The clear, obvious and correct theory. I assume *those* people’s theories have no means of being published because the discoverer(s) do not have an .edu email extension.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I am an artist, love that these 3 will get out of academia and have a real conversation, dialectic interaction. Thanks for this and to Brian for organizing this. Invaluable.... John B.
The theory of everything is time, For time holds all things together, The invisible thread that binds the cosmos, The unseen force that gives shape to existence. Without time, nothing moves, Nothing changes, Nothing comes into being or fades away, For time is the essence of motion, The pulse of all that is. Even the stillness is present by time, For in its presence, The stillness is defined, A moment captured in the flow, A pause in the rhythm of the universe, Yet still within the dance of time. Every breath, every heartbeat, Every rise and fall of the stars, Is marked by the steady hand of time, The keeper of all that unfolds. Time is the canvas on which reality is painted, The dimension through which life is lived, The eternal river that carries us forward, Always moving, always flowing, From what was to what is to what will be. It is both the creator and the destroyer, The beginning and the end, The constant in a universe of change. In time, all things are held- The birth of galaxies, The death of stars, The stillness of a quiet moment, The rush of a lifetime passing by. It is the backdrop to every story, The space in which every dream is dreamed, The heartbeat of every atom, The silent witness to all that comes and goes. Without time, there would be no existence, No space for the universe to unfold, No place for life to emerge, For time is the measure of all things, The force that gives them life And brings them to an end. Time is the theory of everything, The framework that holds the cosmos together, The breath of the infinite, The song of the eternal. In its flow, we find our meaning, Our purpose, Our place in the vastness of all that is. For time is not just a measure, But the very essence of existence, The heartbeat of reality itself.
As a laymen who can keep up with individual ideas, and at times covert multiple principles to work towards a common goal. I enjoy greatly, for purely fandom perhaps, watching the friction of positions place a weight on possibility.
ffs sakes again? Once again, this is exactly counterintuitive for people getting to trust and fund their intellectual escapades. Continue lying misrepresenting. unsubbing i had it. This is the 10th time he pulled this trick. There are comments from 2 weeks ago, so . How hard is it to say this episode was recorded at this date?
@mr.needmoremhz4148 it is written in description of video that it was recorded in 2020. But I agree he could easily make it clear in the title or a pinned message in comments. It's sad to see such a clever guy lowering himself to the level of a social media influencer fishing for views.
What a great talk, great people, thank you for the re-upload, so more people watch it. Sabine is a queen of science. Since this is four years old, we need an update!
@@redmed10 In the unification of QM and GR? Yes, I estimate. Just think of Oppenheim and team`s work, or progress in these experiments, Sabine is talking about.
Excellent space-time episode. The discussion was real and that is needed so the general public can actually see what it takes to accomplish advancement in fundamental physics
There's a famous anecdote: A man sees another man searching under a street light at night. "What are you looking for?" "I lost my keys" They both keep looking without finding them. "They're not here. Where did you lose them?" "I dropped them somewhere over there," the man points into the distance. "Then why are you looking for them here?" "I can see better here" And that's why string theorists work in anti desitter space.
Plottwist. Keys were never lost. Question: what would you think, if claim our current and ancient measurment system units are planck length based? Plottwist: ultra simple to prove. What is going underground is now what ppl see. Everything is a show. In the end of the show the take out the public.
The sad thing is they keep on looking at the same place. The sadder thing is they attracted others to look for it at the same place, too. All at the expense of the unknowing public.
I've never been so unimpressed by someone so many people are impressed by as Eric Weinstein. Of course, if more people were impressed by Sabine, I'd feel like that about her.
Oh, because you’re stupid fucking theory doesn’t work at all, it never has and it is disrupted all of science for the last 40 years you’re going to make a personal attack on a scientist who is actually presented something that is outside of this bubble? What a douche bag.
I don't understand why Lee was cut out from the conversation quite brutally at 52:20. Why inviting him if, in the end, all questions are for Sabine and Eric? He was describing a very interesting theory and was given a tenth of the time Eric was given for his incomprehensible one. That's so disrespectful!
I think it was mensioned. (Lee had some things to do). And he only got some time for this discussion. In other words it was him to finish at that time.
Ahhh man this was the best!! Shouda bin a pay per view!!! Please do more of this! I think this is the way to figure things out. Im a big fan of all of you.. each one of you has taught me alot!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Around 8:30 Sabine talks about a problem generated by QM and GR: when a particle is in a superposition we can’t account for what happens to the gravitational field. My (layman’s) question: how do we then account for what happens to the electromagnetic field?
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
@@carnap355 It didn't 11 days ago when it was posted as if it was a live discussion. But thanks. And if you know this channel, you'd be familiar with the clickbait strategy. Already unsubbed.
Isn't that Brian's thing? He's always doing dishonest grubby things on his RUclips. Re-uploading ancient videos pretending they're recent. Guy has no morals.
@@bulkbogan4320 Weird comment guy. This is a science channel. I'm not even American, but both Trump and Harris are as equally garbage as each other. Enjoy your trash bipartisan system champ.
Conversation for me is like fishing for semantics. Every once on a while somebody will explain something in a way I hadnt heard before...using other words or comparisons...that causes what I thought I understood to move. That didnt happen in this case cause either I was having a bad ear day or the audio wasnt that good
Semantics depends on the context defined by the syntax. For example: "a family which cleaves to tradition" "the axe cleaves the log in two" Takes the contranym "cleaves" and its semantics depend on it syntactic content. Consequently, the same it true of mathematics where you must be mindful of the definitions and set up and how words are combined syntactically to then infer the intended semantics. Eric Weinstein uses precise terminology from mathematical physics to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the definitions and set up of his example, and this does risk alienating a large portion of the audience, but he isn't really targeting those people, but academics who could critique his work which would be familiar with the terminology he uses.
