guys?
As a previous and longtime Eric follower, I'm very disappointed by his disingenuous behavior towards Timothy. For someone who repeatedly criticizes institutions, ad nauseam, for suppressing critical and independent thinking (the famous DISC - Distributed Ideas Supression Complex), he sure sees no irony in sweeping Timothy's assessment under the proverbial rug. As Timothy points out, Eric enjoys using fancy words and scientific babble, targeted at an audience that doesn't have the minimum requisite knowledge to understand his utterances. As someone finishing a PhD in an Applied Math field, I've always thought that his explanations lack basic clarity. Maybe Eric quit the academy too soon and never really had to teach undergrads any course, because he seems completely unable to understand his audience's background. I've had to teach some relatively advanced material in Statistics, and it's always possible to communicate effectively, if you truly understand the material that you're teaching. Timothy does a much, MUCH better job than Eric in his Eigenbros appearance.
I'm not qualified to judge the particulars of the debunking leveled against GU, but Timothy, who has a PhD in Math from MIT and who wrote his dissertation on a closely related topic, has the required knowledge and gravitas to address such claims. It is completely inexcusable for Eric to deflect Timothy's criticism, by claiming that the fact that one of his coathors wanted to remain anonymous, makes the paper invalid. That's the most petty and immature response I've ever heard! The identity of the author of some book or paper doesn't affect the quality of the arguments being made. A clear example of this is how seriously we've taken the notion of the blockchain and it's role in the functioning of descentralized currencies. We still don't know who Satoshi Nakamoto is, despite the relevance of their seminal paper in 2008. All this to say that Eric's refusal to engage the criticisms, based solely on the unknown identity of one of the coauthors, seems like a colossal ad hominem attack to me.
Eric and Bret's insistence that the system is fundamentally unfair with them and that their achievements almost merit a Nobel Prize, seemed like a grandiose claim at first. Now, I think that it's just outright delusional. Both Weinstein brothers are not the brilliant outsiders, fighting against a conspiracy of flawed institutions, but rather a couple of dilettantes who feed on the ingenuity and ignorance of their respective audiences. That is not to say that they don't have some valid ideas. The problem is that the gap between their real achievements and the cosmically inflated view that they have of themselves, is just too large to bridge. I believe that if their claims were presented with authentic humility and honest engagement with their critics, then no one would have any legitimate issue against the Weinsteins.
Shame on you, Eric, for not living up to your alleged standards. Shame on you for silencing your critics. And finally, shame on you for pretending to be the powerless outsider, when you're personal friends with Peter Thiel and can appear on Joe Rogan whenever you so desire.
Sadly, agree with a lot of this. Hope Eric chooses to engage Tim at some point because he has given lots of value to us and many others. I think most people wouldn't care at all if his theory was wrong. Seems so unnecessary
Agreed, basically. I was fascinated by Eric at first but his paranoia and defensiveness have begun to wear thin. We each make our choices. Many many people in academia can believe with some justification that they "deserve better". But they can't all be right, or rather, there just aren't enough "good" positions to go around. So,
you either get out or accept a position less than you would like. If you remain jealous of those lucky others, you are guaranteed a lifetime of misery. Much better to ask "what can I do to become a better person...to do better work" than to remain permanently bitter. At least Seiberg and Witten managed to finish papers. That is the minimum, fortunately or unfortunately, and MANY many talented people- whether in music, art or math- never reach their potential because they can't in one way or another get their act together. Part of getting one's act together arguably involves being generous and humble and nice to people, and enjoying what you do, and giving others credit, and being able to apoligise or accepts others' apologies....
Carlos: Well said! I am also deeply disappointed in Erics behavior. I used to view him as an intellectual hero with deep knowledge in many different areas. He is extremely intelligent but seems to have a major personality flaw. He clearly suffers from Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or megalomania.
The Weinstein brothers' true colors have come out this year, neither of them can handle any substantive criticism at all.
Wonderfully put Carlos.
Time stamp game on point 😩
It's all Tim Nguyen's doing. Eigenbros aren't that organized 😅😅
@@Eigenbros was def useful either way!
Hi dad
Eric should be collaborating with Tim to fix his issues. Instead I just hear him talk shit. This video was amazing. Just finished it and it helped me understand so much more about GU and the issues.
Where have you heard Eric talk shit? I haven’t seen it personally and Eric doesn’t strike me like the kind of person to be that petty (so far).
@@MelGibsonFan he made unfounded claims that Tim and Theo were part of a community that was harassing him and making misogynistic attacks against his family and colleagues. He's refused to respond in any substantive way to Tim's critiques of the math.
There is nothing to collaborate on. Eric's thing is a complete unsubstantiated delusion. This happens often around the real science.
@@igortovstopyat-nelip648 well, not completely true. It’s not quantized yet. That will have to be done obviously. Eric is frustrated with lack of constructive criticism instead of shooting it down from face value
Well done Eigenbros! I'm happy to see an ACTUAL academic debate make its way unfiltered to CZcams. So many of these academics are using new platforms to take a pretty one sided presentation without the necessary critique that follows.
