Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius, String Theory | Eric Weinstein

Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue Genius, String Theory
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized our view of the universe, positing a space-time continuum undergirding all reality. Equally impactful has been quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of subatomic particles in ways that differ from observable matter. But both theories have been verified by empirical observation and scientific experiments. String theory, and a select number of other theories that purport to explain the universe in one, all-encompassing equation, remain completely divorced from the physical world. Surely theories about the universe must relate directly to the matter in it?! Did Einstein get it wrong, or has groupthink led us down the wrong path for the last 40 years? Eric Weinstein basically posits that perhaps Einstein's work shouldn't necessarily be as lauded as it is, in part because Einstein himself said that it is a work in progress (or, in his words, "a mansion with a wing made out of marble and a wing made out of cheap wood"). What does this mean for you? Well, to most of the Joe Schmoe's in this world, not much. But if you're deep into theoretical physics and super advanced mathematics as Eric Weinstein is, you'll probably be hooting and hollering at the screen going "OH SNAP!" and "NO HE DI'NT!" like you're watching an NFL game. String theory... kids love it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WEINSTEIN:
Eric Weinstein is an American mathematician and economist. He earned his Ph.D in mathematical physics from Harvard University in 1992, is a research fellow at the Mathematical Institute of Oxford University, and is a managing director of Thiel Capital in San Francisco. He has published works and is an expert speaker on a range of topics including economics, immigration, elite labor, mitigating financial risk and incentivizing of creative risks in the hard sciences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
ERIC WEINSTEIN: In some ways we’ve been making amazing progress for 40 years-in my opinion-in the mathematics of field theory, which is the underlying geometric structure that undergirds both particle theory and general relativity.
So this has been an incredibly exciting time because this dictionary has opened up which ports all of the best insights from physics into differential geometry and from differential geometry back into physics.
So you’d be hard-pressed to say that nothing is happening. The problem is that we really wanted to quantize the geometry of general relativity but, in fact, what we ended up doing was geometrizing the quantum.
And so it’s been a bit of a disappointment for theoretical physicists who hoped that they would be living through a golden age of theoretical physics rather than the mathematics of theoretical physics.
So the field of particle theory has in some ways seemed to be advancing in terms of its mathematical underpinnings. But the elaborations on the standard model which is our specific understanding of the world in which we live has been all but stalled from the theory side since around 1973-1974.
So it’s a bit of a paradoxical situation and I think that, in part, we’ve never really been here before.
There was a period between about 1928 until the late 40s when theoretical physics had found quantum electrodynamics, the theory of electrons and photons, where most of the calculations we wanted to do gave infinite answers. The underlying theory seems sound. We just didn’t know how to get real contact with experiment.
And it took a long time for us to realize that we had a technical problem rather than a need for an absolutely fundamental revolution of the kind that brought us general relativity and quantum theory.
So I think that we’re a bit stuck and we don’t really know how long this very strange period is going to go on for, and this period has been dominated by the sort of quixotic hopes that one of a number of theories-whether it be super-symmetry theory, grand unified theory, technicolor or even noncommunicative geometry-might be our way out.
But the problem is that all of these highly speculative theories have remained in limbo and many of them have gotten rolled into this very strange complex of ideas that we call either string theory or M theory or some variant thereof.
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/eric-wein...

[@Mnogojazyk]

It may be the outcome of graduate education. In my own experience, my doctoral studies beat innovation, creativity, and unconventional thinking out of me and, I bet, other students. I saw professors openly ridicule students who proposed solutions to a problem when the solution fell outside the theory; colleagues at my university that even entertained the possibility that other theories might have something valid to offer; and colleagues who simply didn't agree with the prevailing theory of the day. When my graduate advisor asked me about my doctoral thesis topic, he dismissed it out of hand because "we don't do that sort of thing here." (My topic was not in line with the prevailing theory of the day, but it didn't contradict it or exclude it, either. Mind you, I think about it all the time, some twenty five years later.) After witnessing and experiencing that sort of bullying behavior, one learns very quickly to keep one's ideas to timself if the doctorate is more important than tis own theory. Sometimes, it's a matter of self-doubt, I suppose: "Well, they've been in this field longer than I have; maybe they know something I don't." But my point in this is that the educational environment stifles and stymies true innovation. And surely that stifling and stymieing extend to the work environment, too. To be sure, new researchers can tweak and extend the existing theory, but proposing something new is out of the question if they wish to stay in the field. Perhaps that's why, Dr. Weinstein, there are problems in extending physics nowadays. The new theory may have to come from outside physics or from researchers secure enough in their own right to propose it come hell or high water.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

"Sometimes, it's a matter of self-doubt, I suppose: "Well, they've been in this field longer than I have; maybe they know something I don't." They don't. They are just parrots mindlessly parroting what has been parroted to them. Academia is really a cult with a hierarchical structure and a doctrine.

[@NirmalThani]

Every theory arose similarly. You're no different. Yes the universe could do better in trying to understand us but it's not the Universe's job. We're the ones who don't understand it and professors doing their job excellently cannot be blamed solely.

[@NirmalThani]

If you truly believe in your paper, publish it through any medium. As much as I myself try to blame my insecurities, it is my job alone to get over them because I'm the one who wants to understand the workings of the cosmos.

[@deplorabled1695]

I would simply employ Matt Damon as a janitor and let him mop the floors of Oxford or MIT at midnight and leave the answer scrawled on some bog roll in a pub.

[@tonpiranya8838]

I feel so familiar with those behavior.......u mean some character from a movie?

[@CIMAmotor]

How d'ya like those apples?

[@qncsc]

Come on, Eric, just drop the "W" and everyone will instantly listen to you!

[@nimim.markomikkila1673]

:D

[@steyndewet1191]

Hope you're a physicist - they're looking for you.

[@smlanka4u]

Binary numbers are the real physics. TOE (my 1st Book): Finding the entanglement of binary mathematical structures of the elementary ghosts.

[@Quarky07]

Physics needs more than a genius, Physics needs more minds and humans thinking about it, we need science to have the same value that it once had

[@imnotabird1118]

Disagree. More doesnt equal better. It could actually make things worse(it already has)

[@AnnaBulaklak369]

@@imnotabird1118 I think your right. Quality still matters.

[@vuufke4327]

everybody watching this video: 'bruh, they literally talking about me'

[@sokunthanethchhoy2217]

😂🎉

[@subrosian1234]

"Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." -Isaac Newton

[@Sniegel]

Exactly. The ether DOES exist! Now, bring out Occams razor if you dare! (Theoria Apophis)

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

All you will get from these talking heads is self contradictory fallacies and ad hoc reasoning.

[@ThatisnotHair]

@@wesbaumguardner8829 Do you have better model?

[@ThatisnotHair]

Yet Newton was wrong

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@ThatisnotHair There are better models, but it is not necessary to have a working model to know that the current model is wrong. It is completely unscientific to maintain a theory after it has been shown to not fit observations.

[@estebancanizales3303]

Give me a couple years, ive got this

[@estns2992]

You any closer lmao

[@patatastudios766]

Est NS loll

[@rossmillington8700]

hahaa! i like that confidence

[@tonybarrera2897]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKGbo6iDp8mMbbs

[@Yatukih_001]

grand unified field theory model accepted in 2019. Model of choice: the flat earth model, devoid of the need for a Gleason map.

[@william41017]

I discovered a theory of everything, but the youtube comment section is too short write it in

[@Noah-fn5jq]

Fermat would be proud

[@DeependraTube]

then...... make a youtube video describing it.

[@augustbaldur1059]

dammit google

[@milahu]

no you did not. realistic models are simple and effective.