Enjoyed the conversation. Interesting, and I wonder what is done? What is on solid ground for more teaming? I wish there were more dollars and that they were more spread out. That they were pulling in more people across more areas. Wish there was more teaming, more ideas, more experimentation, I think. I know everything is paid for by someone, somewhere. Look around you, at your office, in your home, at the store.. Everything is thought of, designed, made, packages, delivered. And in a certain sense, done. There are a lot of people out there finishing things. There are a lot of people getting their things done. You have to finish things, just like everyone else. And to say, well look at the military budget and find the money. This is a pretty easy things to say. But I like you all. Hope to hear more. Thank you so much.
Before I accounted for test mass composition, the chance against odds was only 1 in 10^18. That was only looking at source mass composition. Now that I accounted for test mass composition as well it is 1 in 10^69.
Sabine touched on gravity being emergent and trying to find quantum gravity is the wrong approach, as Eric was also pointing out. I see the quantum to the cosmos as dimensions or energy scales and are part of one whole. Joel Primack and his wife Nancy have a great book "View From The Center of The Universe" that has The Cosmic Uroboros that shows the varying energy scales of our universe. You can't (shouldn't) mix the scales and one leads to another energetically in one direction (although we have seen the energy released from an atom) which leads to source.
In one of his last books Lee figured the advice he would give to a young budding physicist who wants to make progress in the founds of physics. He should start anew from a blank peace of paper. I understood this meant setting aside all assumptions and start from scratch. Unfortunately, I dont see him following his own advice. Great talk nevertheless, all of them outstanding physicists. And yes, my favorite is still Lee.
Eric Weinstein is consistent. Even though he doesn’t know everything, he will use his words to tell you that nobody knows better than he. With that being said, i still find his arguments plausible. I just don’t think convincing others should be born from egotism and self-righteous thinking. It doesn’t take long to figure out that his favorites are “I” and “my.” Coincidentally, whenever he utters words like “we” or “us,” it is usually followed by the word “but.”
These experts should sit down in a room together without us and have a serious conversation to resolve their differences before they tell us what the answer is. The only thing interesting about this video is that some very smart people don't seem to be able to agree on something that you think would have been settled after a hundred years
I already solved quantum gravity. I am now building a quantum gravity material analyzer. I test quantum gravity daily with my freefall experiments. From a height of 2 meters lead falls 0.0003 seconds faster than iron.
Great listen , when you ask about the beauty theoretical physicist are focusing more on , is this similar to the podcast you did with Dr. Michio Kalu , in a non derogatory way I got the impression he was more excited about creating a unified theory that would be as small as an inch long . The aesthetics of the theory. Is this what you mean by modelling more to the beauty of it
Space particle dualism (2005): Every particle carries its own quanta of space which is an oscillating complex number hypersphere. The radius depends on the energy of the particle. For a rest mass energy electron, it would be 10^−21 meters. This has been used to predict the masses of second and third generation particles (2023).
Dear Brian, aka Dr. Keating aka king of dad jokes, Thank you for your work. I urge you to reconsider this practice of posting old videos, albeit from someone else's channel, without including actual provenance nor the date it was actually released. This practice feels disrespectful to your viewers to me. Great video, by the way 🙃
Yeah, thank you for disrupting science for the last 40 years and sending everyone after one red herring, and another red herring and another red herring instead of actually doing science. You’re like the person who says that communism hasn’t worked because people haven’t done it the right way.
The problem with so-called “modern science” isn’t a lack of brainpower or human potential-it’s the social and cultural communication styles that hold us back from understanding reality on a deeper level. Somehow, society has handed over the most fascinating and essential quest-to understand literally everything-to the “dorks.” No offense, dorks-you’re vital to the mission of figuring all this out. (And if that statement annoys you… well, you might have just identified yourself.) But here’s the thing: historically, genius doesn’t thrive in rigid environments. Industries outside of science figured this out ages ago. Innovate faster and better, or get left behind. The key to attracting innovation? Freedom of thought and expression. Period. Socially charismatic and attractive people naturally create environments where others feel free to share ideas without the fear of being dismissed. (Notice I didn’t say “judged”-I specifically mean dismissed.) But in science today, the vibe is often hostile and combative, especially if you dare to step outside the boundaries of what's considered acceptable. And yes, there should be some limits to how “out there” a theory of everything can be. But when we make the rules so strict that creativity gets strangled, we’re only hurting ourselves. Let’s talk about dorks for a second. Growing up in the ’90s, “dork” had a specific meaning. They were the smart but socially awkward kids who didn’t pose a threat to your fragile teenage ego. (You know exactly the type, don’t lie.) At some point, we’ve all had interactions with dorks, and let’s be real: we’ve all been the dork in some situations. Here’s how you spot a dork in the wild: First, they’re guarded-terrified of sharing their ideas because they’re afraid of what others might think. Second, they give off this vibe that screams, “I know something you don’t,” but they won’t explain it because they assume you can’t keep up. And third, they preface their opinions in a way that says, “If you challenge me, we’re throwing hands.” It’s like the intellectual equivalent of a meathead flexing before a fight. And yeah, it’s off-putting. This is why dorks often struggle to connect socially. Their goal in every interaction is to change your mind, which isn’t exactly a great way to build friendships. And when it comes to big-picture stuff, like the nature of reality or a theory of everything, do we really want dorks dominating the conversation? Because that’s exactly what’s happened. Worse, it’s being propped up by well-funded institutions hiding behind layers of arrogance and self-replicating PhDs. This is the exact opposite of creativity-it’s the lifeblood of dogma. Now, before you accuse me of being a hater, let me admit something: I’ve dorked it up plenty of times myself. In fact, this comment alone might qualify as “dorky.” But here’s what I’ve learned: The biggest growth in my understanding has come when I stopped being a dork and started listening to vastly different perspectives. When you genuinely try to understand why someone believes what they do, you learn things-even if it’s just from rethinking your own ideas. The issue I see in science isn’t a lack of intelligence-it’s an institutionalized “dork mentality” where outside ideas are shut down to protect the fragility of what’s already known. Instead of admitting that we don’t have all the answers, we build walls around our precious worldviews. But here’s the hard truth: the only thing we can be 100% certain of is that we’re wrong. And hey, maybe I’m wrong too. After all, what do I know? I’m just some dork on the internet.