We appreciate it. We try to be as unbiased as we can. Big fans of Eric Weinstein, but his theory has a long way to go still
@@Eigenbros I feel similarly about the theory! And its great to see a healthy critique as we all sort through the ideas.
@@Eigenbros big fan too, but he needs to address this. I would like to see these two have a discussion. Eric says he’s met nothing but silence, and this critique isn’t valid. Then please show us
Alright well I finished and I have to say, this is one of the best and most engaging physics videos I have watched in recent memory because of your great questions and of course due to Timothy's unbelievably good explanatory skills. He really didn't skimp on explaining all of the nuances and details and I was able to understand, at least on a basic conceptual level, what he was trying to communicate very clearly.
I know last week you posted a poll asking for what we wanted to know about GU, and all your GU coverage has been excellent so far but this one just turned out to be the best, most digestible and complete rundown of GU and its issues that I've seen, and I've tried to watch at least 6 or 7 of them.
Thanks a lot, Zair. That's big compliments coming from you. 🙏🙏
💯
Really appreciate you guys diving a bit deeper technically than is typically done with GU. Fantastic podcast. Kudos Timothy
You guys have no limit on time for these EPs and I love you for it
Excellent work! Timothy Nguyen's criticism is probably the only meaningful rebuttal that Eric Weinstein is going to get about his Geometric Unity unless he replies and engages with it.
If Eric Weinstein doesn't reply to this, the conversation could unfortunately dye, and Timothy Nguyen's criticism could become the final nail in the coffin of GU theory.
It would be pretty great if Eric did respond
I thought the point of Geometric Unity was to not quantise gravity and geometrify quantum theory like its namesake suggests? This implies discreteness of quantum theory is emergent from this underlying theory and unifies it with general relativity. I'm rather baffled Weinstein can tour the CZcams hotspots, but when challenged technically, doesn't engage in civil scientific debate.
i'm a big fan of eric, but i'm a bigger fan of scientific understanding. tim seems to be intellectually honest and of high integrity. he isn't doing the typical lazy character assassinations against eric. he's engaging with the substance of the theory. that's great. i hope eric engages with these criticisms. i know his typical critics have been pretty sleezy (and political) and his knee-jerk response to any criticism is now overly barbed.
Yeah, Tim is very intellectual honest. Thats a good way to put it. Everything is laid out clearly and would be very reasonable for Eric to respond to if he were to choose to
"Big fan of Eric and big fan of scientific understanding" Unfortunately you can only have one. The guy makes things more convoluted when he tries to explain something.
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or megalomania=Eric W.
I’ve seen Weinstein complain (IIRC at an Institute of Arts and Ideas forum, on CZcams) that he has read the papers of String Theory but they complain they’re too busy to respond to his work.
I didn’t know until now he was avoiding a rigorous challenge to his work.
It is a pity no one at the IAI forum didn’t call him out by simply saying “When are you going to reply to Tim Nguyen?”
--
FWIW: This video is very well explained. I thought it would be far beyond my mathematical knowledge but I understand far more than I expected.
At 3:17 on this video Weinstein complains String theorists have considered something he has put forward.
czcams.com/video/eOvqJwgY8ow/video.htmlsi=BJtx79wx749J8kCj
Congrats Timothy Nguyen, this is quite helpful for moving the discussion along. Great work!!!
Are you kidding me? This is... THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO BLOODY EVER! Dudes... DUDE! WOW. OH MY GOODNESS. how do I express how amazing this is. Timothy Nguyen IS A BLOODY LEGEND... CRIKEY! What a beautiful bunch of humans you are. wow. Thank you.... truly thank you. I have learnt so much from this.
😄😄 🔥🔥
"Like too big of a carpet being fit in too small of a room. It just keeps popping up everywhere when you try to push it down." Woh... that... is an amazing analogy.
Give me whatever you’re smoking, wow, awesome!
Bit of an overreaction you think?
Tim is probably the best math teacher I have ever seen. I hope he makes some math videos!
I agree, he would make a great 6th.grade math teacher.
He's not great at all. He's way too tortured over his analogies.
I'm just now watching this, and thinking they same thing. He'd be a BEAST of a math teacher if he focused his time there. It'd be wonderful if he made videos explaining advanced math concepts.
@@KidDroskiihe’s not a maths teacher and in fact he’s a terrible teacher. The constant uh…uh…uh…uh and his inability to complete a sentence makes him almost impossible to listen to. Most of the actual words he speaks when he can actually get one out don’t actually convey any useful information. I guarantee you learned absolutely nothing from this.
Wow, in the space of a couple of minutes, Tim explains the wedge product Λ. He does this by letting n = 2 and rolling it out. Math text books could benefit from this approach.
Good job by Tim, not only with the technical stuff but also explaining the process of how science gets done. It's a collaborative and iterative process. You do some work, people criticize it, and you correct it. Having insight is useful, of course, but mostly it's about doing the work so that other people can engage with it.
Great podcast! Learned a lot. Thanks Tim for all the work.
A few quick comments, mostly from a particle physics perspective...
I'll start by saying that I haven't watched through this video, just skimmed the transcript. I also haven't watched Eric's 2013 Oxford video. So this is based mostly on reading Tim's paper and Eric's paper.
