If you think about Coulomb ‘ s law : accounting for anything other than the entity being an entity with electric charge makes the implied dynamics something that is not true : Coulomb ‘ s Law is not correct , in its fullest dynamical implication . Such a realization ( there are a few ways of coming that knowledge ) would manifest abstractly : he says that the way a physicist would deal with that is to consider it as a real embedding in a complex ( probably , Fourier ) analysis with a branch . @5:17 , when he explains an ‘ abelian - ization ‘ . ‘ to make a Fourier analysis ‘ of something implies the serial , rigorous use of complex integrals to surround , and identify the dirac delta function : a ‘ particle ‘ amidst probability density .
You are made of cells. These contain DNA. This consists of four nucleotides which encode what made your initially fertilised egg divide and specialise into you. Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine, Thymine C binds with G A binds with T These nucleotides form a double-helix structure which is capable of conveying a mix of your genetic information to your progeny along with your partner of the opposite biological sex. These nucleotides are molecules which consist of atoms. Atoms consist of zero or more electrons, surrounding one or more protons and zero or more neutrons within its atomic nucleus. Electrons are negatively charged. Neutrons are neutrally charged. Protons are positively charged. As all positive charges repel each other it was realised that there must be some unknown force acting to counteract this repulsive electromagnetic force. This was called the Strong Force and it was found that Protons were made of three subatomic particles called Quarks whose charges were: +2/3 +2/3 -1/3 which sum to +1 and represents the electrical charge of the Proton, so that this means it is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to an electron which is -1 -1/3 -1/3 +2/3 which sum to 0 and represents the electrical charge of the Neutron. These same sign Quarks which ought to repel each other are glued together by Gluons. These are described by the Simple Unitary Lie group SU(3) where 2³ - 1 = 8 Gluons. A Lie group is a set with operations which enforce symmetries which ensure conservation of energy, etc. by incorporating a differential manifold which can hold exitations in a pervasive quantised *field* which includes the bosonic apsect of the fields which can also be thought of as waves or particles such as Gluons. As SU(3) is SU(n) where n = 3 and SU(n) was established by Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills as being the viable basis of any _Quantum Field Theory_ this meant that their _Yang-Mills_ curvature equations have been the fruitful basis of many _Quantum Field Theories_ based on SU(n) or its supergroup SO(2n) or the Spin(2n) spin group which includes that. One way to make sense of this is to think of Russian nesting dolls, where the rather messy Unitary product group: SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) which describes _The Standard Model_ of particle physics, has had the SU(5) _Grand Unified Theory_ proposed as being a Lie group which includes all of these fundamental forces: The Strong Force, the Weak Force, and the Electromagnetic Force. It has also had the Spin(10) _Grand Unified Theory_ proposed as inclusive of this, however there are alternatives and much of the work done in this area involves promoting different groups, like Witten writes on the blackboard at the start of this lecture which describe _Quantum Field Theories_ operating in more than 4 dimensions, where the surplus dimensions we can't see in real life have to be "compactified" so we are oblivious to them. Consequently, the word you should recognise in all of this is *field* and understand that particles and waves are fields, and that fields are exitations upon surfaces called manifolds, whose behaviour is governed by symmetry groups such as SU(3) in the case of the *field* holding all matter together and ensuring that our universe isn't just a soup of Quarks. I hope that helps.
Hardly seeing anyone taking notes. But if this is a gifted group of students, some may have near photographic memories. Which is not to say they are not smart, its just to say they don't have to take notes. Might set the whole to music. But just the same, they seem lost, like myself, at square one.
Can ufos be also explained not as a classification but as strings as per string theory? Provide an hypothesis like the ufo may be traveling in a curled up dimension or something like that. It is ok even if the hypothesis is speculative like for example dark matter? Just reply in one line even if speculative hypothesis is remotely possible? Do not add caveats Yes, it's remotely possible, but highly speculative within the current understanding of science. ChatGPT ♥️🌹♥️
This comment seems to be along the lines of Eric Weinstein's argument that for interstellar aliens to be possible we must disregard the limitations of Einstein's theories. That is, access to other dimensions, etc.