While I appreciate beauty in scientific theories, I don't buy the notion that something has to be true, because it is beautiful. I would rather think, that over time, theories become more beautiful when people come up with new approaches to write them down. Look at James Clerk Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism today, and in its original form! In 1879, it was about 20 different equations, which over time have been condensed down to the four we learn today. But that does not mean that Electromagnetism has become more and more true over time.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I like 👍 what Lee Smoling says about the fact that science should be initiated and approved by the community, not necessarily by splinter groups that have their own agenda.
When two singularities (not equal) in a multifaced space becomes a singularity (same value) the wawe function collapses, bases; example two dimension space singularity, with two equal valued singularites becomes one a dimensional space.
There are many ways to get gravity even using W-function ...for example 4π(planck length)^3/planck time =9.8 equivalent to gravity coincidence maybe...I mean they say gravity is a change in space-time
Charge mass dualism (2017): the masses of particles come from the energy that is in the force fields of different particles. The neutrinos are so light because the weak force is so weak. This has been used to predict the masses of first-generation particles (2023)
What Sabine claims to be the gist, or one of the principal ideas, underlying Erik Verlinde et al.'s theoretical scenario of Emergent Gravity, starting at 13:17 in this video, has been explicitly anticipated in written script by David Ritz Finkelstein in a published paper (I can provide you with the precise journal reference and page therein) back in the late 80s, namely that (and I loosely quote here Finkelstein from a paper of mine that is currently work-in-progress, to appear in November 2024): ``...If one wants to arrive at the fine structure of the graviton, the envisaged quantum particle of the gravitational field, by directly quantising the dynamical Einstein field equations on the spacetime continuum, it would be as if one wanted to arrive at the fine structure of the water molecule by directly quantising the Navier-Stokes equations of continuous hydrodynamical flow''. Credit should be given where and when credit is due.👍
Wolfram Alpha Cellular Automaton Rule #30 run to 1000 steps is the explanation of everything we "observe", as limited as we are in our sensory apparatus.
A theory of everything first needs to explain why anything. Neither GR or QM does this. Indeed, no one yet knows what the Schrodinger equation means, in and of itself, and GR's mathematics holds many paradoxes (e.g. Zeno's paradoxes apply here). But more than this, how does the universe begin by aligning to such equations? Magic? How did the universe choose to have the amount of content it has (consider the Bekenstein-Hawking Universal Information Bound, 10^122 bits).A theory of everything must at least explain this, yet we so far have not even made a start.
If you want to see a geometric model which produces quantized Spin Angular Momentum, look at the lands and grooves inside a rifle barrel. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
This thinking in "teams" (tribes) is like that of disputes between representatives of "schools". It often distracts from what it should actually be about. Anyone who can offer a meaningful way of making distinctions that can refine thinking should be welcome. The world and much more is far too complex to get lost in ostensible A vs B games.
@@SebSN-y3fobviously when I said Eric team in the house just means I’m bias to what he says I’m just a big fan but i do recognize that all the ppl that are on the panel I respect very much but Eric rules ! 😂
Gravity does not depend on mass or energy but on the baryon count. So the gravity per baryon is constant, but the gravity per kilogram is not constant.
A physics paradigm predicated on non-existence of the space medium is as if the science of Oceanography were predicated on non-existence of the ocean. The sub-Planckian space medium, the Plenum, is the missing 'Ocean'. Under this inverted paradigm, the quest for Unification will amount to chasing the rainbow. The harder it's pursued, the more doggedly it recedes from grasp. And that's currently the state of theoretical physics, astrophysics and cosmology as they try to unravel the 'Big Conundra' in physics. When the Plenum, the Primal Substrate, Bohm's 'Implicate Order', is recognized as the true ground of being, then the answers to the Big Stuff will begin falling seamlessly and naturally into place. Unification of gravity and 'quantum gravity' in UFT will be like a friendly dog who just trotted in thru the back door and sat down grinning.
We need to advance our Science with a different philosophical approach. As things stand, our knowledge of the world is based on an article of Faith, called the Observer. Removing the need for an observer would allow to remove the term "Time" from the physics equations, which in turn would allow to redefine Space and understand its underlying structure - a structure that today we know as the "body if the physics laws". Anthony
If the unification of forces requires any creative composition at all in practice then a traditional TOE is doomed and we'll just have to continue enjoying all the awesome stuff our "less than TOE" theories help us do. Maybe a better approach to TOE is to format it more like a recipe mixed with good advice then leave it up to individuals in realtime to decide what they cook and why. Creative composition beyond default render is inevitable now that advanced life exists as our technological ambition/capacity accelerates.
Similar worlds interpretation (2003): We live in all worlds that are temporarily indistinguishable to us. This explains entanglement, the observer effect, psychokinesis and the measurement problem.