From a grand unified perspective (unifying forces except gravity), Eric is building on the well-known idea that one "generation" of particles resembles an SO(10) spinor representation, and you can get multiple generations from SO(10+4n).
His unusual twist was to look at the 10 degrees of freedom in the 4x4 metric tensor, and say, maybe I can get these spinors from the fiber of possible metrics. The fiber has 10 dimensions, SO(10) is rotations in 10-dimensional space... though in the end he went for the full 14-dimensional bundle of fibers over 4-dimensional space-time, and SO(14).
I believe this is the crucial step in understanding GU, and I don't think anyone *has* understood it, myself included. As Tim mentioned, instead of the usual group of gauge transformations, GU is based on a group of 'tilted' transformations which (in Eric's paper) are said to extend the ordinary gauge group, in a way analogous to how the Poincare group extends the Lorentz group.
Simultaneously, Eric also says that his spinors will be "topological spinors" that don't presuppose a metric. So he's doing a few things differently from ordinary gauge theory.
Tim then has his main technical criticisms of GU: the shiab operator can't be defined unless the gauge group is complexified, but then the theory is nonunitary or has no ground state; and, it will have an uncancelled axial anomaly.
There might be ways around these things. A complex gauge group can be okay in a topological field theory (see reference 15 in Tim's paper). Anomalies can be cancelled in various ways.
In my opinion the original idea is interesting enough, that it's worth seeing if these criticisms can be countered. However, first one has to understand the nature and motivation of all these innovations - shiab operator, tilted group, topological spinors. There is some modified form of gauge theory being suggested here, derived from Eric's philosophy of modifying gauge theory to look more like general relativity (rather than working in the other direction). I believe this is the philosophical core of GU, and no one seems to have grasped it yet.
Thanks Sir
Tim and Eric's awesome show, great job!
It's refreshing how Tim is so humble, unlike Eric who gets off on trying to come off as brilliant to people without Ivy League phd's...
Tim is "humble" because like every mouse in this world, he has nothing to brag about. He hasn't had a single useful or original idea in his entire life. We can argue as to Weinstein's merits, but at least he has added some original ideas into the discussion.
Face it. Eric couldn’t imagine this without a PHD
If Eric was convinced of his theory he would promote it a lot harder, his presentations always have a low and awkward energy, my guess this is a prestige thing for him, it doesn`t have to be correct and he knows it.
I'm not invested either way, but your point around not promoting it harder is just wrong. He went on Joe Rogan, the largest podcast in the world to present it, and essentially got shutdown being too technical to a general audience.
As a person completely out of my own realm what I find fascinating is the fact that I'm listening to a person like Tim and I'm able to follow him quite a bit, while I often can't even summarize the points Eric is trying to make. As if he enjoys throwing some terminology around without even wanting to have the public following him.
That fits well to the fact that he published it exactly on April 1st.
No no no. Its because he was reluctant to release it for fear his discoveries might destroy the universe.
Eric never said that it was a finished theory, additionally I don't know many people who understand it.
The timestamps are very useful!
All thanks to Tim 🔥
I've watched this twice now, this was amazing even when you don't know hardly anything of what's being talked about. But the visuals, and examples, and how he walks through this is what you would expect from someone who really understands it, or at least understands enough to know that what they are looking at is bullshit
Thanks a lot and thanks to Tim for making such a concise presentation
@@Eigenbros you bet! You'll be getting some more views on this, have a few groups on facebook related to this, and sharing among others. Like this should be a standard in trying to do more of these, has a really nice side effect which I think relates well to just reasoning in general to show how we know things, and pointing out issues where others go wrong.
Thanks for the work and the content guys. Really cool, unique program. Good, intelligent discussion of academic ideas but without the feel that usually goes with stuff like that. This feels like I'm listening to the radio, but for nerds and I dig it.
Huge complement 🙏🙏
I really like how there is an audience asking questions I feel like this would improve lots of online lectures from both an educational and entertainment perspective.
A lot of them have it but the audience isn't usually mic'd so lots of times you have no idea what anyone is asking 😅😅
Great video so far guys. I actually am still in the process of watching it but so far this has been absolutely amazing. I'll leave another comment when I'm actually done, but so far it is just excellent. Timothy is a BEAST at explaining and is really making it digestible and comprehensible but without sacrificing the important conceptual information. I am really getting ahead of myself by commenting already but I just wanted to say how great it already is.
We appreciate it. 🔥🔥
The reason behind the definition of a fiber bundle is that it is a manifold on its own. More specifically, if x is a point in a manifold X and t is a point in a manifold T (e.g. indicating "temperature" ), then the pairs (x,t) are points in a manifold XT. In this way, we may think about the continuity or differentiability of a mapping x->t(x) in a coordinate free manner as some mapping from X to XT.
Excellent work guys.
What a great video! Tim's talk was excellent.
Tim is a man of dedication.
Not really, I mean if you understand the math, and you watch the lecture, these points are clear enough. The hard part is understanding what Eric is saying BETWEEN THE LINES and what the overall picture is, which Nguyen doesn't get AT ALL.