@@kentbetts His work in progress _Unified Field Theory_ has nothing to do with tiny vibrating one dimensional strings of energy. Essentially, it is: (7, 7) - (6, 4) = (1, 3) Here the cardinality of the unrestricted set of dimensional measures needed to chart length and angle within a non Euclidean purely mathematical 4 dimensional psuedo Riemannian manifold X⁴ defines the size of an auxiliary Ehresmannian manifold Y¹⁴ as X⁴ has 4 axes W X Y Z and 6 angles between those axes X&Y Y&Z Z&X W&X W&Y W&Z and 4 components parts to a vector within that [W, X, Y, Z]. Enumerate these dimensional measures and you calculate the unrestricted Metric for X⁴ which is Met(X⁴) = Y¹⁴ as 14 = 4 + 6 + 4. _General Relativity_ has only 10 dimensional measures to its Metric, which is insufficient to include those needed to define a fundamentally P-symmetric _Grand Unified Theory_ which includes _The Standard Model_ as a broken symmetry and the dimensions from which space-time can be recovered from a mathematical concept called a group. P-symmetry mirrors the set of fields with left handed spin properties to describe a set with right handed spin properties (like your left hand in a mirror looks like a right hand rotated through 180º). _The Standard Model_ omits many fields with right handed spin properties which is what makes our universe seem sinister as it has an apparent bias towards emitting 60% more fields with left handed spin during radioactive decay than those with right handed spin, suggesting that the right handed version is not a complete mirrored set. This broke an expected P-symmetry when it was discovered to be the case and it was quite a controversial experimental result. Eric Weinstein believes that the universe is not fundamentally sinister. At least it wasn't when it was young and hot. It may have broken from its initial P-symmetry as it cooled, leaving us with a weird puzzle where we don't get to see all the puzzle pieces or the box they came in with a picture on the front showing how they are all assembled in a very symmetrical way, supporting C-symmetry, P-symmetry, T-symmetry, and possibly also Supersymmetry. This isn't just attractive as it is more elegant and economical to avoid a slew of exceptions where you don't mirror left handed fields into right handed fields, but you mirror all of them, which would be much simpler to describe as a pattern generating function, but it also solves a serious problem with galaxies. Galaxies break the laws of physics. When astronomers calculated the masses of their stars and simulated how they should look rotating under gravitation as described by _General Relativity_ they did not get what they observe in the night sky. Gravity diminishes with 1/d² where d is the distance between masses, so everything holds together near the centre of the galaxy, but you would expect it to have weaker gravity as you got further from the centre, and particularly further along a spiral arm, so that towards the tip the stars would be more spread out and trial behind the slowly rotating mass of stars that made up the galaxy, as the gravity from the centre would be minimal and they would mainly feel a slight tug to follow the neighboring stars in their own outer arm, of which there would not be many. As a result the computer simulations predicted galaxies that dragged their spiral arms a lot more than they are observed doing in reality, and the galaxy had the appearance of a whirlpool, rather than a more or less coherent rotating disc. For it to conform to observations and _General Relativity_ to not be thrown out as just plain wrong, these scientists conjectured that the flaw was with _The Standard Model_ not being sufficiently elaborated, and they assumed that new fields would account for the missing mass spread all throughout the galaxy needed to ensure that these galaxies cohere and rotate as observed. As this missing mass couldn't be luminous or even reflect the light produced by the stars, it was called Dark Matter. _String Theory_ thought that Supersymmetric superpartner fields would account for this missing mass and they predicted the energy scales at which the fields would be discovered within the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and spent a good part of the last 50 years looking for this phenomena, and found nothing as of yet. Eric Weinstein thinks that they were looking in the wrong place as there is a fundamental P-symmetry and that means there is a complete mirror of the common fields that have left handed spin properties where a right handed Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger matter is predicted to be part of a Fermionic field complex that would be a candidate for the Dark Matter needed to ensure galaxies cohere as they rotate. He has