I don't agree with the statement you said Brian. Weinstein has a point that I don't even think he is seeing. When you tell young students maybe students in high school that are motivated by these things even the ones graduating high school and going into their college lives. If you tell them, in 10-20 years we'll have this figured out. Why would a bright mind waste their time to go to that area in the field? It's a double edged sword - it's great to be optimistic, at the same time you are diverting where the knowledge and great minds need to be by insinuating it's not needed the minds that are there now got this.
Am I the only one who thought that the reactions to Sabine's comments were condescending? She pointed out that by choosing unconventional ways of sharing his GU theory, Eric was setting himself up to being misunderstood. Instead of answering to this, Eric talks to the other guys explaining that Sabine's gloves off is welcome. I didn't think her remark was a punch. Then Brian switched the topic to criticize Sabine for applying judgment on what money is wasted in science. I understand why Eric self-published a draft of his GU theory (after many years of having only a succinct video as reference). Peer-review is indeed often very biased. Still inviting questions about what is unclear is part of the scientific process, even in non peer-review format. The appropriate answer would have been "which part is unclear" Instead, Eric reacted as if he were attacked I say that even though I am an avid listener of Eric's interviews - and Sabine's channel - and that I am grateful for his courage (and hers) to stand up to those who want to establish scientific proof by intimidation. Science is objective, scientists are humans.
The substrate of all existence is "consciousness", existence is consciousness - no existence without consciousness. Consciousness/Awareness is dimensionless, timeless, spaceless, formless, stateless, unborn, eternal without a cause.
Sabine's poke of Eric got the same concept salad as usual. When will he understand he's like the student that offers us a share of a new theory if only we could sort the math for them, EXCEPT, he's brilliant at the math and needs someone to make sense of the physics for him! Eric may be on to something, but so could Wolfram etal. Eric you need to give brilliant people more incentive to give up their own theories and time to work on yours. C+ Try harder. Thank you Matt, Brian for bringing these hyper geniuses together, it needs to be done more often.
The analogy that Prof Smolin tries to draw between the evolution biological species and the relationship of the branches of physical law seems entirely inappropriate to me. I can write so boldly because he is comparing what seems like apples and oranges. In the one case, what is evolving are various species of life; in the other are physical laws. I find incomprehensible to posit the evolution of laws - I suppose - in time.
Is Weinstein's theory of geometric quantization confined to his own understanding? Do other minds get to participate? Sabine sort of implied, by saying she didn't know what he was talking about, that it was possibly mumbo-jumbo. I'm just asking.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
*What is the best theory of everything: String Theory, GU, E8, Loop Quantum Gravity, or something else?*
Something where all of these theories rather hinder the real one from being discovered..
Something else: Tetryonics (as it is the simplest geometry-based explanatory theory)
The clear, obvious and correct theory.
I assume *those* people’s theories have no means of being published because the discoverer(s) do not have an .edu email extension.
Hi, at the moment I'm very impressed with, CCC again, also Stephen Wolfram Physics project, all the best.
SPD-quantum gravity.
in current science of whom i follow. this panel is right up there. big fan of Sabine H Thanks for sharing the conversation DR Brian...
Thank you so much Dr Brian Keating for sharing this conversation!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
I am an artist, love that these 3 will get out of academia and have a real conversation, dialectic interaction. Thanks for this and to Brian for organizing this. Invaluable.... John B.
The theory of everything is time,
For time holds all things together,
The invisible thread that binds the cosmos,
The unseen force that gives shape to existence.
Without time, nothing moves,
Nothing changes,
Nothing comes into being or fades away,
For time is the essence of motion,
The pulse of all that is.
Even the stillness is present by time,
For in its presence,
The stillness is defined,
A moment captured in the flow,
A pause in the rhythm of the universe,
Yet still within the dance of time.
Every breath, every heartbeat,
Every rise and fall of the stars,
Is marked by the steady hand of time,
The keeper of all that unfolds.
Time is the canvas on which reality is painted,
The dimension through which life is lived,
The eternal river that carries us forward,
Always moving, always flowing,
From what was to what is to what will be.
It is both the creator and the destroyer,
The beginning and the end,
The constant in a universe of change.
In time, all things are held-
The birth of galaxies,
The death of stars,
The stillness of a quiet moment,
The rush of a lifetime passing by.
It is the backdrop to every story,
The space in which every dream is dreamed,
The heartbeat of every atom,
The silent witness to all that comes and goes.
Without time, there would be no existence,
No space for the universe to unfold,
No place for life to emerge,
For time is the measure of all things,
The force that gives them life
And brings them to an end.
Time is the theory of everything,
The framework that holds the cosmos together,
The breath of the infinite,
The song of the eternal.
In its flow, we find our meaning,
Our purpose,
Our place in the vastness of all that is.
For time is not just a measure,
But the very essence of existence,
The heartbeat of reality itself.
Thank you Sabine for questioning quantizing gravity.
@@tadeth yup
A fascinating conversation. It seems that people should recognize the difference between theorizing and demonstrating.
This isnt new, but I love listening to Lee anytime. A true genius.
Well done! Excellent work bringing these people together.
As a laymen who can keep up with individual ideas, and at times covert multiple principles to work towards a common goal. I enjoy greatly, for purely fandom perhaps, watching the friction of positions place a weight on possibility.
This video isn’t live. I watched this about a year ago, smh.
Oh! When was it?
ffs sakes again? Once again, this is exactly counterintuitive for people getting to trust and fund their intellectual escapades. Continue lying misrepresenting. unsubbing i had it. This is the 10th time he pulled this trick. There are comments from 2 weeks ago, so . How hard is it to say this episode was recorded at this date?