Bah... sorry... You are right in a SENSE. His understanding of some of the components and breaking those down is nice. But I'm just grumpy at people connecting that with "oh now I trust all the conclusions he says after".
I can make the same explainations of the math, and then if I say the theory means there is a purple elephant, would you believe it just as easily?
He is conflating points... Unnecessarily. Its poor form and honestly kind of an a-hole move.
Tim is also in the unique position to have an extremely similar background to Eric, which is why he is uniquely qualified to analyze the work
@@Eigenbros Wow Eigen....bro's....I am so sorry.... watching this entire video turned my stomach for the better half of 2.5 hours. This was a truly unbelievable performance.
I don't blame you or Tim. I mean I did up until this point (blame Tim). But after watching this performance I am shaking. I am so embarrassed for him. And now I have even shed a tear. They failed him bros.
What is his PhD in? Physics? This is what they produce these days from physics students who don't go into string theory? A computational mathematician? Wtf, now I am getting so passed.
I find it tragic that Tim did not learn how to speak the same language as every other physicist I have seen interact with Eric and Brian. I fully expected Tim to raise some bone of contention with the theory but no......Tim can't claim Eric's 69-page paper is "poorly written" and that his criticisms aren't answered in the paper spceifically because all that demonstrates is that he does not understand the paper. It takes Eric 69-pages to convey his theory and in 6 pages Tim has a "representation" of the theory and the critique.. ...that's efficient.
I really feel bad for Tim.....before watching this I really thought there was a problem with the conceptual framework but the theory is junk because he is unable to calculate the computational math due to bad instantiation? Why? Why did academia fail to teach him how to think and instead just taught him what to think?
@@TangieTown81 not sure what your on about. From your response, you sound like you really have no idea about physics education. What does String Theory have to do with anything?
@@Eigenbros You did this show after Eric's paper came out yes? Why didn't you point out the contradictions between his representation of GU and the actual paper? Or at least research that in advance of doing this show? How come Tim never gets any critical questions about that? He never has to answer for what he gets wrong about GU.....I don't understand it.
With respect to points 2, 3 and 4......some basic research or at least reaching out to experts within the community for validation would have provided for better content.
With respect to criticism #1 you should have asked what Eric meant by:
"gauge theory and relativity have been disconnected because of the incompatibility of contraction and gauge covariance of terms within the action."
Then ask him what he thinks Eric meant by:
"The former typically contracts between a differential form and some other bundle associated to the tangent bundle where the differential form is valued, while gauge rotation typically acts on the latter bundle without touching the forms."
Then ask him what he thinks Eric meant by:
"The ‘Ship in a Bottle’ construction attempts to get around this difficulty. By incorporating the gauge group into the contraction operator, the gauge group rotates only the bundle valued portion of a collection contracting forms {Φi} in which these special invariant differential forms are valued in such a way that it exactly compensates for the a symmetry of treatment in the form being contracted." AND ASK IF THAT IS A VALID APPROACH.
You had a key opportunity to push back with the benefit of Eric's words and instead permitted Tim to teach a bad lesson on basic physics.
I would have loved to hear Tim explain why that approach wouldn't work....and you could compare that answer to how Eric thinks it should work and push back with that.
The second time watching this, is more rewarding than the first. Wow. The Lie Group now makes sense to me intuitively when explaining the wind on the earth because the composition of two transposes produces a continuous symmetry, this leads to the null direction at one point due to the breaking of symmetrical output... Amazing... the wind flows around in a circle due, what I assume to be, a requirement of quantum mechanics.
Also hearing the gauge theory in regards to the fiber bundle again, I can now see that if you took a normal graph of calculus, you would be constrained to the 1 unit of x and of y... Whether that may be time and temperature, or sausages eaten per second. In the case of gauge theory on the fiber bundle, we are talking about a variable metric (sausages, beans, eggs..... ) at any given coordinate on that graph. This flexibility allows a mathematical operation to continue in a parry to the requirements of quantum mechanics.
Love you guys!! Thanks for this!
Ok, you just earned patron supporter by this guest. Do you have any roadmap where ur going in future?
Thanks. And nope. 😄😄
THANK YOU! My God trying to parse the foundations of geometric unity from Eric himself was so maddening, but you put it together in a way I could actually understand!
Pity it is entirely wrong.
Came out of the wilderness JUST for this 🙏🏾
to be fair . .i would like to hear Eric Weinstein response to this ..
To be fair, Eric will never respond because he's an egotistical delusional child.
Why do you reckon Eric still is refusing to respond to this after four months?
It's insane how intrinsically understanding fundamental notions of math can lead to. Teachers should care less about grades and make sure that students are aware of that.
🔥🔥🔥 pod as always.
They don't want you to know how powerful you can become with math 💪😁
Gonna have to get Eric on 🤓
Bott was not Eric’s advisor, he has said that Bott’s name is what appeared on his degree, but that he did not work with an advisor.
Which might sound unremarkable to people without a PhD but this is actually incredibly unusual.