yet to provide the energy scales at which these fields should be expected to be found at the Large Hadron Collider because he is a mathematician and not a quantum field theorist, and he openly admits he lacks the specific expertise needed to make that calculation. Essentially, his work in progress recovers space-time and its quantised contents from a purely mathematical gauge group which itself is grown from X⁴ without extra parameterisation with specific "magic numbers" forced in to the mathematics to get the physics to come out describing our universe as it is observed. To incorporate a fundamental P-symmetry in order to add the right handed fermionic fields that includes Dark Matter, Eric has to first complexify Y¹⁴ with the infinite set of Complex numbers ℂ to yield Y¹⁴·ᶜ and this is only legitimate to do when given Yᵐ the Metric m = 4k + 2 where k is a Natural number ℕ. This isn't an issue in this case because when k = 3 then 4 x 3 + 2 = 14 so 14 is able to be legitimately Complexified. The next step is to calculate the dimensions of the structure group. This is 2ⁿ where n = m / 2 so that given m = 14 then n = 7 and 2ⁿ = 2⁷ = 128. Consequently, the Ehresmannian manifold Y¹⁴·ᶜ generates the structure group of U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors. This can't be quantised. However, this can be decomposed to a gauge group of Weyl spinors which have the form U(2ⁿ⁻¹, 2ⁿ⁻¹) hence U(2⁶, 2⁶) which yields U(64, 64) Weyl spinors. This was shown to be what Eric was using in the slide of the Fermionic field content that appeared in his 2013 Oxford University lecture. The gauge group was never intended to be U(128). That was an error of presentation which was corrected in his 2021 draft paper which clarified that he was indeed using U(64, 64) Weyl spinors for Z.
Not really Bernhard Reimann had the idea in thr 19th century, and general relativity is a direct product of his contributions to mathematics. Einstein though higher dimensions had the key to a grand unified theory and Dirac who is the main man behind the formulation of GFT thought so as well.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Einstein didn't think of higher dimensions. He was still using the same 4 we have been using since forever. In the history of Physics we always had the same number of dimensions.
@@zemm9003Kaluza-Klein theory was sent to Einstein in 1919 and published in 1921. Einstein worked with the theory in his later years. String theorist didn't come up with the idea out of nowhere.
@@randomchannel-px6ho he didn't. He worked on non-metrical affine spaces. I think because he figured that it is possible that the speed of light changes over long enough spacetime intervals which means that the connection cannot be exactly the Levi-Civita connection (although in our region of spacetime it will be a great approximation). Kaluza Theory is nothing special. He uses a Mathematical trick of adding a dimension to expand the metric. The problem with that is the electromagnetic equations could be whatever you wanted and this would still go through. The issue with Kaluza Klein is precisely that it would not matter what Maxwell Equations would be (as long as they satisfy certain, pretty general, mathematical restrictions).
I wonder what Ed does at the end of the day when he climbs into his flying saucer and goes home?
Glad to hear someone appreciates my sense of humor ;-). Peace.
Very funny, indeed. 😂
He goes on to billionize his neurons and solves a few Millenium prize problems before he goes to bed.
@@Simon-xi8tb It's not "billionize". It's "Abelianize".
@@Net_Flux yes the way to solve nonabelian gauge theory we move to coulomb branch
Of course, it’s all so clear to me now. How could I not have seen that before?
#sarcasm
@@deltalima6703 #sherlockholmes
There ‘ s only one
[ 2 - particle ]
System around .
LS + EW yummy time
I like there are people like him. Bar raiser.
This lecture is so advanced that the more questions Edward answers at the end, the more lost the audience becomes.
If you think about Coulomb ‘ s law : accounting for anything other than the entity being an entity with electric charge makes the implied dynamics something that is not true : Coulomb ‘ s Law is not correct , in its fullest dynamical implication .
Such a realization ( there are a few ways of coming that knowledge ) would manifest abstractly : he says that the way a physicist would deal with that is to consider it as a real embedding in a complex ( probably , Fourier ) analysis with a branch .
@5:17 , when he explains an ‘ abelian - ization ‘ .
‘ to make a Fourier analysis ‘ of something implies the serial , rigorous use of complex integrals to surround , and identify the dirac delta function : a ‘ particle ‘ amidst probability density .