@@mr.needmoremhz4148 Stop crying you incel loser.
Keating is forever doing this - re-uploading. Gets clicks, then people remember they've seen it before....😮
@mr.needmoremhz4148 it is written in description of video that it was recorded in 2020. But I agree he could easily make it clear in the title or a pinned message in comments. It's sad to see such a clever guy lowering himself to the level of a social media influencer fishing for views.
Great conversation! Thank you very much! Instructive and a lot oft inspiration.
What a great talk, great people, thank you for the re-upload, so more people watch it. Sabine is a queen of science. Since this is four years old, we need an update!
Will their views have changed much in 4 years?
@@redmed10 In the unification of QM and GR? Yes, I estimate. Just think of Oppenheim and team`s work, or progress in these experiments, Sabine is talking about.
This is an incredible panel!!!🎉🎉🎉😲😀
Excellent space-time episode. The discussion was real and that is needed so the general public can actually see what it takes to accomplish advancement in fundamental physics
Thanks
There's a famous anecdote: A man sees another man searching under a street light at night. "What are you looking for?"
"I lost my keys"
They both keep looking without finding them.
"They're not here. Where did you lose them?"
"I dropped them somewhere over there," the man points into the distance.
"Then why are you looking for them here?"
"I can see better here"
And that's why string theorists work in anti desitter space.
Plottwist. Keys were never lost.
Question: what would you think, if claim our current and ancient measurment system units are planck length based? Plottwist: ultra simple to prove. What is going underground is now what ppl see. Everything is a show. In the end of the show the take out the public.
ahh, btw, truthböts remove all comments me showing it.
The sad thing is they keep on looking at the same place. The sadder thing is they attracted others to look for it at the same place, too. All at the expense of the unknowing public.
Sabina is correct, eric has a massive communication problem.
I've never been so unimpressed by someone so many people are impressed by as Eric Weinstein.
Of course, if more people were impressed by Sabine, I'd feel like that about her.
he needs to reduce his energy then :)
@@markupton1417 you are for sure a great thinker with an enormous understanding.
Oh, because you’re stupid fucking theory doesn’t work at all, it never has and it is disrupted all of science for the last 40 years you’re going to make a personal attack on a scientist who is actually presented something that is outside of this bubble? What a douche bag.
@@markupton1417gay
I don't understand why Lee was cut out from the conversation quite brutally at 52:20. Why inviting him if, in the end, all questions are for Sabine and Eric? He was describing a very interesting theory and was given a tenth of the time Eric was given for his incomprehensible one. That's so disrespectful!
I think it was mensioned. (Lee had some things to do). And he only got some time for this discussion. In other words it was him to finish at that time.
I was so excited but I recognized this one immediately! But I liked it so much I’m gonna watch it again!
Thanks,
Keep chipping away at it guys, one day all will be much clearer.
We will!
Ahhh man this was the best!! Shouda bin a pay per view!!! Please do more of this! I think this is the way to figure things out. Im a big fan of all of you.. each one of you has taught me alot!
Such a fascinating discussion!!!!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Brilliant. Fantastic panel.
I love watching Sabine's progression, she didn't talk like this a couple years ago, she's exercising good logic and philosophy along with her science.
She's an entertainer like Neil and Michio, whereas Eric is a legitimate physicist who didn't sell out.
@@OfTheVoid But Eric... altough much much saner, isnt he contolledop? Illu-Thiel`s pup.
@@OfTheVoid Bullshit. He is not a physicist and his theory of everything is total bullshit and a real physicist would only read for entertainment
holistic interconnectedness and possibilities
This is a great discussion. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Would have liked to see Neil Turoc included in this discussion, but perhaps his groups new ideas on TOE were not circulated when this was made.
OMFG how did Keating manage to book Matt and Sabine?! Aaahaahaaahaaaa wow
Show just keeps on getting better people
Appreciate that so much
Love it Brian, this is my go to type of podcast to listen to
Around 8:30 Sabine talks about a problem generated by QM and GR: when a particle is in a superposition we can’t account for what happens to the gravitational field. My (layman’s) question: how do we then account for what happens to the electromagnetic field?
A great presentation about TOE. Champions League squad. I like it before I start watching :)
Thanks a lot Dr.Brian Keating 👍🏻 👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏻
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Isn’t this old by now? This is not a new recording unless I’m mistaken.
It’s old I am disappointed to
Yes, it says in the description - "In this thought-provoking episode recorded in 2020"
@@carnap355 It didn't 11 days ago when it was posted as if it was a live discussion. But thanks. And if you know this channel, you'd be familiar with the clickbait strategy. Already unsubbed.
Brian, this video isn’t live. Why not tell the truth ?
Isn't that Brian's thing? He's always doing dishonest grubby things on his RUclips. Re-uploading ancient videos pretending they're recent. Guy has no morals.
R u guys smoking something ?
@@WalterSamuels I bet you're a Harris/walz voter aren't you? I bet you support others with conflicting ideologies. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@bulkbogan4320 Weird comment guy. This is a science channel. I'm not even American, but both Trump and Harris are as equally garbage as each other. Enjoy your trash bipartisan system champ.
@@bulkbogan4320 He's one of Gods Chosen Race so of course he's voting for Emhoff, Harris's husband. The Jewish brains behind the brown.