A mutually beneficial podcast. good for tim good for the bros
@10:40 this question alone makes me sub! My kinda pace. I'm actually watching this first before watching EW's lecture. Coming from Nima's Amplituhedron work, I feel this geometric origin is in the right place. *Plato Intensifies*
The ship in a bottle metaphore was probably the only thing about Erics presentation that I understood. It seems like what he was saying was something like: if you try to put a ship through a hole smaller than it, you would just break all the masts. And in his example, each mast is a fundemental law of physics. General Relativity and 2 others. But if you can bend physics (the masts) by manipulating these higher dimensions, then you can put the ship in the bottle, then set those dimensions back to normal, which in turn will bring the ships masts (laws of physics) back into normal operation.
I fell like this is exactly what eric want’s, this is good for everyone involved.
@Robert Hunt when? Why?
@Robert Hunt after the exam period i will listen to it, thanks.
@@AG-pm3tc czcams.com/video/0LRjAWstrPc/video.html
The inversion of the circle is the perfect 2d model of manifold. Infinite plane with not a singularity but an internalized surface boundary. Event horizon is circle. Outside of membrane is “external” universe we think of as ours. Inside circle is the universe. With a skin of photons trapped in orbit (vacuum energy?) In orbit all the fields are rotated 90 from the way we usually conceive and as well if local gravity is c then all photons are at Planck frequency.
Would consider covering the lecture by nima called the "doom of space-time".
Timothy is a real G at teaching.
Inconsistencies may be resolved, the important lesson is what can you extract from this proposal. Especially, if more people starts by looking critically the GU proposal. I mean, after 50 years of getting no experimental confirmation ST and LQG; not even close to quantize gravity. It could be about time to look things from another framework even if is wrong in the end; the things that you can learn is rather more valuable that the main aim itself.
Thank you for the video.
Can i simplify tangent and cotangent vectors as: "tangent vectors show how and where i can move on a given surface, while cotangent vectors show me how far i moved on that surface"?
Thank you for this, unmatched clarity, i need to watch it again for certain. The boundaries and parameters were made clear in such a perfectly digestable bite. Again, thank you.
Brought to you by the Eigenbros™️
48:14 I think he says "vetted model", not embedded model (the subtitles say "embedded". I could be wrong but that is what I heard.
Great job
Thankyou I finally get what gauge theory is
Check out Tim's channel for more czcams.com/users/TimothyNguyen
Where did the name ‘Eigenbros’ come from?
The prefix eigen is everywhere in math and physics and we're a couple of "bro physicists" so the name worked 😄😄
@@Eigenbros right on, thanks
Eric is so good at discussing regular subjects, economics, politics etc. with metaphor and clear exposition. But he is not as good at this when discussing mathematical physics. I don't understand why this is the case.
this was great!
This is brilliant 👍
So, having gone through Eric's twitter, I would love to believe he tried to take this video down.
Yeah I actually thought the video was taken down because in the GU paper it said that 'no one can profit of this work etc...'
Tim seems dope.
As a non physics student, how do we know we are not living in more than the 4 dimensions we perceive.
We don't know. But it seems reasonable
not a physicist, but the explanation typically given is that it looks like things that propagate through space, like light and sound, spread out as though there were moving in only 3 dimensions. Like, sounds get less loud as the wavefront propagates as though the volume was being dispersed in 3 dimensions. but yeah, i mean, this is why theories like string theory which sometimes claims more than 3 dimensions isn't dismissed out of hand. there could be more.
Finally !!! 🔥🔥🔥
Raoul Bott wasn't Eric' advisor but it was put on documentation. Eric is clear about that.
Eric said Dror Bar Natan was closer to filling that role, unofficially. He also had long conversations with Isadore Manuel Singer before they fell out.
Can you do a session on black hole fuzzballs, also surface created by strings
would be poggers if we got a quality reference for 41:00 on spinors
Always been a fan of this wiki page for spin 1/2. There's a great gif there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-%C2%BD
An Introduction to Spinors and Geometry by Benn & Tucker is pretty good if you want to learn about spinors in the sense he's talking about them @41:00, which I believe is the case of spin bundles.
The book builds some of the diff geo background for you, and it includes instances of spinors in both GR and QM.
@@k-theory8604 Oh thanks!!
Just for the record. I remember Doctor Weinstein on clubhouse saying that apparently back in the day he used a different shiab operator.
Makes sense. These things always evolve over time, but it still seems the jury is out on how the Shiab operator is supposed to look
@@Eigenbros What I took away from the conversation was he forgot. That said I still remember how excited we all were when he released the paper. My gut reaction is there are concepts presented in a way many have not previously considered and that the diable(sp?) graph if transformed into a cylinder can then be spread along a sphere like caramel. Doctor Weinstein may not be the World’s greatest Chef but perhaps he is the Gordon Ramsay we need to light a fire under our butts. ^.^
@@TheMemesofDestruction Haha, there is certainly something to his idea. Even if incorrect it could imply a kind of "rotateable" mathematics. Like lensing? Or rotating a prism of light to get bands of color. In a way he's saying the current equations are not in harmony, coming from different directions, and that you need to do a transformation to get them working together like a happy family :P
And it implies... that our space time isn't foundational, but just a slice of the system that created it. And that this "extra stuff" of space creates the symmetry breaks that cause the quantum world.