[@c.h.r.7759]

@@DeependraTube r/whooosh

[@moisesgomez2310]

The fundamental problem here is the fact that the freshness of an inquisitive mind modeled and molded with the ideas that arise in universities is being lost. The fact that thousands of scholars and researchers who have emerged from the universities cannot continue with Einstein's work is due in some way to the thinking inside the box that is taught there, thinking before studying what field of specialization will I take? , but seasoned with the ego of recognition and especially during the years of training for the respect of the dogmas and not be discredited by colleagues if you leave the pattern. I think one of the nutrients that complemented Einstein's genius was his love of philosophy and for better or for worse in his conception of what the Superior being was for him. He was puzzled at the time of counting the total matter of the universe, which gave him a ridiculously small amount, which coupled with a year in which Hubble discovered that the galaxies are moving away from each other, that everything is reduced to a probability of intention or not intention, that God does not play dice ... this led Einstein to say he was wrong. On the other hand much has been said that Einstein stole the German mathematician David Hilbert, but this was not so, since what happened here is what I call the genius of a strategist. If Albert Einstein was a strategist in the way of compiling the necessary knowledge for his work, since he recognized that Hilbert was a better mathematician than him, but his final strategy was not to be recognized for being better on this or that, no, he saw the complete image. My position is this: recognize mathematicians and theoretical physicists out there that many of you will only create the tools for the next Einstein and he will recognize the kind of works and theories that you are working on and create a breeding ground with this that will revolutionize humanity again. But we must let him make the connections that you do not dare to avoid discrediting or getting out of your comfort zone. The next genius like Einstein will be on top of giants like some of you, but he will see further because he has the gift of imagination in its purest sense (as a child) If after this arises the union of physics, metaphysics, biology (altered states of consciousness), etc. Well, you do not describe something because you do not see it, there is nothing more scientific than describing what is not seen, that It is abstraction. The new Einstein is already among us, we just need to understand his lack of ties to all conventionalism.

[@grimthegrim2257]

I think it has to do with how society is right now. It’s harder for geniuses to appear, because I know they are here as we speak, but they are just unable to cultivate themselves.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

Breaking through theoretical megastructures (taken for granted), gatekeepers, "scientific" hierarchies etc today requires more than ever before. Maybe it is surpassing individual human abilities during one lifetime? Maybe the solution is in the opposite - cultivating this hubristic profession, accentuating humility, openness and relativity of everything? Science can not fundamentally rely on autistic, over focused and myopic number crunchers that they became and are fine with it.

[@sloanthegreat6911]

No their are to many geniuses to make one seem like an Einstien

[@walterbishop3668]

We have the Internet and if one is not too lazy can learn what ever she/he wants.

[@alexanderhugestrand]

I don't believe in genious, there's no such thing. Not even Einstein. A genious is the creation of the worshippers who puts a him on a pedestal. Einstein must have been a regular guy with poor mathematical skills and logical thinking, because there are lots of contradictions in his theory that only dissidents are willing to see. I know I'm very intelligent and logical myself, but what difference does that make? Not much. I'm even willing to admit that intelligence alone is quite overrated. I believe the secret to further progress and success in physics lies in open mindedness - dissident ideas have to be welcomed and embraced. As the computer programmer I am, I see parallells between the work of scientists/mathematicians and the work I do. We both try various solutions to problems, with an important difference. In my work I have no prestiege whatsoever and throw away bad ideas (and code) on a daily basis, and refactor my code. What do scientists do? Quite the opposite - they stick with one solution and defend it with their lives. It's prestiege, and that's the core problem of science as I see it. Change that mentality and you'll see rapid progress.

[@mikakorhonen5715]

@@alexanderhugestrand Thanks for good laugh.

[@Pfaeff]

Interesting thought. Maybe theoretical physics is stuck in a dead end and we have to go quiet a few steps backwards in order to move forwards.

[@TheGamingg33k]

I ask the same question as well. Remember the time when Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Dirac, Curie, Heisenberg and on and on lived in the same time period? Where are the Diracs and Feynmans now? Its amazing to think the scientific revolution slowed down since then.

[@amalguptan6716]

There are people like that today just that it'll take a centuries to look back

[@jaybingham3711]

Don't know if "slow down" is accurate representation. It seems more like we had a significant period of theoretical breakthroughs. But theories demand experimental proofs. And that's what's been happening since. And the computer/information age just blew open the doors on what was possible experimentally. Think of the horsepower that has been pulled into experimental physics. Had technology not been as progressive, maybe more minds would have gravitated to theory. But no one wants to just keep plowing forward with more layers of speculation without testing. I don't find "a failure to keep pace based on past generational progress" a worthwhile assessment. It wreaks of "I need things to happen in my lifetime" hubris. Take a deep breath Eric.

[@fabled.]

There are a lot of brilliant people today, you just dont hear about them. You will in 50 years. It's the illusion that every new generation has when looking back and only seeing the successes but not the failures upon failures that got lost in history.

[@asaidweeman28]

Our best minds are working for the big banks now.

[@TheGamingg33k]

I disagree with that. The brilliant minds were directly put under the spotlight. Science was the frontier for everything. Something went wrong/changed. We got General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics at the same time period. Two revolutionary ideas back to back.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

*THIS* is the kind of content I would gladly pay money for, and why I'm subscribed to Big Think

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

These people do not deserve your hard earned money. They have gone so far off the scientific method that they would have to start from scratch to get back on it.

[@furdfelmer4359]

I am neither a mathematician or a physicist, I am cursed, from birth, with the affliction that Richard Feynman spoke about, 'obsessive curiosity". He spoke eloquently about the search for solutions to questions, being far more interesting than answers gained along the search...and those answers always led to more questions. Nobody, is THE smartest person on everything...'it's all relative"...perception, is the key to our known reality, beyond what's known leaves unlimited paths for the "curious" to explore. And, in the realm of the "unknown", both pro experts and amateur, are equal, both groups are scientists, only some are not obsessed with notoriety, or prizes, and the funding they receive from both as, "experts". Feynman, even described his Nobel prize in a more reasonable, rational, and honest perspective.

[@chrisose]

What we need is a scientific establishment that does punish anyone who doesn't toe the M-theory line.

[@Shapes-of-Energy]

Just traveled to the University of WA to talk to check out the physics department and talk to professors. When I told them that I had produced some original thinking I was immediately shut down without the chance to get started. I'm constantly thinking about and studying physics, but there aren't too many people around to talk to who are qualified/interested.

[@philipanderson3076]

Your right,i have it.they w'ont look at it.first i dont have a wall full of use less paper.makio was right its only 2 inches long.

[@ct3686]

I started to watch jimmy neutron since I was 1.My brain has been expanding when I watch that show,and people say that jimmy neutron is so complicated how r u understanding.Im so smart that I can get 100 Nobel prize under one day.Im too smart for humans

[@cheesesoup2894]

Thats the worst comment I´ve ever read.

[@fjbz3737]

Just play geometry dash

[@riffrockr2528]

I agree. Rising off the backs of accumulated knowledge creates a specific pathway regardless of seemingly infinate implications. I believe a new theory or approach doesn't need to refute or dismantle the present systems and shouldn't be immediately dismissed by inability to relate directly through manifest symbolization and introduction to existing formulae, as a new system could reveal its connections through its own network of branches.We explore theoretically for factors we can apply in formula and experimentation to the system we understand, but may be uncovering evidence of the coexistence of another entire system, one that must also develop that might not be extrapolated or reverse engineered.A new idea or approach may also be explored where present definition doesn't dictate or affect the pathway. (Applying the 'if a tree falls in the forest" concept of particle behavior(s)).Different "styles" of thinking or perspective could be assisted and encouraged without bias to develop ideas "naturally" and define factors in its own form of expression. The new language formed would mirror some existing concepts, but could provide an environment conducive to developing it's own original tendency.

[@RalphDratman]

You suggest that today's theoreticians have lost contact with physical reality. I think it would be more fair to say that physical reality has been running away from them as fast as it can gallop. Experimentalists have just completed the (once thought impossible) task of testing GR by observing Einstein's gravity waves, more than 100 years after he published the theory. How many more centuries will have to pass before experiment catches up with theories of quantum gravity?