Conversation for me is like fishing for semantics. Every once on a while somebody will explain something in a way I hadnt heard before...using other words or comparisons...that causes what I thought I understood to move. That didnt happen in this case cause either I was having a bad ear day or the audio wasnt that good
Semantics depends on the context defined by the syntax. For example:
"a family which cleaves to tradition"
"the axe cleaves the log in two"
Takes the contranym "cleaves" and its semantics depend on it syntactic content. Consequently, the same it true of mathematics where you must be mindful of the definitions and set up and how words are combined syntactically to then infer the intended semantics. Eric Weinstein uses precise terminology from mathematical physics to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the definitions and set up of his example, and this does risk alienating a large portion of the audience, but he isn't really targeting those people, but academics who could critique his work which would be familiar with the terminology he uses.
Love these guys, Sabine included. That's a compliment.
Enjoyed the conversation. Interesting, and I wonder what is done? What is on solid ground for more teaming? I wish there were more dollars and that they were more spread out. That they were pulling in more people across more areas. Wish there was more teaming, more ideas, more experimentation, I think. I know everything is paid for by someone, somewhere. Look around you, at your office, in your home, at the store.. Everything is thought of, designed, made, packages, delivered. And in a certain sense, done. There are a lot of people out there finishing things. There are a lot of people getting their things done. You have to finish things, just like everyone else. And to say, well look at the military budget and find the money. This is a pretty easy things to say.
But I like you all. Hope to hear more. Thank you so much.
I love Sabine so much! Her no-non-sense is a breath of fresh air!
Have you seen her in that German scat porn?
Before I accounted for test mass composition, the chance against odds was only 1 in 10^18. That was only looking at source mass composition. Now that I accounted for test mass composition as well it is 1 in 10^69.
Sabine touched on gravity being emergent and trying to find quantum gravity is the wrong approach, as Eric was also pointing out. I see the quantum to the cosmos as dimensions or energy scales and are part of one whole. Joel Primack and his wife Nancy have a great book "View From The Center of The Universe" that has The Cosmic Uroboros that shows the varying energy scales of our universe. You can't (shouldn't) mix the scales and one leads to another energetically in one direction (although we have seen the energy released from an atom) which leads to source.
Wow. That is quite the lineup.
What is the shape of gravity. The center of a mass is zero gravity.
In one of his last books Lee figured the advice he would give to a young budding physicist who wants to make progress in the founds of physics. He should start anew from a blank peace of paper. I understood this meant setting aside all assumptions and start from scratch.
Unfortunately, I dont see him following his own advice.
Great talk nevertheless, all of them outstanding physicists. And yes, my favorite is still Lee.
Eric Weinstein is consistent. Even though he doesn’t know everything, he will use his words to tell you that nobody knows better than he.
With that being said, i still find his arguments plausible. I just don’t think convincing others should be born from egotism and self-righteous thinking.
It doesn’t take long to figure out that his favorites are “I” and “my.”
Coincidentally, whenever he utters words like “we” or “us,” it is usually followed by the word “but.”
These experts should sit down in a room together without us and have a serious conversation to resolve their differences before they tell us what the answer is. The only thing interesting about this video is that some very smart people don't seem to be able to agree on something that you think would have been settled after a hundred years
I already solved quantum gravity.
I am now building a quantum gravity material analyzer.
I test quantum gravity daily with my freefall experiments.
From a height of 2 meters lead falls 0.0003 seconds faster than iron.
I see sabine and I click.
The question would be that what is the geometry of the carrier wave of causality violation? (Or thereabouts)
Great listen , when you ask about the beauty theoretical physicist are focusing more on , is this similar to the podcast you did with Dr. Michio Kalu , in a non derogatory way I got the impression he was more excited about creating a unified theory that would be as small as an inch long . The aesthetics of the theory. Is this what you mean by modelling more to the beauty of it
I guess the explanation of Eric about the manifold of space geometry is somewhat aligned with the concept of space tensor.
This looks good so far!
Space particle dualism (2005): Every particle carries its own quanta of space which is an
oscillating complex number hypersphere. The radius depends on the energy of the particle. For a
rest mass energy electron, it would be 10^−21 meters. This has been used to predict the masses of
second and third generation particles (2023).
CTP Energy completes it
Dear Brian, aka Dr. Keating aka king of dad jokes, Thank you for your work.
I urge you to reconsider this practice of posting old videos, albeit from someone else's channel, without including actual provenance nor the date it was actually released. This practice feels disrespectful to your viewers to me. Great video, by the way 🙃
Yeah, thank you for disrupting science for the last 40 years and sending everyone after one red herring, and another red herring and another red herring instead of actually doing science. You’re like the person who says that communism hasn’t worked because people haven’t done it the right way.
Sabine is ALWAYS right.. Always.
She's a TREASURE
If she's wrong, I don't care what's right.
Lol sure
🎉💯
The problem with so-called “modern science” isn’t a lack of brainpower or human potential-it’s the social and cultural communication styles that hold us back from understanding reality on a deeper level. Somehow, society has handed over the most fascinating and essential quest-to understand literally everything-to the “dorks.” No offense, dorks-you’re vital to the mission of figuring all this out. (And if that statement annoys you… well, you might have just identified yourself.)
But here’s the thing: historically, genius doesn’t thrive in rigid environments. Industries outside of science figured this out ages ago. Innovate faster and better, or get left behind. The key to attracting innovation? Freedom of thought and expression. Period.
Socially charismatic and attractive people naturally create environments where others feel free to share ideas without the fear of being dismissed. (Notice I didn’t say “judged”-I specifically mean dismissed.) But in science today, the vibe is often hostile and combative, especially if you dare to step outside the boundaries of what's considered acceptable. And yes, there should be some limits to how “out there” a theory of everything can be. But when we make the rules so strict that creativity gets strangled, we’re only hurting ourselves.