I think of it right now like protospace1 and mirrorprotospace2, and they fractured from some all time all space weirdness before the big bang. Then these mirror halves of spacetime, interact in ways that create "sprouting" of these fibre spaces, like the cotangent spaces of each point, because you have more relativity because of the symmetries of having two protospacetimes. And those fibres give properties to matter and electromagnetic waves etc, at the same time it breezily creates a space for it to dance in. But it also does some other crazy stuff too.
But instead of a lop sided universe, you have this perfectly symmetrical one, just with mirrored aspects that lead to an emmergent complexity, that in the end closes its own loop.
Ah man... I wish others could see it. Imma one day properly explain it, but I've gotta get a grasp on how I could complete the shiabs etc, and make the equations cogent, and weed through all the implications. But its certainly got some heft. Nguyen doesn't even see the heft... Yikes... Toxic and weird. The first half of Nguyens explaination was fantastic tho, just the second half... yaaaah not so much. But the first half is very accurate and on point :)
@@Explainmerandom he didn’t invent the rotatoe but he invented rotatable maths - awesome
Question: from Timothy’s position of superior knowledge, does he think that the theories can be reconciled to agree? What is the nature of the difference? Does he have an intuition on what is missing in our knowledge?
I am a genius who recalls everything... but I forgot my shiab operator!
thank you !
If you want people to take your ideas seriously, the best bet is to release it on April fools day, on the largest podcast in the world, on a web domain that is based on a meme.
Duhhh
Kayfabe
Eigenbros podcast! ☺☺
Subscribed
Great video.
(1) What do you mean by algebraic?
(2) IMHO experience, using complex numbers, simplifies things. If Eric proved it for n>2, I'm cool with that, even though it's not infinity. Could you kindly expand? Thx again for the vids.
Yo this math was gnarly
1) On Complexification: Eric does this on page 22 of the document, and suggests for others to check his work, Tim didn't read the document carefully.
2) On SUSY No Go Theorems: GU doesn't have auxiliary internal symmetries, which frees Eric from many No Go Theorems which demand that SUSY produce superpartners with equal quantum numbers (The auxiliary symmetries). It doesn't and its explicitly stated in page 34 of the document to generate interest in further research. Once again, Tim is off the mark.
3) On Seiberg-Witten section: The sign "error" could be due to the fact that GU hints at a way around noncompact Gauge Groups, which are inevitable in mixed Space-Time signatures. Also, Spin(10,C) is mentioned in page 30 as a major ingredient to reduce his theory to Standard Model. Given that Eric prefers Pati-Salam Spin6xSpin4 as a maximally compact subgroup, in addition to Spin(10,C) with its extra U(1) group, I would say Eric has all the ingredients to stumble into the necessary Spin(4,C) required by SW equations. A little good faith goes a long way...
I would know, I wrote a Rap Song about GU.
Thank you for your comments:
1) Just because Eric uses complexification doesn't mean he uses it in a way that addresses our objection. What does p. 22 have to do with the non-isomorphism we stated and which follows from his video? The computation you raise culminates on the next page with a "=" because Eric asks for others to check the equals sign. You're most welcome to check it and report back on its correctness/relevance. Ultimately, the burden is on Eric to remember how to construct the Shiab operator (which we correctly pointed out was ill-defined and which Eric confesses on p. 42 he no longer knows how to do).
2) If that is so, then Eric should clarify why he mentions he is using SUSY as we pointed out in our paper (see the last link of timestamp #17 in our paper). If we are mistaken, then Eric (not others) should clarify which takes precedence and why one supercedes the other: what he said or what he wrote after our response paper.
3) Sign flip: This has nothing to do with compactness of gauge groups, it's about compactness of the underlying moduli space of solutions. The correct sign is needed to establish the necessary analytical estimates to ensure such compactness. No choice of gauge group will fix this sign issue in the equations. Also, look again: Spin^c(n) is not Spin(n, C).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even if Eric had all the right ingredients (which it appears he does not), he still has not put them together in a way that anyone would recognize as the Seiberg-Witten equations. Alas, no amount of evidence can definitely prove a negative assertion ("X cannot be a consequence of Y"), so if you wish to speculate on how GU/Seiberg-Witten might be salvageable, it is your right to do so. My job has been to evaluate precise claims with precise claims and to point out those which are not precise. If they are mistaken, precise counterarguments should be given, not further imprecise claims (least of all, expectations that others will fill in the details of GU on behalf of Eric).
@@tnguyen617
It’s ok for ideas to progress an error at a time.
You may be misinterpreting his audience, I believe his quote was “I’ll bring the ship in, and if no one can dock it I’ll do it myself.” It’s ok if that process takes years.
There’s constructive criticism and destructive criticism, and new ideas can be smashed to bits by destructive criticisms of imprecise first instantiations.
Is there no new interesting path being paved by GU? Such as using composite bundles to generate a true gauge theory of gravity, and the possibility of finding the standard model degrees of freedom in such a composite bundle. Eric is not alone in this thinking, it is in the literature but it doesn’t get wide press so why not also highlight some merits of the model?