[@AnkitSinghAnarchoAtheist]

Ralph Dratman our engineering is far behind our physics

[@RalphDratman]

I agree. If you made a stack of the physics papers underlying the technological achievements since 1900, the essential, terse, largely mathematical physics papers might be as tall as a teenager. If you likewise piled up the engineering papers that brought us today's cell phone networks, GPS systems and interplanetary exploration vehicles and all the rest , the stack might be as high as the Eiffel tower. Yet the small pile of physics papers would contain all of the theoretical justification for the immense edifice of practical results.

[@djr5995]

I think that the following are important causes for our engineering being far behind our physics: low hanging fruit and means/political will. Our minds can, with relative ease, soar high above what we can (at least in the contemporary setting) practically achieve. Firstly, earlier experiments [lower hanging fruit] were comparatively cheaper and easier to do than those experiments that are now required to continue to forge greater and deeper physics knowledge/theory/principles. Secondly, means comes back not only to engineering but the proportion of GDP of a given country to invest into that engineering and experimental science at the cutting edge, but political will results in countries the world over putting huge proportions of GDP into warring and maintaining their power rather than into promoting science, engineering and social flourishing

[@PIC18F]

You must remember that you refer here to a 'good' experiment that as much as possible reflects 'reality'. There are always many inconclusive experiments as there are incomplete or just plainly wrong theories. so you should not fall into this 'team' spirit of X is better than Y.

[@pinkberry50]

It's not cryptic, it's SHIT.

[@derschmiddie]

Most likely the lonely genius is somewhere down here in the comment section.

[@derschmiddie]

Btw. Stop assuming Tau to be infinite in the probability-distribution of a wavefunction (cause time is only positive and not over yet). When you do that you end up with particles having a mass/impulse related to their likeliness of existence and an explanation for dark matter wich is: stuff that doesn't exist yet still has a mass releated to it's likeliness of existence. ∫(0,τ)ψ(x,y,z,t)²dV lim1 for t

[@alexbary189]

Sebastian Schneider I am

[@CulusMagnus]

Sebastian Schneider That is very cool. Who came up with this? You?

[@derschmiddie]

CulusMagnus jup.

[@ExopMan]

Mentions half jokingly of a lonely genius in the comments--proceeds to respond to his own comment with a personal argument on a semi-obscure topic to a YT community that doesn't care.

[@phyllisginsberg3637]

I like your thinking. A new beginning is needed. We need to go back before Maxwell's equations and see where Faraday/Maxwell made bad assumptions. Maxwell basically assumed that one could build a complete theory of electromagnetism based on the "net" fields only. Fatal error! Best of luck to all the 'heavy hitters'.

[@xclnav5634]

:-)

[@sanjuansteve]

I’m a layman, but it seems the most obvious & logical explanation for particles acting like polarizable axial or circular, helical waves as they travel is that they’re orbiting something (a dark (or anti) matter particle perhaps). It's not unlike Earth being pulled into a wobble by the moon, or a distant star's wobble evidencing planet orbits making our trajectories as we fly thru space have an apparent axial or circular helical wave (like a packet) as well, depending on the orientation of the orbit. And since we think we know undetectable dark matter exists and should be 5 times as common as matter but don't yet know where it's distributed, it seems a logical possibility that we are in a sea of dark matter, even in otherwise empty space, and every particle (photons, electrons, etc) is paired (entangled) in orbit with one. I think gravitational waves could be dark matter waves and that gravity might be caused by the density of dark matter. This could explain the double slit experiment results, including with a detector with some interaction between the dark matter and the detector (and perhaps dark matter entanglement), it could explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as explain the deflection of the axis of the particle's wave motion (orbit orientation) moving thru polarizing filters rotated less than 45 degrees apart, etc.. Perhaps the only reason for photons' max speed limit is caused by the dark matter they're paired in orbit with interacting with other dark matter. This could also explain why the universe is expanding from the central singularity point of the big bang outward in all directions faster than the speed of light into previously completely empty universe space, given that there is no dark matter there yet.

[@piotr780]

crank science : why time is slowing down when object is moving ? mayby local computational resource of universe are depleted at more often updating object position or size of those updates ? similar with heavy mass objects - the more mass, the more interactions to compute, so it takes longer to refresh single property, is there any approach similar to this talking ?

[@MitchellPorter2025]

For those who think that string theory has been going nowhere all this time: in fact it has made amazing progress in showing us what a theory that can explain all the unexplained numbers of particle physics, could look like. Quantities like the gauge coupling constants and the yukawa couplings, which are simply adjustable parameters in a field theory like the standard model of particle physics, have a clear geometric origin in string models like 'intersecting braneworlds'. It is also incredibly significant that string theory is a framework which can give rise to the already profound mathematics of quantum field theory, as well as that of gravity, without any special modification. All the things we need (chiral fermions, gauge groups, gravity) are just there, built in. So it is overwhelmingly likely that it is showing us something to do with the truth. But what we don't know is whether one of the existing empirical lines of research within string theory (like the braneworlds) is going to lead us directly to the truth, or whether we need another "string revolution" (there have been several in the history of the subject) before we can get there.

[@DavenH]

You are the first commenter of 100s (progressing chronologically) who has actually added something of value to this comment section. Well done!

[@shadfurman]

Eric Weinstein effing awesome. Bret Weinstein effing awesome. Harvey Weinstein effing not awesome. Sorry..been thinking about that all week. Lol.

[@MikeClohset]

Once we get the warp speed figured out everything will make complete sense.

[@levinb1]

Smart, smart. Of course, the “Mansion” can also be said to have a “Wall” between the two sides of Marble and Plywood, in that gravity or space-time curvature isn’t available in Quantum while Genera Relativity is all about the curvature. Creative solutions to discovered contradictions. Smart, smart.

[@knutholt3486]

Both QM in irs variants and relativity theory seem rather superficial. Both explains what can be measured, given certain cirumstantial parameters, and do so in a more accurate way than Newtonian physics, but they do not give any deeper explanations. Perhaps one shoyld throw both away and find something simpler and deper and see if that can explain them both.

[@Scholar4777]

When I was younger before the world ruined my life. I was pretty smart with but more importantly had a imagination that was second to none. On top of that I had incredible will and determination was relentless when it came to problem solving. I grew up without the internet and information came in sparingly so I made the most of it whenever I did get the opportunity see something new learn something new. I believed that I could discover the cure to aging, cancer, world oppression and equality, and many more things. I sometimes think that I could still make an impact and make my contribution to the world. I guess I have done my part but not in best way that I think I could.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Take a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets. While schools teach us that opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel, at the outer end of the arc of the horseshoe magnet you will find an area where LIKE polarities ATTRACT and OPPOSITE polarities REPEL. Now, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. Possibly the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field might encompass the nucleus in such a way so that like charged protons attract each other, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons in this area, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electron across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. There are probably no such thing as 'gluons' in actual reality and the nucleus is probably just a magnetic field boundary. In other words, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are just derivatives of the interactions between the electron's and proton's electromagnetic forces. So now we are down to just gravity and em. What is called 'gravity' is I currently believe a part of the 'photon'. Gravity would be the force that makes the sine wave of em expand and contract and would basically act 90 degrees to the em fields which of course basically act 90 degrees to each other. The energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in this universe would most likely be a pulsating, swirling photon. Everything in existence is 'light' and interacting 'light' at it's most core state of existence. A test for the gravity portion of the TOE idea is as follows: a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to align the laser and em frequency fields for optimal effects.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro-cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what gravity is not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins and moves forward. And oh, edit ps: I believe there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. Chemical element #120 can basically be found inside the center of stars and would finish off the periodic table of the elements.