Let’s talk about dorks for a second. Growing up in the ’90s, “dork” had a specific meaning. They were the smart but socially awkward kids who didn’t pose a threat to your fragile teenage ego. (You know exactly the type, don’t lie.) At some point, we’ve all had interactions with dorks, and let’s be real: we’ve all been the dork in some situations.
Here’s how you spot a dork in the wild: First, they’re guarded-terrified of sharing their ideas because they’re afraid of what others might think. Second, they give off this vibe that screams, “I know something you don’t,” but they won’t explain it because they assume you can’t keep up. And third, they preface their opinions in a way that says, “If you challenge me, we’re throwing hands.” It’s like the intellectual equivalent of a meathead flexing before a fight. And yeah, it’s off-putting.
This is why dorks often struggle to connect socially. Their goal in every interaction is to change your mind, which isn’t exactly a great way to build friendships. And when it comes to big-picture stuff, like the nature of reality or a theory of everything, do we really want dorks dominating the conversation? Because that’s exactly what’s happened. Worse, it’s being propped up by well-funded institutions hiding behind layers of arrogance and self-replicating PhDs. This is the exact opposite of creativity-it’s the lifeblood of dogma.
Now, before you accuse me of being a hater, let me admit something: I’ve dorked it up plenty of times myself. In fact, this comment alone might qualify as “dorky.” But here’s what I’ve learned: The biggest growth in my understanding has come when I stopped being a dork and started listening to vastly different perspectives. When you genuinely try to understand why someone believes what they do, you learn things-even if it’s just from rethinking your own ideas.
The issue I see in science isn’t a lack of intelligence-it’s an institutionalized “dork mentality” where outside ideas are shut down to protect the fragility of what’s already known. Instead of admitting that we don’t have all the answers, we build walls around our precious worldviews. But here’s the hard truth: the only thing we can be 100% certain of is that we’re wrong.
And hey, maybe I’m wrong too. After all, what do I know? I’m just some dork on the internet.
"sounds pretty lame" protect this woman at all costs😂😂😂
While I appreciate beauty in scientific theories, I don't buy the notion that something has to be true, because it is beautiful. I would rather think, that over time, theories become more beautiful when people come up with new approaches to write them down. Look at James Clerk Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism today, and in its original form! In 1879, it was about 20 different equations, which over time have been condensed down to the four we learn today. But that does not mean that Electromagnetism has become more and more true over time.
that has to be like 2-3 yrs old; good to see Lee in shape
The mud wrestling with Sabine and Erik at the end is worth the price of admission (watching everything leading up to that)
I forwarded through all of Hossenfelder.
Because she refuses to retract her transphobic statements from previous work or ... ?
@@SeanGilchrist why? She is the most accomplished actual physicist here.
Eric!!! Your take on the latest UAP developments please!
I agree with Eric greatly in the use of money frame
To me beauty and harmony are very important. If something seems right it usually is.
Lee nailed issue in opening dialogue.
Sabine. I adore her. Such a crush. She's going to make history. Mark my words. 😊🤭🤗
yes!
thank you for putting these panels together.
He didn’t. PBS Space did, more than a year ago. He’s reuploading videos to get higher monthly views.
@@inxiti ok... let me rephrase. thank you brian for reuploading these videos. i dont think i would have seen it if he didnt.
Great discussion
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
Perhaps the theory on absolute zero nothing being impossible violates Heisenberg uncertainty principle may be a good place to begin...
This stare team panel
I like 👍 what Lee Smoling says about the fact that science should be initiated and approved by the community, not necessarily by splinter groups that have their own agenda.
When two singularities (not equal) in a multifaced space becomes a singularity (same value) the wawe function collapses, bases; example two dimension space singularity, with two equal valued singularites becomes one a dimensional space.
such a great conversation!!!
There are many ways to get gravity even using W-function ...for example 4π(planck length)^3/planck time =9.8 equivalent to gravity coincidence maybe...I mean they say gravity is a change in space-time
@15:13 Sums it up the Stringers...
Sabina 🙌🏼
Charge mass dualism (2017): the masses of particles come from the energy that is in the force
fields of different particles. The neutrinos are so light because the weak force is so weak. This
has been used to predict the masses of first-generation particles (2023)
What Sabine claims to be the gist, or one of the principal ideas, underlying Erik Verlinde et al.'s theoretical scenario of Emergent Gravity, starting at 13:17 in this video, has been explicitly anticipated in written script by David Ritz Finkelstein in a published paper (I can provide you with the precise journal reference and page therein) back in the late 80s, namely that (and I loosely quote here Finkelstein from a paper of mine that is currently work-in-progress, to appear in November 2024): ``...If one wants to arrive at the fine structure of the graviton, the envisaged quantum particle of the gravitational field, by directly quantising the dynamical Einstein field equations on the spacetime continuum, it would be as if one wanted to arrive at the fine structure of the water molecule by directly quantising the Navier-Stokes equations of continuous hydrodynamical flow''. Credit should be given where and when credit is due.👍
“Here on space time”? What happens to time when two observers see things differently? If you use time in your answer, you’re not doing it right.
We are at the start of physics. Hundred years from now our equipment and maths will be primitive. Am happy to wait😊
For example the law of gravity when expressed with mass is
F = root(G_1 G_2) M_1 M_2 / r^2.
Now i find a reason to listen to ERIC all day . THIS AMAIZING.
Wolfram Alpha Cellular Automaton Rule #30 run to 1000 steps is the explanation of everything we "observe", as limited as we are in our sensory apparatus.
Why are these not 3-4 hrs long? Complex ideas need a lot more time to be hashed out.