If the instantiation of an idea is wrong a constructive criticism would salvage the value from the imprecise idea, which is not how academic science works. Which is why he’s working outside of the academy, you are certainly not forced to extend constructive criticism, but he shouldn’t be forced to engage with destructive criticism in the same way.
I do appreciate your time and attention, and the illuminating comments in the SW equations. I have found them elusive in my independent studies as a non-physicist rapper.
@@EngineeredTheMind there is an unknown tension which stems from their previous conversations, I don’t know if we’ll ever know what occurred in these conversations to make them turn sour. Let the theory evolve into its useful instantiations, or ignore it.
The GU takedown campaign is strange, though Tim has been very formal and gentlemanly. I hope his future videos with eigenbros show that this limited amount of exposure is just sampling bias. Tim is a good communicator and I did learn a ton from this video. On to Gauge Theory
@@tnguyen617. Found your comment down here and just wanted to express my gratitude for such a fantastic talk.
@@theterminalia8693 So are you saying that Tim’s rebuttal is inaccurate? Or are you saying that it’s “destructive,” in your opinion, because it might discourage Eric?
Hey eigenbros 🖐 chris lehto has a new unified field theory that he released today. Please take a look for us!
25:25 that's a pretty good circle.
Yeah his circle game is on point 👍
The truth is the history of physics is replete with examples of physical theories being ill -defined mathematically only to be cleaned-up rigorously later. Newtons Calculus doesn't get rigorous treatment until Weierstrass and Cauchy. Quantum mechanics doesn't get a rigorous footing until Von Neumann. Feynman's path integral is not very rigorous either. However, with those theories you got away with hand waving because they were either well motivated physically or made predictions that were hard to challenge. GU doesn't appear to do either. Mathematicians won't touch it because it is not a well-defined theory and physicists won't pay it any attention because it's not explaining or predicting any new physics. As a consequence, it has no value to either physicists or mathematicians.
Omg I feel really smart. I literally had the same objection about fiber space and just using a color code, etc.
This means, I'm actually following along. 😁
You're smart. 🧠 You're loyal. 👊 We appreciate you 🙏
Saaaa-wooon. 😊 Thank you!
The wound isn't blowing on the inside, but three isn't one. We are the surface of a crazy Schwartz surface only surface. The universe is profoundly asymmetrical
I have a lot of respect for Tim, he deserves an answer irrespective of his anonymous co-author Theo Polya. My initial impression of Tim was that he seemed to be extremely harsh and potentially trolly towards eric (who himself is rather trolly). I now see that Tim is acting in good faith and has been the only one thus far to have worked at recovering what was put forth by Eric in respects to Geometric Unity.
I have also
Is there really a riemannian metric g in GR? I believe it should be Lorentzian? That is, of index g = 1? I believe the convention is to say riemannian metric precisely when ind g = 0 and thus we get an inner product for each point p in a smooth manifold M.
The pseudo tensor "Tuv" is a riemannian manifold component.
FINALLY
I can't see theuniverse being other than Klein bottle shaped with event horizons being the intersection membrane between volume and surface. This is why the total tangentialization of surface at event horizon. This creates a standing wave over the surface of the black hole. The orbit at c. The infall to black holes becomes the vacuum energy emerging as neutrons in deepspace voids. The neutrons decay after 10 relativistic minutes into primordial hydrogen.
How do people trust a surface ,CMB, that you know is lensed to the point where a single photon is spread abroad the entire visual field?
No idea what your smoking but it must be some good sh*t 💯
At 1:48:45 the explanation seems wrong. To be isomorphic you don't have to be able to express elements of each group in terms of the elements of the other group. Isomorphism is having the same multiplicative structure, which it seems that both groups have. In fact, the operator for the hermitian group is addition and the operator for the quaternion group is multiplication - there is no legitimate way to "derive" anything in one group from the other. Also, quaternions are an 8-element group (the 4 he shows PLUS their negatives), not a 4-element group.
Isomorphism of bundles, in particular, means isomorphism of each fiber, which in this case, is regarded as a vector space. So it's enough to show that the complexified vector spaces are both isomorphic to the vector space of 2x2 complex matrices.
Reduced kaluza Klein. 3 physical and compact time. A Planck moment
The music in the background is weird :( .
Subbed!!!
Isn't shiab just supposed to be a way to transform some object while preserving some property? With Ship in a Bottle you have some thing (the ship) with some property (its shape) and you want to put it in the bottle (transform it) without losing some info (the shape). Shiab transformation preserves the properties we want while refactoring it into the target representation
It's relatively weird but still understandable. The video Weinstein put up contains this description (more or less). Is the math behind the operator substantially different from this general description?