[@cheeseofultimatedoom]

You should check out timecube

[@charlesbrightman4237]

nowhereboy I just did a search on YT and watched a couple of videos, thank you for bringing it to my attention. With that said, consider the following items: 1. The Sun puts out electromagnetic radiation energy in various forms. Some of those energy waves eventually impact this Earth. Now, for the sake of this discussion, for any given point on this Earth: a. The advancing side of the Earth towards the Sun, (Sun rise) would shorten the energy waves hitting the Earth due to the doppler effect. The net result would be a higher energy frequency impacting the Earth at 'Sun rise' than even what the Sun puts out. b. As the Earth continues to rotate, that face of the Earth facing the Sun would have direct impact of the Sun's energy at the frequency put out by the Sun. Basically a direct one to one ratio. c. As the Earth continues to rotate and that point on Earth moves away from the Sun, (Sun set) would lengthen the energy waves hitting the Earth due to the doppler effect. The net result would be a lower energy frequency impacting the Earth at 'Sun set' than even what the Sun puts out. d. As the Earth continues to rotate and that face of the Earth is totally away from the Sun, the Earth itself blocks the emr from the Sun from directly hitting it. Hence a 'darkness' of certain energy frequencies. So, in a way, there are four energy different periods that continually morph from one into another, but it would all still be considered in a single rotational day of this Earth. It all depends upon how one defines what a 'day' is. Four different energy periods that morph from one into another, or one complete rotation of this Earth. Most people go with the second definition, but certainly a case could be made for the first definition if a day is considered by it's different energy frequencies. 2. Consider also, most people believe there are only 3 spatial dimensions and only 1 time dimension, but consider the following: a. An entity exists in the gamma frequency range. It's whole universe is only the gamma frequency range and any other frequencies that nature has it interact with. But, it only perceive 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension from it's perspective. b. Now, an entity also exists in the radio frequency range. It's whole universe is only the radio frequency range and any other frequencies that nature has it interact with. But, it only perceives 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension from it's perspective. c. Now, stepping back to view both entities, the dimension that the gamma frequency entity perceives is not the same dimension that the radio frequency entity perceives. While they each perceive only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, they are not identical. d. Hence, there are actually more than just 3 spatial dimensions in this universe and more than just 1 time dimension in this universe, BUT we can only perceive just 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension at any one time. 3. For me also: a. 'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. b. 'Time' is the flow of that energy. c. The 'energy unit' of this universe would be the pulsating, swirling photon if my above TOE is correct which would also allow 'relativity' for space to bend and time to warp. d. The pulsating, swirling photon makes up space and time itself.

[@johntheibert5324]

I am one of those dark horses that is outside of the traditional physics community. I postulate about the grand unified theory with my proposed hypothesis called the Super Fractalon Field. My hypothesis has predictions that are testable. I know it will be likely many decades before the experiments can be run but I think there is no chance that anyone else will envision my hypothesis so I have a high level of confidence that the experiments will eventual be run. The first experiment I think will be run is a variation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experment to verify my prediction of conditional causality. The second experiment will require a very powerful electron positron particle accelerator to test the existence of the quantum speed. Now my job is to keep posting these little tidbits until someone gets interested enough to ask me what I mean. Both experiments have extremely vital implication for humanity. The first experiment could help us avert the quantum catastrophic involving quantum computers of the future. The second experiment could help generate antimatter in large enough quantities to make it a fuel source. Just FYI lol

[@danielullfig6933]

I've always wondered what the speed of light is trying to tell us about the underlying universe. Einstein discovered that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference, and went from there. Then the entire physics community at some point decided he was right, that the speed of light is constant. But why? There is something we haven't put our finger on yet.

[@stevezelaznik5872]

Holy shit this went over my head.

[@dottedrhino]

I think it is not impossible, thus possible, that the world of physics is much more surprising than we think.

[@johnwpelfrey]

The beginning relativity is still theoretical and so is the equations built on it. If we are to entertain the possibility that the original may in fact be flawed then we shouldn’t work backwards but scrap it all and start again. We have inculcated theory for three generations and engendered a field of study that is satisfied with the complacent journey instead of arrival at a destination.

[@CrniWuk]

Looks like the lonly geniues are all found in the comment section ...

[@anneonimous9306]

Lone, not lonely. Lone means alone / unaccompanied. Lonely means sad due to being alone.

[@eddyestevez500]

Watching this just after Eric unveiled his theory on Oxford

[@evalac2840]

Ikr

[@eddyestevez500]

@Big Deeper No. I think that what he has is a model, not a theory. No matter how smart you are if you come up with a TOE chances are you are going to be wrong. I think he is.

[@eddyestevez500]

@Big Deeper I agree with you, man. Science is about trying, failing and learning from the mistakes, learning what doesn't work. My problem is that some of his fans think he must be right because he is smart. And I'm pretty sure you know smart is not enough is science.

[@doriangrayakabeatrixxbibi676]

Thanks, good lecture.

[@thesuryapolisetty]

I went the crank route some years ago (along the field foundations-of-mathematics) and I think I made it. But the journals desk-rejected my papers... the experts have been too busy to even look at my emails and understand what I got to say... (the few who did either say they aren't expert enough to judge my work or they don't have a physics-kid-soul inside them at all in the first place). And I am too hurt to try anymore... begging the world to understand my work. I guess I will never make it anywhere from this patent-office phase of my life. So, I'm currently considering some alternate career to make money and live a life (you know, Einstein thought of selling insurance when he was lost in patent office world. Lucky him, his findings are relatively less radical and he got out). P.S. I wish I could show Einstein my work. Curious what he woud say!

[@LeviWritesBooks]

Perhaps the next major innovation will come from philosophical or meta-physical implications for physicals. Spirituality was the inspiration for Einstein. It perhaps needs to become so for physicists again.

[@blackhole4]

Let me just give Rick a call real quick.

[@Elasquantum]

Honestly, I think I could’ve helped solve this if I hadn’t been such a trouble maker when I was younger, but nope, I’m watching this.

[@monalisasmiley]

Over my head. Sounds insightful though!

[@nimim.markomikkila1673]

Always look in the commentsection for the right answers. Einstein is down here!

[@xclnav5634]

:-)

[@teachermichaelmaalim6103]

😂😅😄You are right

[@homewall744]

We've learned that our senses are far too limited to reflect reality. Most of modern physics is outside of common sense, out any any human senses. We may have solved all the "easy physics" based on things we can measure, and we're left with most of the Universe existing (we know it exists from side effects) without any idea what it is (because we can't sense it / dark).

[@PrivateSi]