Lecture is good, unfortunately, resolution is too low to watch.
That was a wonderful lecture.
I studied math/probability. This guy had me at hello and was better than me when he was 6 I’m guessing. 😢nevertheless study kids.
No one in the room has the faintest idea what he is talking about.
Does that say more about him , or the audience ?
I don't think I understand one word of what he is saying and he is speaking slowly and clearly, lol.
You are made of cells. These contain DNA. This consists of four nucleotides which encode what made your initially fertilised egg divide and specialise into you.
Cytosine,
Guanine,
Adenine,
Thymine
C binds with G
A binds with T
These nucleotides form a double-helix structure which is capable of conveying a mix of your genetic information to your progeny along with your partner of the opposite biological sex. These nucleotides are molecules which consist of atoms. Atoms consist of zero or more electrons, surrounding one or more protons and zero or more neutrons within its atomic nucleus. Electrons are negatively charged. Neutrons are neutrally charged. Protons are positively charged. As all positive charges repel each other it was realised that there must be some unknown force acting to counteract this repulsive electromagnetic force. This was called the Strong Force and it was found that Protons were made of three subatomic particles called Quarks whose charges were:
+2/3
+2/3
-1/3
which sum to +1 and represents the electrical charge of the Proton, so that this means it is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to an electron which is -1
-1/3
-1/3
+2/3
which sum to 0 and represents the electrical charge of the Neutron.
These same sign Quarks which ought to repel each other are glued together by Gluons. These are described by the Simple Unitary Lie group SU(3) where 2³ - 1 = 8 Gluons. A Lie group is a set with operations which enforce symmetries which ensure conservation of energy, etc. by incorporating a differential manifold which can hold exitations in a pervasive quantised *field* which includes the bosonic apsect of the fields which can also be thought of as waves or particles such as Gluons. As SU(3) is SU(n) where n = 3 and SU(n) was established by Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills as being the viable basis of any _Quantum Field Theory_ this meant that their _Yang-Mills_ curvature equations have been the fruitful basis of many _Quantum Field Theories_ based on SU(n) or its supergroup SO(2n) or the Spin(2n) spin group which includes that. One way to make sense of this is to think of Russian nesting dolls, where the rather messy Unitary product group:
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)
which describes _The Standard Model_ of particle physics, has had the SU(5) _Grand Unified Theory_ proposed as being a Lie group which includes all of these fundamental forces: The Strong Force, the Weak Force, and the Electromagnetic Force. It has also had the Spin(10) _Grand Unified Theory_ proposed as inclusive of this, however there are alternatives and much of the work done in this area involves promoting different groups, like Witten writes on the blackboard at the start of this lecture which describe _Quantum Field Theories_ operating in more than 4 dimensions, where the surplus dimensions we can't see in real life have to be "compactified" so we are oblivious to them. Consequently, the word you should recognise in all of this is *field* and understand that particles and waves are fields, and that fields are exitations upon surfaces called manifolds, whose behaviour is governed by symmetry groups such as SU(3) in the case of the *field* holding all matter together and ensuring that our universe isn't just a soup of Quarks.
I hope that helps.
Vulcan
Hardly seeing anyone taking notes. But if this is a gifted group of students, some may have near photographic memories. Which is not to say they are not smart, its just to say they don't have to take notes. Might set the whole to music. But just the same, they seem lost, like myself, at square one.
yup i can do this with my eyes closed
Is he a robot
Whatever He is,he is actually a genius and considered smartest physicist alive today!!
@ Mark Weller
If he’s a robot then he’s a model from the future .. you know transhumanism, and All That
Can ufos be also explained not as a classification but as strings as per string theory? Provide an hypothesis like the ufo may be traveling in a curled up dimension or something like that. It is ok even if the hypothesis is speculative like for example dark matter? Just reply in one line even if speculative hypothesis is remotely possible? Do not add caveats
Yes, it's remotely possible, but highly speculative within the current understanding of science.
ChatGPT ♥️🌹♥️
Not even remotely possible.
cigars, triangles, spheres, saucers, tic-tacs no strings.
