A problem for Eric Weinstein is that he can't explain his theories to anyone in an understandable way, not even to very smart and educated people like his friend Sabine Hossenfelder.

kinda looks and sounds like mark hamil

how anyone could be richest person on the planet

Thanks, that was great! I have a small question about the experimental setup. Suppose Alice's lab is on the North Pole and Bob's lab is on the Equator, how would they have to place their coordinates system to observe the perfect anti-correlations? For example, if we take the spin property and Alice makes a measurement with the magnetic field along the z direction, what would be the "z direction" for Bob?

I have a PhD in mathematics (specialized in PDE). I looked for an opportunity for Category Theory to be useful for years but I still don't see it. As far as I can tell Category Theory is about a limited subset of proof structures, showing you how *some* proofs in one area of math can be rewritten into *some* other areas of math. However there has never been a single example of someone actually using Category Theory to find new theorems. Almost always the parallels were obvious and so Category Theory wasn't needed, or the people specialized in each area already had proofs of the relevant theorems before anyone found a Categorical connection between them.

First time seeing Ethan Siegel and I really like him. Thanks for this video. Tim, I hear you. Your main point being that Eric won't discuss or accept a paper critiquing his theory from an anonymous person. I've seen lots of your videos about this. And I've ALSO seen this OTHER youtuber's videos who CRITIQUES your paper critiquing Eric's paper. Now... I don't know what to think yet. If I get a chance to edit down his many mutli-hour videos where he covers this topic about Eric's theory (some of which involve his critiques on your critiques), I'll let you know.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

I love Sean Carroll’s spirit. He is simultaneously sedate and motivating.

22:50 Light doesn't even travel dude! Its already everywhere.

Very good questions. It's quite amazing how well Sean explains stuff in a way that people without a math background (like myself) can learn from. QM has many ideas, definitions, terms, etc. This video has helped a lot with that, but still realizing that knowing the math is the way to get the proper feel for it. Just the generalities and vague words are very interesting. As far as my favorite 'interpretation of QM'... I would have to know the math and understand the complex definitions first. To me, the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds seem unlikely... but I'm sure 'reality' is even stranger. There has to be a reality, but humans don't have to be able to understand it. Thanks for the great video, Tim.

Sean Carroll through a variety of mediums indeed!

I’m wandering, in experiments with entangled particles, how do they make sure “exactness” of the direction they measure spin along. And how to define exactness of directions of spatially separated aparata, or exactness of an angle between them

I am still waiting for this guy to take a breath after 15 minutes of nonstop talking.

This is going to be really embarrassing for Maudlin. Bohm wrote in Science, Order, and Creativity that his equation is causal but not deterministic. This is obvious because the quantum field is still probabilistic! Maudlin casually states that causal is equal to deterministic. No! Not in Bohm's Theory. I can't believe Maudlin casually makes the equivalency.

What does it mean: nobody understand? Does it mean that its different from daily experience or you do not know how to use it?

Im sorry i cant take anyone with rgar fscial hair seriously

Mighty white of them to manically shout "WHO IS THEO POLYA," thereby conveniently affirming that use of a pseudonym was, in fact, prudent or necessary.

Meandering in his story

uncertainty principle as metaphor. perhaps one could be certain and uncertain at the same time.

In US billion is 10-12 - in Europe billion is 10-9 What is used in science and math now?

Very interesting but in the end I was not sure about the findings. Elin Musk’s Grok AI very nicely summarized Bell theorem in my opinion.

I do, but I ain't saying ;-)

It seems to me QED is fairly easily understood if we consider photons to be solitons in the EM field. The situation with QCD is much more complex but it wouldn't surprise me if solitons were also lurking in there somewhere.

Just discovering this now. Very interesting/entertaining. You and Scott are the right people for this dissection. But where's Eric to defend himself!? I fear he may remain a no show..

Thanks.

Can we just call him Eric ffs 😂😂😅

I really don't see why there's a problem with giving up statistical independence, we are dealing with elementary particles not people. The results depend on what you measure and yeah perhaps the conclusion is that we may not be able to apply the scientific method at that scale anymore because the system cannot be measured without disturbing it. We could try a few experiments before giving up on that though.

4:45 'Hot Big Bang' is BS because it requires 'INFLATION'; another word for 'MAGIC' like 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'uncertainty' and 'entanglement'... heck, the words chosen say it all...

great guest. not so great interviewer.

also, just to make it a bit simple, the only requirement where neumann is right about what you mentioned, is about nodes with respect to amplitudes, any addition variable state described statistically by wave function must also never admit an outcome where the probability density is 0. that is is, the rest can be mucked around with by producing many different "micro quantum states" with specific outcomes, as long as the resulting distribution comes out right. and if you think about it, this is obvious, it is a property of all statistical physics, such as restrictions on energy for example, take a double pendulum in a superposition of classical initial conditions, none of them will evolve into a state where the energy has magically increased permanently, so with respect to the micro state phase space and the statistical description we have some node in phase space, where the probability density is 0, the dynamics are completely different but the principle is the same, none of the individual states of the pendulums involved in the evolving distribution can ever attain a larger energy than the initial value, that is a prerequisite, these kinds of constraints are all the constraints that is on producing a consistent statistical theory in general, apart from questions of special locality and so on.

The pandemic has clearly shown all the dangers of trusting scientist like they are some demigods. Rogan was detrimental in exposing this in its entirety. As scientist who meticulously criticize every new theory in physics, as you should, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of critic that you exhibit for anti-science pushed by pharmacomanfa and government censorship. Rogan has many flaws in terms of the guests he invites, but he also offers a rare place where those unjustly casted thinkers had when faced with canceling and censorship. Just to be clear and avoid unwarranted attacks, I do not count Eric here, but mainly the most established epidemiologists and vaccine experts who have been demonized by pharmacomafia. I am profoundly grateful to Joe for having a courage to do so at such a dark time for democracy.

Sour grapes are understandable but a bit undignified for my tastes.

Man I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fact that you're willing to lean in to some bold technical confrontation for the better of perspective learning and understanding. Thank you for what you do, hope it keeps growing!

Just found out this channel! Phenomenal work

I am laughing so hard right now. I remember watching some podcast with Weinstein prolly Rogan and thinking "whats his point...what is he talking about" Maybe I am not smart enough to understand him. Speaking on the joe rogan podcast, I thought this podcast is interesting he has intellectuals and then I started diving into these peoples theories and I wasnt impressed. Sometimes overcomplicated sometimes overhyped. With that being said, it made me realize wait I am doing the research I am asking the right questions Joe should have asked why am I wasting my time. I do appreciate the comedic podcasts but I am bit surprised how he has built to such a large scale with mediocre questions, lack of research, and always laying back with the excuse "mmmm IDK I am not that smart". There is so many other podcasts or other sources that you can extract concise valuable information.

This is pure gold! Thank you very much for sharing this amazing content. P.S.: I'm a software engineer in love with pragmatic functional programming.

Totally misunderstanding wolframs point of view. He isn’t proposing a theory of everything, he’s creating a new discipline that describes computational systems. It’s a platform, it’s a toolbox. His claims are that the universe appears to be computational, and computational systems have inherent properties that are described by exploring the domain of all possible computations. You failed to do justice to his explanation of entanglement coming from the hyper graph. You made a straw man.

Damn Ethan’s ability to write and draw are almost as bad a my own. I’m almost encouraged that I’m not the only one.

I almost finish his Thermal Physics book It was really awesome book for undergraduate level students with highly standard basic approach 😀

2:02:49 - tim vocalized my explanation