Subspace: +ve charge cells (+1 base charge quanta) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge . SWEET Quantum-Relativity Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow Positron: +ve free cell (+1) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Close free cell and hole with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron. 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large. Overall electric charge is +1 Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another nucleus proton, (pep)(e)(pep), decays outside via centrifugal/vibe force on the dangling electron Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. 10 e-, 8 p+.. -2 base charge .. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), +2 valence charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP) + Gravity ++++: Lattice chunks + holes of various sizes that quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice Atom: Lattice density increses to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely) Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit hard enough releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and (gamma) light Nuclear Force: Gravity (-ve charge inflow/charge gradient) + electric attraction beat electric repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons -ve Charge Flow: Continuous, centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral forces in random directions cancel, else spin Magnetism: Spin-aligned particles have straight and joined so shorter internal flows with longer external loops back. Ferrous materias join the circuit Gravity: Mass pulls -ve charge from voids that repel more so expand. Higher -ve charge density compresses lattice. Compression waves travel at C Time: Charge density shrinks lattice, slowing charge flow and light as they cross cells in a fixed time. Velocity stretches processes (Time+Mass Dilation) Velocity: Higher velocity compresses lattice (Length Contraction) and base processes cross more cells so local time slows (Time+Mass Dilation) Black hole: Drags lattice around (Frame Dragging). Neutrino crystal. Feeding may annihilate core boundary matter to empty lattice (a universe?) Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, out of the black hole and into its core Tunnelling: Intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3 Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement -- Light Blip: Compressed (+extra?) -ve charge dipole pulls in lattice. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Dark Matter? Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Velocity = C Photo-Electric Effect: Light frequency over a threshold determined by atomic mass and valency dislodges an electron on impact Photon Entanglement: Vibrating line of cells like an ultra-fine (spinning?) AC current / Warped line of cells between entangled photons -- Big Bang: Lattice explosion flings charge out as matter / Black holes collide so rapid core growth / Black hole hit like a bell / Lattice expansion/growth Steady State: Universe could grow slowly. A big hit may start simultaneous (patchy) matter formation across the whole universe, not from a point Boxed Universe: If voids can't expand when they lose -ve charge to matter gravity wells are steeper with more compressed lattice Flow/Gradient: As stationary as possible -ve charge density gradient vs -ve charge continuously flowing from voids to centres of gravity and back Vacuum Fluctuations: Continuous flow could create dark matter whirlpools. Neutrino collisions, light-neutrino interactions. Background radiation Conservation: Everything is conserved - but if a black hole core annihilates matter to empty lattice that absorbs the energy the information is lost PROS: Simpler, semi-symmetric, recursive, realistic, 3D/4D, visualisable, self-contained, open/closed, (in)finite, (semi)conformal, cyclic , (un)balancing -- This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A self-contained quantum-relativistic universe/multiverse using the fewest base particles and forces (2+1). The above variant is one of many possibilities. Powerful premise.... The Lattice is everything, there is no nothing, no thing is perfectly still, balanced lattice. Space is Cartesian everywhere and there is probably not (much) truly empty lattice containing no thing(s). There is no before or after The Eternal Lattice, there is no outside and The Lattice knows everything because it is everything - except a (collective) conscious entity.

[@enlongchiou]

Sir Michael Atiyah's Todd function 137=gm^2/ke^2 will does it.

[@poohoff]

If you're Weinstein I think you'd better be keeping a low profile in times like these.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Had me in stitches!!

[@TrentonErker]

poohoff they're pronounced differently.

[@AlchemistOfNirnroot]

@@TrentonErker STFU

[@lambusaab]

His shoulders never moved.

[@PimpinWitch]

Abhilash S Hahahaha brilliant!

[@SLAPnPOP726]

Because he's a trained public speaker

[@sergior8667]

umadbrogamers3 lol

[@pinkberry50]

He never smiled.

[@KudaFamily]

He only moved one eyeball at 5:50 though

[@savagetaestheticknight221]

I won't lie, I'm hypothesizing. Definitely cooking on some theories, but the problem is that I am...not fully educated..at all... 😂😂 I think that is why I have attempted to speak through art. I need to be able to express what I conceptually see or experience within um pre-established scientific language. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU AFTER I FINISH SOME MORE RESEARCH!!! 😊 I think I may be able to bring some unique insight to the table!

[@varunnrao3276]

@8:54 "if you choose the path of the dissident , or the heterodox or the *crank* " - Eric Weinstein

[@sergior8667]

I like your hairstyle

[@benquinney2]

Of what we cannot speak we must remain silent

[@mareno91]

Of what we cannot learn, let them dip the toes into the chaotic void, so that we may one day see clearly all together.

[@davidpetry1173]

He's channeling Wittgenstein

[@DZ-yk2ew]

The 20th Centuries insights to speech are not very useful as it turns out, almost all of our speech is based on fictions. Even our statements of the universe use earth and human centric labels of measurement and rely on culturally created abstract signs and symbols to explain such phenomenons. Without human imagination and our ability to paint fictions, we would lack the necessary vocabulary to discuss the universe, or to dream of the solutions which might solve these problems. Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, but it was his psychological gifts of his visio-spatial capacities which gave him the key to solving the problems of classical physics. Math only helped prove what he could already talk about and see in his mind. Of what we cannot speak, we must dream, hypothesize and then vehemently QUESTION that hypothesis. No statement reflects some ultimate truth about the world, our mathematics and vernacular represent approximations or metaphors, and never get to the thing in itself. Make speech a tool, or be made into a tool for language that others have dreamed up before you.

[@manofculture8848]

I have a hypothesis in mind which can explain time, gravity and space. However, the question of life arises. With a little tuning and evidences from experiments and observations, I believe it can be the Theory of everything. But this idea might have been implanted in my head by the internet or education system and another person might come up with it. So I'll hold on to it for a while.

[@djr5995]

I think that [at least part of ] the sticking point is a consequence of some flawed or faulty underlying assumptions. I don't claim to be an expert or know just how to solve the problem but I have come across a couple of things in physics that I think are problematic: 1. In the theory of relativity Einstein conceptualises all time as existing at once and, in theory, it is possible to move backwards in time as well as forwards in time. I think that there are problems with seeing time in either of these ways as opposed to more conventional notions of time moving only in one direction and that the present moment is where time exists. I realize that the way time is conceptualized in the theory of relativity is of fundamental importance to how successful the theory is but I think that there is something that needs to be reconciled here. I suggest that the reality is that it is not possible to travel backwards in time and that flaws occur when allowing this for this assumption. Moreover that time has it's existence strictly/only within the present; such that once something is in the past it can not and does not physically exist any longer, and similarly, the future is not somehow already out there just waiting for us to arrive at it. So, time seen this way is no longer a dimension, (like those of space), but something else. Assuming instead that this way of seeing things (namely that time doesn't exist all at once and you cannot move backwards in time) maps onto reality, maybe there is a way for it to fit with Einstein's theory. 2. There are particles and other things that are assumed to have no spatial extension. For example the electron is a point-like object and so is a black hole; both are objects with mass and/or energy but whom exist only as a point or singularity. In other words they do not physically occupy space because they have no height or length or depth; they have no extension in any of the spatial dimensions. I think that this also a problematic assumption and instead that if something physically exists at all then it must have spatial extension. 3. Lastly, (and in a more philosophical vein..) I think that the reality is that change is the only constant; that the most fundamental certainty we have is: 'change occurs'. I would argue that this is the epistemological bedrock, the one fact we are most certain of above all others. If true then nothingness (total and complete nothingness, i.e. the absence of existence altogether) cannot exist, there can never have been a time of nothingness and there can never be a time of nothingness. If nothingness cannot exist then there can only ever be something-ness, in other words the cosmos (by which I mean all of existence / all of everything) stretches without end both backwards in time and forwards in time; there is no beginning and there is no end. NB. I am aware that there are philosophical problems with what at least some of what I propose, for example if time extends backwards without end then a paradox supposedly arises but I think that there are no true paradoxes and that they simply reveal troubles with our ways of thinking and that paradoxes can in principle be reconciled leading to a better understanding P.S. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or build on ideas or whatever

[@____uncompetative]