What
This comment seems to be along the lines of Eric Weinstein's argument that for interstellar aliens to be possible we must disregard the limitations of Einstein's theories. That is, access to other dimensions, etc.
@@kentbetts His work in progress _Unified Field Theory_ has nothing to do with tiny vibrating one dimensional strings of energy.
Essentially, it is:
(7, 7) -
(6, 4) =
(1, 3)
Here the cardinality of the unrestricted set of dimensional measures needed to chart length and angle within a non Euclidean purely mathematical 4 dimensional psuedo Riemannian manifold X⁴ defines the size of an auxiliary Ehresmannian manifold Y¹⁴ as X⁴ has 4 axes W X Y Z and 6 angles between those axes X&Y Y&Z Z&X W&X W&Y W&Z and 4 components parts to a vector within that [W, X, Y, Z]. Enumerate these dimensional measures and you calculate the unrestricted Metric for X⁴ which is Met(X⁴) = Y¹⁴ as 14 = 4 + 6 + 4. _General Relativity_ has only 10 dimensional measures to its Metric, which is insufficient to include those needed to define a fundamentally P-symmetric _Grand Unified Theory_ which includes _The Standard Model_ as a broken symmetry and the dimensions from which space-time can be recovered from a mathematical concept called a group. P-symmetry mirrors the set of fields with left handed spin properties to describe a set with right handed spin properties (like your left hand in a mirror looks like a right hand rotated through 180º). _The Standard Model_ omits many fields with right handed spin properties which is what makes our universe seem sinister as it has an apparent bias towards emitting 60% more fields with left handed spin during radioactive decay than those with right handed spin, suggesting that the right handed version is not a complete mirrored set. This broke an expected P-symmetry when it was discovered to be the case and it was quite a controversial experimental result. Eric Weinstein believes that the universe is not fundamentally sinister. At least it wasn't when it was young and hot. It may have broken from its initial P-symmetry as it cooled, leaving us with a weird puzzle where we don't get to see all the puzzle pieces or the box they came in with a picture on the front showing how they are all assembled in a very symmetrical way, supporting C-symmetry, P-symmetry, T-symmetry, and possibly also Supersymmetry. This isn't just attractive as it is more elegant and economical to avoid a slew of exceptions where you don't mirror left handed fields into right handed fields, but you mirror all of them, which would be much simpler to describe as a pattern generating function, but it also solves a serious problem with galaxies.
Galaxies break the laws of physics. When astronomers calculated the masses of their stars and simulated how they should look rotating under gravitation as described by _General Relativity_ they did not get what they observe in the night sky. Gravity diminishes with 1/d² where d is the distance between masses, so everything holds together near the centre of the galaxy, but you would expect it to have weaker gravity as you got further from the centre, and particularly further along a spiral arm, so that towards the tip the stars would be more spread out and trial behind the slowly rotating mass of stars that made up the galaxy, as the gravity from the centre would be minimal and they would mainly feel a slight tug to follow the neighboring stars in their own outer arm, of which there would not be many. As a result the computer simulations predicted galaxies that dragged their spiral arms a lot more than they are observed doing in reality, and the galaxy had the appearance of a whirlpool, rather than a more or less coherent rotating disc. For it to conform to observations and _General Relativity_ to not be thrown out as just plain wrong, these scientists conjectured that the flaw was with _The Standard Model_ not being sufficiently elaborated, and they assumed that new fields would account for the missing mass spread all throughout the galaxy needed to ensure that these galaxies cohere and rotate as observed. As this missing mass couldn't be luminous or even reflect the light produced by the stars, it was called Dark Matter. _String Theory_ thought that Supersymmetric superpartner fields would account for this missing mass and they predicted the energy scales at which the fields would be discovered within the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and spent a good part of the last 50 years looking for this phenomena, and found nothing as of yet. Eric Weinstein thinks that they were looking in the wrong place as there is a fundamental P-symmetry and that means there is a complete mirror of the common fields that have left handed spin properties where a right handed Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger matter is predicted to be part of a Fermionic field complex that would be a candidate for the Dark Matter needed to ensure galaxies cohere as they rotate. He has yet to provide the energy scales at which these fields should be expected to be found at the Large Hadron Collider because he is a mathematician and not a quantum field theorist, and he openly admits he lacks the specific expertise needed to make that calculation. Essentially, his work in progress recovers space-time and its quantised contents from a purely mathematical gauge group which itself is grown from X⁴ without extra parameterisation with specific "magic numbers" forced in to the mathematics to get the physics to come out describing our universe as it is observed.