Good question. It's really easy to come up with an idea for the properties that you want in a mathematical operator. It's like saying I want an umbrella that I don't have to carry, blocks rain from all directions, and it lasts for decades under extreme weather conditions. However, notice how difficult (or impossible) it would be to construct such an object. The same can be said for the Shiab operator. It has to meet certain mathematical criteria to be legitimate, but doing that may not necessarily but possible
@Eigenbros That's reasonable criticism, just a bit odd how there are sections where you and the guest give the impression that the analogy/concept is intractable despite how reasonable the explanation/goal seems (though I could easily have misinterpreted)
It would've been good to get that understanding with the guest and go over why it's nonsensical in this context, since there are plenty of contexts (generally and within math) where it makes sense
@@overreactengine I can't speak for Tim, but I have a suspicion that it could have been too "in the weeds" for this podcast
@@Eigenbros In group theory isn't there like a home base between groups kind of map between identities so that you walk from one operation into the center and out into the other operation? I just imagine he has all these relations and symmetries and the shiab is that central hub. I'm basically in the realm of mathematical mysticism because I am only re-learning junior highschool math now. But I enjoy thinking about the higher level stuff even if I'm well outside the realm of rigor or reality
But to use shiab you have to complexify first - he did not.
I love this haha:D
Just some bros here hosting a very interesting mathematical/physical presentation
I like the concept of mixing this usually entertainment-type-moderation and -format to present scientific papers and discussions!
Awesome! I feel like a format like this for many more sciences and fields would be fucking awesome and helpful to communicate scientific work to a broader audience; outwards from the core people doing the work to peers/students/amateurs and interested people!
:)
Legend
Moral of the story: check the (2x2) case first!!!
Geometric Unity is A trivial - in that the three models are models of the same thing - the question is the minimal complexity of the reconciliation.
You guys need a discord.
We have one available to members that join our patreon
I consider myself proud to have a tenuous grasp on several concepts in their overall description but not at a proofs level. I don't understand gauge theory at all. Is there a good analogy for a normie to understand the general concept of what gauge theory is attempting to explain? I've seen graphs and it means nothing to me. The best idea I have is that gauge theory is used to describe a macro correlation between as many correlating "sub-sets" as possible, given that those "sub-sets" can reliably fall into the gauge parameters...
All I know is that gauge transformations are like changing dollars into yen. You performed a gauge transformation by going from one type of currency to another
@@Eigenbros so, in a sense, you would use this type of mathematics to apply a "total" value to the concept of money by gauging currencies and conversions?
@@shootingwithguns3308 if i understood correctly (which I probably didn't) then in the money analogy you can basically see that there is a total amount of money in this world. If someone would ask the question, how much is there? then the question first becomes, how do you define that answer because you need some kind of unit to express how much money there is. You can choose USD to express that or you can use EUR. The choice is really arbitrary, but the gauge invariance comes from the point that you can use any of these units to express the same thing and the transformation is like the exchange rate. The currencies are just ways to look at the same thing and describe it. Perspectives so to say where the invariance comes from that these perspectives all give you an accurate description of the same object. If it wouldn't be invariant, that would mean that the perspective from the USD would yield something completely different than looking at it from EUR (which of course does not happen in this analogy but it would imply that the actual pool of money and the value would be different. In other words: looking at it as EUR it would mean there literally is more money and that from USD there is actual money missing).
So to put it a bit more back in the domain of Physics, given that you for example have Newton's theory of Gravity, then there is an invariance for Time because the theory will give you the exact same result if time runs forwards or backwards. The gravity doesn't change in that regard.
The Gauge invariance here is when you have a certain space with dimensions (X,Y,Z, just regular 3D as you know it), you can describe any point in that space by a set of coordinates representing X, Y, and Z. From which perspective (X/Y/Z) you do that is a matter of choice. You can write it as XYZ, XZY, YZX, YXZ, ZXY, ZYX. They are all perspectives to describe exactly the same real point in that space. You can even change the point where 0 (the origin of your metric) starts. It's just shifting the numbers so to say and you can smoothly transform between all these ways and origins.
🖖❤️🙏⏳ℹ️ cool channel
Eric won’t respond 😉🤓 FYI, his hype run dry - got caught out. He’s done, big up 🖖❤️✌️
"it was, needless to say, hard to read for a number of reasons."
i don't think it's needless.
that moment where the more you learn the more you realize how ignorant you are.. this is fascinating stuff i wish i had access to this kinda stuff when i was in high school/middle school
1:50:00 to 1:52:16 If they are 4D ℝ-vectorspaces they are isomorphic, no matter what basis. He says Ad(P) is no algebra, but I read it's one. He says in 1D Ad(P) is isomorphic to Λ… (a Clifford algebra), that means Ad(P) is an algebra. Is the point that there's no algebra isomorphism, but only one for the vectorspaces?
What Timothy points out is what Eric already explains (so nothing new). At 1:25 he explains the ship in a bottle metaphor and at 1:34 he says: “the adloint bundle looks like the Clifford algebra on the level of vectorspaces”. That's what I also mentioned above and what Timothy seems to get wrong.
Also the question how Eric wants to solve the problem of the missing isomorphism, I think, Eric answers. After 1:34 he depicts different possible ways to do this, but somewhere else, I think, he also says that he can't fill in all gaps because he's no physicist. He asks for help.
Well, I hope I saw the same lecture as Timothy.
Holy smurf!!! No they didn’t!!!!