1. Positrons are Electrons moving backwards in Time according to Feynman diagrams and CPT-symmetries. I raised this with physicist Paul Davis and was scoffed at by people from the University and he said that it was true that particles could travel backwards in Time, which shut up the physics undergrads at the book signing. We mainly see left-handed spin versions of particles and very little evidence of right-handed versions of these particles. Dr Weinstein's speculative work in progress thinks there once were an equal amount of both. Not a mirror universe, but a right hand for every left hand each minding its own business. 2. point particles are wrong. relativistic waves are better. however Prof. John Archibald Wheeler said "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon". I think the way to think of this is that reality is like a Whodunnit novel where the author had decided who got murdered and how but not who did it. It isn't the detective. They then keep posing the questions a reader would pose and throw in Red Herrings and misdirections and witnesses who don't come forward and say what they observed because they plan to blackmail the murderer, only to end up getting murdered half way through, and eventually the tangled mess has limited its space of possibilities down to who it could reasonably be, as there are alibis for everyone else, and then we have the author pick the murderer and have the detective bring everyone together and go through all their "dirty laundry" and how they could be suspects (which is to please the readers who had thought they were right to think it was M for R reason) and then you get the climax as they are exposed as the murderer (and maybe they try to flee, but the police were already called). All of which is like the Scientific Method surrounding the pursuit of a fundamental theory. And these oscillating waves are the result of static fields interacting in surfaces with three or four or more dimensions plus time, which are usually thought of as Space-Time with the split-signature metric (3, 1) unless you are looking at Kaluza-Klein theory. String Theory adds 6 that are crumpled up at every point in Space-Time (yielding 10), then M-theory adds an extra one to organise the 5 parallel universes that are different versions of String Theory (yielding 11), and F-theory adds yet one more to get to 11 dimensions, and _Geometric Unity_ adds ten to the four of Space-Time so that (3, 1) + (4, 6) = (7, 7) = 14 dimensions where there are ten dimensional Hyperspheres coiled up small at every point in our observable Universe. So, one is crumpled and the other coiled, with 14 = (4² + 3 x 4) / 2 = (16 + 12) / 2 = (28) / 2 where 4 is the number of dimensions, as the set of all possible dimensional measurements on the surface (3, 1) i.e. four axes, six angles between those axes, four components along each axis which when composed get you from the origin of the coordinate system to the tip of an arrowhead which is a 'vector' of a given 'magnitude' in what is called a 'field'. All fundamental forces and waves that get mistaken as particles are represented by fields (just a big surface with vectors all over it point in various directions, smoothly changing orientation and strength like wind arrows on a weather chart). 3. I personally think everyone who is trying to get something out of nothing is wrong to try, and Weinstein trying to get something out of almost nothing is still not solving the actual problem, and the opposite applies. It is actually why do we have something rather than absolutely everything conceivable? So, you start with an infinite metamathematical multiverse and if some part of it happens to be set up correctly to evolve conscious life that observes that Universe and is curious about Whodunnit, then that is the Universe which is reified into what the consciousness thinks is tangible existence. They don't experience other quantum potentialities, and as the act of observation of these quantum experiments entails interaction, there is an active selection going on, not a passive observation. At higher macroscopic scales what you observe is not changed by you looking at it, but Wheeler's _Participatory Anthropic Principle_ may explain all the "fine tuning parameters questions people have. I think that just as antimatter and matter annihilated each other to create the broken C-symmetry, there was a T-symmetry prior to the Big Bang when time and anti-time existed in a form of unnavigatable chaos, and in a mathematical universe constrained by the Exceptionally simple Lie group E₈ this T-symmetry with its 256x256 Structure group got clipped because E₈ only allows for 248 entries, and the next one down is 128x128 because it needs to be the power of 2 for some technical reason which means 128 = 2⁷ => Y⁷·⁷ -> g⁴·⁶ -> X³·¹ So, more broken symmetries and less beauty compared to the crystalline form of E₈ but all of those asymmetries turn out to be essential to allow life to complicate itself through 4D knots.

[@misterbaghead]

Tom Campbell's "My Big Theory of Everything" my friends.

[@wills9732]

misterbaghead Tom Campbell will will drawf Einstein.

[@PadawanLearner1970]

Good grief there is someone else out there that 'knows'! 🖖

[@troyarmstrong434]

Alien's have a TOE.

[@danilomarvel5657]

LETS ASK THEN ABOUT IT

[@BallofJustice]

The only thing keeping my toe in the water with string theory is how aDS/CFT correspondence was discovered independently from back-hole thermodynamics, but along the lines of what Eric said, is that really saying something about reality or is it a quirk of foundations of what we've built, and looks pretty but really has nothing to do with what's really going on

[@sgkiss]

You are so right! Check out this paper - www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity

[@orien2v2]

I think the radical idea could possibly come not from a physicist or a mathematician, but from a designer, who is naturally trained to think outside the box to find a balance in everything for an answer that makes it all look perfectly beautiful. But to do so, we don't need more art classes or sculpting workshops, we need to encourage future minds to take up science and understand the problems. The *designer* may not be trained as someone in the creative field or even science but rather someone who views this world naturally like a designer, who also understands the mechanisms that is turning the cog wheels of both physics and math. To solve a problem, one needs to first understand why it doesn't work, then find an elegant solution. But to understand, one must be exposed to the subject willingly. Hopefully the designer will be born in this century.

[@mervmcrough7478]

What interests me is we come from nature so it's almost like the creation trying to define the creator

[@RichardRagan]

People are afraid to think too far out of the box because: They might not be able to find their way back They might be wrong They may not have any idea the meaning of what they find Be bolder.

[@Noah-fn5jq]

Alacorn You are correct. Even though science is built upon the premise that all theories are right until proven wrong, politics and "razors" will often kill ideas before they ever get a foot hold. Hopefully this will change soon.

[@SkyDarmos]

The best candidate for a theory of everything is space particle dualism theory (SPD). That solves the problems you mention.

[@taoistflyer]

Is it possible that all black holes are the same size extruded at a 90 degree angle to themselves into another dimension so to speak. Would it be possible that supermassive black holes are the result of a formation process that pushes a larger portion of the object into visible space, wouldn't it look and act like a larger object. like if you have a sphere moving through a 2d plane, as soon as the tip of the sphere touches the plain it creates a tiny dot. As the sphere moves through the plane it creates a giant Circle. Think of 3D space as the 2D plane and a 4D black hole as the 3D ball.

[@shatley123]

The thing that bugs me is that even though the world's populations has increased about 2.5 times since Einstein died, we still haven't had another Einstein. Could be the next Einstein is in some small poverty stricken village, we just don't know.

[@nikithanayaer6302]

Pixel Fyxe

[@shatley123]

Doesn't change the fact that 80% of the world lives in poverty.

[@johnwpelfrey]

shatley123 maybe it’s because everyone that came after accepted that Einstein was “an Einstein”. Maybe someone should entertain the idea that if after decades of theorist’s inability to materialize proof he was wrong. There is more empirical proof of fairies than Einstein’s theory of relativity and “No” I don’t believe in fairies.

[@danilomarvel5657]

its simple... the population increased BUT the COMPLEXITY AND DIFICULTY OF THEORETICAL PHISICS ALSO INCREASED...

[@anon8109]

It took over 200 years to improve upon Newton's theories and it took 350 years to find a proof of Fermat's last theorem, but Mr. Weinstein has given up hope on string theory after less than 40 years.

[@kaptenhiu5623]

True, But the problem is also getting exponentially bigger. Nowadays no matter how genius you are, you cannot work alone in a garage and discover fundamental science. Newton discovered theory of gravity by looking at an apple and moon. Today we talk about dark matter, string theory, those thing need billions of dollar of investment

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

ahahahahahahahha

[@thstroyur]

Also calculate the total number of working physicists up to 1900 and compare it with the number of physicists that have worked on string theory alone; it should be interesting

[@TheSLK66]

I'm certainly not an expert on mathematics, since I mostly work with physics but... I do believe that if there is a way to "marry" quantum field theory and general relativity, it is through stat.mechanics/thermodynamics. Both theories have had to comply with the laws of thermodynamics one way or the other (the initial conditions of the big bang given our understanding of the second "law" of thermodynamics, hawking radiation postulated because black holes could not have zero entropy, etc). Which is why I think that the theory of space-time being statistical in nature could be promising (just like the energy of bodies made out of matter is statistical in nature).

[@thstroyur]

"I do believe that if there is a way to "marry" quantum field theory and general relativity" Indeed there is; it is called 'removing renormalizability from our eqs'; as someone pointed out in the comments, the quantized metric is only troublesome perturbatively, but it is technically straightforward to define the field operators for gravity. As for statistical mechanics, don't delve in too deeply - my gut tells me it belongs to the crackpot zone, but if you don't believe it, your time, your waste :)

[@Mr4NiceOne]

Great talk

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

would a clock work\operate outside the Kuiper belt?

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

I'm looking for work?