To incorporate a fundamental P-symmetry in order to add the right handed fermionic fields that includes Dark Matter, Eric has to first complexify Y¹⁴ with the infinite set of Complex numbers ℂ to yield Y¹⁴·ᶜ and this is only legitimate to do when given Yᵐ the Metric m = 4k + 2 where k is a Natural number ℕ. This isn't an issue in this case because when k = 3 then 4 x 3 + 2 = 14 so 14 is able to be legitimately Complexified. The next step is to calculate the dimensions of the structure group. This is 2ⁿ where n = m / 2 so that given m = 14 then n = 7 and 2ⁿ = 2⁷ = 128.
Consequently, the Ehresmannian manifold Y¹⁴·ᶜ generates the structure group of U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors. This can't be quantised. However, this can be decomposed to a gauge group of Weyl spinors which have the form U(2ⁿ⁻¹, 2ⁿ⁻¹) hence U(2⁶, 2⁶) which yields U(64, 64) Weyl spinors. This was shown to be what Eric was using in the slide of the Fermionic field content that appeared in his 2013 Oxford University lecture. The gauge group was never intended to be U(128). That was an error of presentation which was corrected in his 2021 draft paper which clarified that he was indeed using U(64, 64) Weyl spinors for Z.
Are there ufos as per science? Say yes or no and nothing else
Yes
ChatGPT ♥️♥️
we see ufos every day - unidentified flying objects are nothing special.
"The story starts in 6 dimensions." Oh ok haha
Way beyond advanced algebra
When the story begins with 3 lie group objects, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
blah blah blah blah no idea what he's talking about I just love watching Ed talk about....anything
Under appreciated asmr content
how did I end up there ?
The Asians is bored and the rest is like wtf
And here I am still trying to figure out how to complete the square…
His voice is so funny lmao😂💀🍑
Even lenny susskind has no idea what he's saying.
It'd be great if they could edit out the hacker in the front row. Or just ask him to go.
I am used to 29 dimensions of string theorists. Therefore I had difficulty in understanding this lecture on only 6 dimensions.
Story start in 6 dimensions is already bad because only 4 are observable.
Not really Bernhard Reimann had the idea in thr 19th century, and general relativity is a direct product of his contributions to mathematics. Einstein though higher dimensions had the key to a grand unified theory and Dirac who is the main man behind the formulation of GFT thought so as well.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Einstein didn't think of higher dimensions. He was still using the same 4 we have been using since forever. In the history of Physics we always had the same number of dimensions.
@@zemm9003Kaluza-Klein theory was sent to Einstein in 1919 and published in 1921. Einstein worked with the theory in his later years.
String theorist didn't come up with the idea out of nowhere.
@@randomchannel-px6ho he didn't. He worked on non-metrical affine spaces. I think because he figured that it is possible that the speed of light changes over long enough spacetime intervals which means that the connection cannot be exactly the Levi-Civita connection (although in our region of spacetime it will be a great approximation). Kaluza Theory is nothing special. He uses a Mathematical trick of adding a dimension to expand the metric. The problem with that is the electromagnetic equations could be whatever you wanted and this would still go through. The issue with Kaluza Klein is precisely that it would not matter what Maxwell Equations would be (as long as they satisfy certain, pretty general, mathematical restrictions).
I speak English but I didn't understand a word he said :(
Nicht zu lesen was auf der Tafel steht
Pro-Tipp: Man kann Videos pausieren!
Are there aliens as per science? Say yes or no and nothing else. Reply in one word
No
ChatGPT ♥️🌹
Are there aliens as per science? Say yes or no and nothing else. Reply in one word
No
Yes