A theory of everything first needs to explain why anything. Neither GR or QM does this. Indeed, no one yet knows what the Schrodinger equation means, in and of itself, and GR's mathematics holds many paradoxes (e.g. Zeno's paradoxes apply here). But more than this, how does the universe begin by aligning to such equations? Magic? How did the universe choose to have the amount of content it has (consider the Bekenstein-Hawking Universal Information Bound, 10^122 bits).A theory of everything must at least explain this, yet we so far have not even made a start.
If you want to see a geometric model which produces quantized Spin Angular Momentum, look at the lands and grooves inside a rifle barrel.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
Very interesting TY
Team ERIC in the house !! 😂😂👏👏
honestly I am team Eric but also Sabine,Brian and Mat 🤪🤪🤪
@@DankoMe Agree
This thinking in "teams" (tribes) is like that of disputes between representatives of "schools". It often distracts from what it should actually be about. Anyone who can offer a meaningful way of making distinctions that can refine thinking should be welcome. The world and much more is far too complex to get lost in ostensible A vs B games.
@@SebSN-y3fobviously when I said Eric team in the house just means I’m bias to what he says I’m just a big fan but i do recognize that all the ppl that are on the panel I respect very much but Eric rules ! 😂
@@luismlopez2474 😊 ok
Gravity does not depend on mass or energy but on the baryon count. So the gravity per baryon is constant, but the gravity per kilogram is not constant.
A physics paradigm predicated on non-existence of the space medium is as if the science of Oceanography were predicated on non-existence of the ocean. The sub-Planckian space medium, the Plenum, is the missing 'Ocean'. Under this inverted paradigm, the quest for Unification will amount to chasing the rainbow. The harder it's pursued, the more doggedly it recedes from grasp. And that's currently the state of theoretical physics, astrophysics and cosmology as they try to unravel the 'Big Conundra' in physics.
When the Plenum, the Primal Substrate, Bohm's 'Implicate Order', is recognized as the true ground of being, then the answers to the Big Stuff will begin falling seamlessly and naturally into place. Unification of gravity and 'quantum gravity' in UFT will be like a friendly dog who just trotted in thru the back door and sat down grinning.
We need to advance our Science with a different philosophical approach. As things stand, our knowledge of the world is based on an article of Faith, called the Observer. Removing the need for an observer would allow to remove the term "Time" from the physics equations, which in turn would allow to redefine Space and understand its underlying structure - a structure that today we know as the "body if the physics laws".
Anthony
If the unification of forces requires any creative composition at all in practice then a traditional TOE is doomed and we'll just have to continue enjoying all the awesome stuff our "less than TOE" theories help us do. Maybe a better approach to TOE is to format it more like a recipe mixed with good advice then leave it up to individuals in realtime to decide what they cook and why. Creative composition beyond default render is inevitable now that advanced life exists as our technological ambition/capacity accelerates.
Similar worlds interpretation (2003): We live in all worlds that are temporarily indistinguishable to us. This explains entanglement, the observer effect, psychokinesis and the measurement problem.
1:14:41 yes money matters alot... Money makes the world go round.
Why is it that every Aussie dude looks like he could turn into a werewolf with the presentation of a dog biscuit?
Something else my PHd friends. Peace ✌️ 😎.
I don't agree with the statement you said Brian. Weinstein has a point that I don't even think he is seeing. When you tell young students maybe students in high school that are motivated by these things even the ones graduating high school and going into their college lives. If you tell them, in 10-20 years we'll have this figured out. Why would a bright mind waste their time to go to that area in the field? It's a double edged sword - it's great to be optimistic, at the same time you are diverting where the knowledge and great minds need to be by insinuating it's not needed the minds that are there now got this.
Am I the only one who thought that the reactions to Sabine's comments were condescending? She pointed out that by choosing unconventional ways of sharing his GU theory, Eric was setting himself up to being misunderstood. Instead of answering to this, Eric talks to the other guys explaining that Sabine's gloves off is welcome. I didn't think her remark was a punch. Then Brian switched the topic to criticize Sabine for applying judgment on what money is wasted in science.
I understand why Eric self-published a draft of his GU theory (after many years of having only a succinct video as reference). Peer-review is indeed often very biased. Still inviting questions about what is unclear is part of the scientific process, even in non peer-review format. The appropriate answer would have been "which part is unclear" Instead, Eric reacted as if he were attacked
I say that even though I am an avid listener of Eric's interviews - and Sabine's channel - and that I am grateful for his courage (and hers) to stand up to those who want to establish scientific proof by intimidation. Science is objective, scientists are humans.
The substrate of all existence is "consciousness", existence is consciousness - no existence without consciousness. Consciousness/Awareness is dimensionless, timeless, spaceless, formless, stateless, unborn, eternal without a cause.
Sabine's poke of Eric got the same concept salad as usual. When will he understand he's like the student that offers us a share of a new theory if only we could sort the math for them, EXCEPT, he's brilliant at the math and needs someone to make sense of the physics for him!
Eric may be on to something, but so could Wolfram etal. Eric you need to give brilliant people more incentive to give up their own theories and time to work on yours.
C+ Try harder.
Thank you Matt, Brian for bringing these hyper geniuses together, it needs to be done more often.
The analogy that Prof Smolin tries to draw between the evolution biological species and the relationship of the branches of physical law seems entirely inappropriate to me. I can write so boldly because he is comparing what seems like apples and oranges. In the one case, what is evolving are various species of life; in the other are physical laws. I find incomprehensible to posit the evolution of laws - I suppose - in time.
Is Weinstein's theory of geometric quantization confined to his own understanding? Do other minds get to participate? Sabine sort of implied, by saying she didn't know what he was talking about, that it was possibly mumbo-jumbo. I'm just asking.