[@andrewgodly5739]

This is why poverty and high inequality should be eliminated. So many potential brilliant minds are being lost. It's in all our best interest to make sure the world is healthy, as there would be many more healthy minds that will push our understanding and technology to the limit. For all we know, the next super genius could be dying of hunger

[@homewall744]

Or the next tyrant. We seem to have more tyrants than good geniuses.

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

Yea I'm sure Europe bringing in 'poor' African and Muslim migrants isn't going to cause any issues, and hey.. maybe one of them is a genius... Right??? LOL

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

TheExplorer you racist.

[@dddmemaybe]

All of the replies to OP's post are stupid. Even this one is. let me elaborate on the OP's post however, inequality isn't any cause to denying a brilliant mind from succeeding with his strengths, only poverty could legitimately do that now that we have the internet. If everyone has everything that they need, what sort of inequality in a moderately fair world would take away from the average man (aka: poverty, starvation and a lack of educations destroyed solely, and not a destruction of inequality)? People are meant to be different, and inequality is just the same. For us to rise above our bad natures it is much more: to accept our inequalities and strive to treat each other as if we could be worth each others' selves and best selves. It is the goal in sight, not the goalpost's physical existence being held in hand. You cannot eliminate inequality, it exists, just like how a Tyrant cannot eliminate the minds of his subjects, who exist, and who comes eliminate he himself for the reality of his actions. If every human being is much different than another, which Tyrant will force equality upon us to eliminate inequality, and for what cost? If inequality dies, where and how would individualism survive? If someone has any ideas I wouldn't hate to hear them.

[@andrewgodly5739]

dddmemaybe Inequality causes crime and resentment in society. It turns minds bitter and makes those that have little feel inadequate, which could destroy a great mind. Someone born poor is more likely to get bullied, grow up in a bad environment, and have little to no opportunities, which means that their potential will never be found. Inequality is unnatural to society, it brings out the worst in people How can you talk about individual differences while advocating for inequality? Inequality does not promote individualism. How can making merchants the richest people in society promote individualism? The message received from inequality is that there's only one perfect kind of person (in this case merchants) and those who are most like that person are greatly rewarded. Merchants make the most money, so the message received is that we should all be merchants. Why should we all be merchants? We need tons of other jobs/professions to make society function, if everyone was a merchant then society would collapse If you're a plumber than society needs you to function. So why should you suffer for being a crucial part of society? Equality allows people to be different as there's no need to worry about becoming poor for being different If having more money somehow defines who you are then you're a rather sad individual

[@TheMongolianMage]

Don't forget to check out Eric's new podcast, The Portal, on his channel, Eric Weinstein

[@amanieux]

don't we just need a new mathematical tool/framework, to express in a simple equation the complexity of our physical world ( for example a 2d spiral is expressed in very simple equation in polar coordiates f(θ)=θ and complex in a cartesian space x(θ) = θ * cos( θ ), y(θ) = θ * sin( θ ) ) ?

[@morrisirungu8712]

What's the adjective for germanic.

[@DekuStickGamer]

I watch Rick and Morty, most people can't really understand that TV show, and it makes me realises im apart of a few geniuses who can actually change the world. I'm defintely gonna win a couple nobel prizes as well, but whats the point. I speak on so many high thoughts, the dumb big normie population can never understand me. I will change the world, people will worship me. I can see 4D, since I was 5, and I've only sharpened my ability. I'm on 22D right now.

[@flower-fauna]

DekuStickGamer oh god in the first sentene you almost had me

[@BroCactus]

LMFAO

[@TheGamingg33k]

LOL

[@MehraabAnwar]

the first sentence almost convinces you you're "one of those guys"

[@Frikiman_H]

That's certainly a lot of D. Giggity.

[@LeeboProductions]

Doesn't the discovery of the Higgs-Boson throw a massive wrench in the works of M theory?

[@LeeboProductions]

Doesn't look like I will get any replies haha

[@LeeboProductions]

It would seem upon further inspection that I was mistaken. It would seem that I was referring to other parts of string theory that have been disproved by the confirmation of the Higgs-Boson. M Theory is actually one type of string theory that is bolstered by the discovery of the Higgs Boson due to the fact that it lends itself to the supersymectrical standard model. It's by no means proven, but is a step in the right direction of M Theory. "The strings in the string theories may be either closed or open strings or both. One can start to develop a string theory from any type of these strings. If he wants to develop a string theory only for bosons, it is a bosonic string theory. A bosonic string theory explains all the fundamental interactions except matter. The bosonic string theory is a theory of 26 dimensions. But if someone wants to develop a string theory which is capable of explaining all the fundamental interactions as well as matter, a special symmetry between the bosons (force carriers) and the fermions (matter particles) called “supersymmetry” is needed. Such a string theory is known as a “superstring theory.” There are five types of superstrings theories, and they are still being developed. The latest revolution in the string theory is “the M-theory” which is still under development."

[@freeman8914]

"Proof is the idol before whom the pure mathematician tortures himself." - Sir Arthur Eddington. Its time to shatter the idol (Einstein's theory of relativity).

[@dhruvshukla5591]

Very true and explicit.

[@Craznar]

Cryptic Comment Of the Day : The answer is in time. Not in space.

[@blue_tetris]

That's the basic premise of general relativity. That gravity (and similar spatial constants) do not apply force, but make a curvature to spacetime such that "time" is a shorter distance when you're closer to massive bodies. We're always moving at the "speed of time" given our absolute momentum in our frame of reference, which makes massive things fall together.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Replace "cryptic" with "bullshit" and that'd make more sense. Time is space, dumdum, and space is time. They are one and the same. - Einstein

[@Craznar]

Sebastion - just because you are too thick to see something, doesn't make it bullshit. We only ever talk about the expanding universe... physicists always talk about the expanding universe. Then ridiculous theories like inflation get suggested to cope with the futility of limiting it to spatial expansion. Ever wonder why ?

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Hate to burst your bubble man, but you're spewing even more bullshit. The "expanding" universe refers to spacetime, both new space and new time are being created, *necessarily.* I.e. it is impossible to create more of one without the other or vice versa. Time is expanding at the edge of the universe, where "matter" (i.e. dark matter) is being created at speeds *faster* than the speed of light, i.e. it breaks the notion of time as we know it (limited by light). Again, this is happening *necessarily.* We haven't seen or measured the universe expanding, it's just the only logical conclusion for relativity to hold. To say new "space" is being created, but no new "time" is being created in the process is, I'm sorry to say yet again, bullshit.

[@Craznar]

Hey Sebastian .... you might want to stop now. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it bullshit. If you actually had something to say - you would be literally typing bullshit.

[@nikibronson133]

The idea of a lone genius though is a myth. It's A Dangerous myth at that. Science is a collaborative effort. Even Einstein collaborated with those that improve his theories and his way of thinking.

[@angry_tomato12]

... hope one day we will find the theory of everything, just be passionately curious.

[@maninthehills7134]

What about Alex Kaivarainen? He has some novel ideas

[@opaque2331]

Has anyone attempted to clone Einstein? That would help

[@superpasi7315]

SirLemming it’s not necessary, we have Elon Musk now

[@igeloi]

More like it would take him time to grow up, and he'd ahve to be educated too, it would be interesting to see how people like that would do these days.

[@Eric_D_6]

That's not how cloning works.

[@bobbyharper8710]

Einstein borrowed and built on ideas of others and gave them no credit. The same goes on today but we're no longer amazed at the advances.

[@chrisose]

Superpasi7, Comparing Elon Musk to Einstien is an egregious insult to Einstien and all that he has given to the world.

[@anjorinibukun456]

Can help come from AI

[@maxi.229]

Anjorin Ibukun Yes, AGI would probably find the solution to this.

[@nutinmyass]

Max I. Exactly. This is something people don't seem to take into consideration, like Mr Weinstein. The next "genius" doesn't have to necessarily be human. The answers to these physics questions could be right around the corner for all we know - it all depends on how long it takes us to develop a safe and reliable AI...(whatever that means)

[@sanjuansteve]

Anjorin Ibukun Yes, it's amazing how frustrated and discouraged people are when the explosion in AI and new level abilities is upon us!

[@walterbishop3668]

Not in your life time

[@Atlassian.]

Unfortunately if any help is to be had, it will take far too long for any of us to witness it :(

[@daithi1966]

There are LOTS and LOTS of rando "geniuses" with novel ideas. Unfortunately they don't have the extremely strong backgrounds in mathematics and physics that would allow them to be taken seriously. The real problem is that you need someone who can get a PhD in physics and still be able to think radically different and that's not likely.

[@EezeeGroover]

I think the reason is, the knowledge gaps became smaller in the past 40ish years than prior.

[@JesseGilbride]

It doesn't help that our world is ever more distracted by internet BS and consumerism. Remember books? Me neither. The theoretical community is ridiculously small compared to the potential number of minds that could be intrigued by and tasked with finding GUT. There's a parallel universe (#multiverse) out there where Einstein bumped his head at 18 and became a vegetable, never to change the world; we need patience and investment in education and well being to maximize the realization of future genius.

[@ChrisPyle]

Why doesn't someone just ask Google? Duh....

[@-_Nuke_-]

Dear Google...

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Frank DiMeglio has already unified physics/physical experience.

[@RJ1J]

Ignores philosophy, neurology and psychology. 'How' one thinks and learns, rather than more thinking and learning. Answers there perhaps.

[@MrHidan30]

I'm glad I wasn't the only person thinking that at least the influences of these subjects could help yield an end to this stagnation.

[@sloanthegreat6911]

No Einstien had Autism which made him a supergenius but you wont find one now because their are so many.

[@sloanthegreat6911]

Keep believing that.

[@BenJaminLongTime]

the answer is likely in culinary class

[@thewhizkid3937]

You may have a point.

[@thomasherzog86]

to be fair, einstein is very overestimated. he did build his work on "the shoulders of giants" but we humans tend to remember only the last piece of the chain. if you think relativity was purely his mindwork, i dare you to read at least the wikipedia article about its history.

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

Thomas Herzog Wikipedia LUL, your probably edited your own name onto the page..

[@thomasherzog86]

John Smith en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity tell me if you find it next to Lorentz and Poinceur. i couldnt find a Herzog there.

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

Thomas Herzog not clicking that link... Virus.. scammer!

[@thomasherzog86]

John Smith lol, go back under your bridge troll.

[@99bits46]

I gotta give it to Lorentz who came up with his transformations in 1895 (10 years before Einstein) to accomodate light's weird nature in the ElectroMagnetic equations.. Although he did see (space, time, mass) dilations (physical meaning of equations) but he called the idea stupid. Same happened with Poincare who trashed this idea in 1903. Secondly there's a guy who came up with energy mass equivalance (i forgot his name), he said Energy is proportional to mc2 alot years before Einstein did. I like Einstein's work on General Relativity that's monumental totally built from scratch he discarded old gravitational theory and built a totally new one. Although it's a "theory" so only one wrong prediction from this theory can prove it wrong, these theories can't be proved right but only checked for wrong predictions we are waiting for that one. One of major problem is its collaboration with QFT. Quantum Field Theory is arguiably the best explanation of quantum world. The day they understand gravity, they have a theory of everything.

[@jtarrats100]

In my opinion, our understanding of the Universe will probably be furthered by dirrect observation for a change not by mathematical theory.

[@jerseyanusa2420]

It's a problem of linguistics, translating the math that describes the world (physics) so that lay people can understand it and add to it (as Einstein was, originally)

[@infinateU]

It's the "electric theory". All is Energy, all is literally connected.

[@Pussik]

We know that.

[@bennynutts16]

Time is an illusion Gravity is Fake Stop What Your Doing And have some ice cream cake

[@dddmemaybe]

I don't know if you made this up or if it's a reference, but I like it.

[@francescosorce5189]

OMG my ex math teacher actually DID say that XD (mostly the last 2 tho XD)

[@Frikiman_H]

REALITY IS AN ILLUSION THE UNIVERSE IS A HOLOGRAM BUY GOLD

[@quantumcake]

*you're

[@cloudyreader1152]

But the cake is a lie.. :(

[@EulerSingularity]

On 4 Nov 2017: Typo: Transcript says "noncommunicative geometry". It should read "noncommutative geometry". Although that geometry is also noncommunicative, to be fair.

[@merlepatterson]

Me thinks a group of intelligent people may have turned down a steep dead end road by a confused flagman and now they can't back up? They may need to abandon the vehicles which got them there and walk back up to the intersection?

[@sparhopper]

Q: *"Why can't we find a **_Theory of Everything"?_* A: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[@mostafaseif4409]

Hold my beer...

[@CJ-qt2ps]

It seems like there is alot of over & or under thinking going on in physics. & some unwise assumpting as well. P.s. When anything is/seems too simple that I & or the hoi polloi fail to understand it, & or it is soo complex that I & or the hoi polloi fail to understand it, I don't know how others deal with a problem. But when I'm faced with tough questions/dilemmas of any kind & am looking for answers/solutions, I just let my imagination run free, until something makes sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the imagination one of those things that our society has lost or is losing? When was the last time you took 3 hours out of your day to just daydream?

[@emiljunvik3546]

If they wanted to quantize geometry of general relativity, would this do the job?= TSI/2pi/(4pi/3)^2=4g^2 TSI=1360.8W/m^2 4g^2=383Nm^2 Surface temperature of earth=287kelvin=383W/m^2

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

Emil Junvik OMG I think you just solved it!!

[@Prussiapants]

Ummm, so from my reading on this guy he's been out of physics for 20 odd years, then in 2013 he comes up with a hypothesis that falls very flat - which appears to have only been publicised because of his being known for work in other fields - and now he's grumbling about the physics community? Suspect...

[@Owesomasaurus]

Caleb 1) I, too, have read the list of logical fallacies. Being able to cite them doesn't make you special or smart. Also, you're wrong: @prussiapants is not calling the man names, she's calling attention to his work history, and arguing against his authority in this field. 2) Curiously, Big Think has another video on the 'lone genius' myth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnm8pWWHmrhrfK8 - spoiler: lone genius is exactly that, a myth. Collaboration - say with the established scientific community - is essential to innovation and progress. 3) This guy is head of Thiel Capital. Peter Thiel is interested in what might charitably be called 'fringe science' such as EG harvesting the blood of the young to extend the life of the old. Weinstein is essentially *building a case for funding crank science* and since that's what his boss wants to do anyway... Well. 4) Weinstein wants trad academia to stop being mean to him? Publish a fucking paper, genius. Put up or shut up. If you've got the goods, you should be able to put it in a paper for everyone to poke, prod and test it.

[@arthurmonteath-carr2705]

But he doesn't present any evidence to show that progress (in a field he is no longer a part of) *has* stalled - he just asserts it. It comes across as "Why haven't you guys invented FTL yet? I WANT MY ROCKET SHIP!" There is plenty going on in physics that he appears to be willfully ignorant about and dismissive of, and its entirely appropriate to bring up his background as context for what his motives for this rant might be. Pointing out that someone has a vested interest is not an ad hominem, and you can't just cry "Ad Hominem!" as if that somehow dismisses the concerns raised. It's not an "I Win!" button.

[@Prussiapants]

Caleb It's not an ad hominem attack to point out background information which points to possible motive for his disparaging view of the physics community. It would be an ad hominem attack to say... he works for a wannabe vampire, therefore he must be full of crap. Looking at someone's motivations and being a little bit skeptical is just a good idea in general.

[@Extys]

This is actually an ad hominem to talk about him and not his argument. That would be like me saying that you look like a fat disgusting pink turd. This isn't a valid argument.