Do you agree with Eric that we need more great science rather than just good science? Let us know in the comments! Watch Eric debate string theory with Brian Green at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?RUclips&+comment&
I think what Eric says in this regard doesn't have any more significance than what a random toddler says. He never contributed to any scientific field. So my guess is that his goals is that the bar for scientific research and rigour will be lowered significantly, so other people like him to be able claim they're relevant scientists. He guises that ofcourse so he says we're limiting ideas and talent and all that. Not to say there's a lot that should be improved in the world of research and academia, but it coming from him has no meaning at all.
@@shanesweeney3583 ah so stating an obvious independently verifiable fact, import to the topic at hand is an ad hominem. So now we call it ad hominem we can stop thinking about it. Good night!
When Eric Weinstein said, to paraphrase, that there are "teaching disabilities," rather than learning disabilities, that was BRILLIANT. I'll never forget that.
It's empirically wrong. If one looks at the PISA results it's a clear pattern that the kids with low giftedness who are lowering the average. There's so much information today that it's the human ability to discern and process that's the bottleneck.
"We've diminished scientists so far below administrators, that we have to seek their permission." Great phrase. My hope is as the cost of conducting interesting science decreases, we can rely less on external funding and the bureaucrats that coordinate that money.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of society is too stupid to care about how science conducts itself. Our education is failing and has failed generations. That being said, science resides in the hands of the old guard gate keepers as well as the younger scientists who are part of that failed education system. It's only going to get worse for science from here. Let's not even talk about how the older generations have taught the younger generations a bastardized woke version of science which is actually non science. The future is bleak.
Eric's points are brilliant. In the 1980's, I spent 12 years trying to find the first planet orbiting another star. The senior astrophysicists told me this quest was thoughtless folly, as planets are dark and have tiny masses compared to stars. They told me I was ruining my career, by embarrassing myself. Then, in 1995, we found the first "exoplanets" along with the Swiss team. People didn't believe us for 5 years, publishing papers saying we were wrong and fools. But, we proceeded to find hundreds of exoplanets, and motivated the NASA Kepler telescope that we helped to find Earth-size planets.
I'm surprised you don't think he has! This is basically 40 episodes of the portal condensed into 20 minutes haha. He has been banging this drum for a while. Though he does a great job using different analogies to keep it fresh.
@@drewmueller4609 Admittedly, I've only seen a few of his appearances in the last few years. He seemed scarce for a while more recently, but it could be that I just missed his interviews.
I recently watched Mel Acheson's dissertation on charge separation on YT and I was amazed at how detailed and logical the entire lecture was. I hope more people see it and scratch their heads just a little, and yes, science needs to be shaken to its roots.
I gather Mr Weinstein would like to see himself included among those sheltered and treasured few, though I have heard him at his charming humblest admit a possibility that he may not qualify, yet in that case he would still consider himself a supremely qualified discoverer--and judge--of competency. The problem is that such judgement is highly subjective. Will there be a committee? And who will qualify for that? Science proposes, nature disposes. It might be worth noting that human culture has overrun biological evolution, thanks to hastily applied science--other than for a few troublesome microbes and such that really know how to multiply. Science, done by brilliant scientists, recently handled that evolution problem badly (and still does), not for lack of funding, but because the accountants weren't doing their job. And maybe a bit because the elite of the scientists were out of touch with the rigors of ordinary daily life.
It is worth noting that many talented and brilliant people struggle so vehemently with activities that are perceived as normal or routine. The money wasted on unnecessary investments could be allocated to funding the advancement of science. The argument regarding the aforementioned accountant then becomes “from what less important investments can I redirect funds?” It’s not like it all comes down to money. Sometimes a hint of madness mixed with genius can offer fresh perspectives. There is often more than one way to achieve various results. Problem solving is key.
I actually like this way of interviewing somehow, you only see the guy who's being interviewed, you see how the person reacts and how he's conducting himself thinking and answering the question at hand. I like Eric, he has so many thought provoking things. Thanks for this interview.
What we need In Science Is TURNOVER! Listening to the generation that hoarded resources and won’t retire opine about progress is stale and telling. ✌🏼😊
@@JeffCaplan313 not sure if you are expressing something positive or negative…all I would say is you don’t trust or believe in Science; rather you constantly question it with new ideas. New ideas come from new humans. Happy holidays friend. ✌🏼😊
@@jgcelliott1 so does hoarding resources and knowledge…”generation” was a metaphor for the “elder” state of our situation. It is stagnant! Imo. Have a great day and thanks for the input✌🏼😊
"I'm an atheist who prays." - Eric Weinstein I don't know how many people think like Eric, but I, truly, consider him a soulmate/brother from another mother.
No. We do not. He speaks outside of his field and it is flat-out embarrassing. He isn't even aware of classic books on the topic such as "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Science is just a _method_ it is "good" or "bad" depending upon adherence to that method.
@@granddefectus4602 There are also plenty of bad ideas. The problem is people are no longer educated within the classic curriculum of The Liberal Arts & Humanities which provides basic critical thinking skills and a broad foundation of basic knowledge. Instead, they are _trained_ to serve corporate interests... not educated to be good citizens and people. This is by design. Do a search for "The Powell Doctrine" written in 1971 by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. It is a call to business about the danger of a citizenry capable of critical thinking.
His brother is a teacher who taught children to ignore authority and when the students cancelled him, he acted surprised and called it a complete mystery.
You could make the same argument for most of what's considered art these days also, especially music. Even in the outskirts of the art form, musicians have become ultra safe resulting in a whole lot of bland regurgitation of tried and tested methods, whilst not having the balls to take things to the next level like we saw in the first 3/4 of the 20th century, and previous, for fear of being frowned upon.
Eric Weinstein is a figure who should be modeled and duplicated. Dude is not only extremely intelligent and self aware, he has imaginative properties & abilities which continue to astound me. *_TRUST! !_*
Yet he still cannot tell you geometrical unification is by 7 planes of light, by r > c, r = c, r < c as per H Bar to a note, music he still can not sing.
@timsexton Well, the pursuit of geometrical unification, he can only continue to step 🚶♂️ into shoes 👞 to fill. Heroic BATTLES, to strike the heart of reality. With love, combustion of water, as UFOs 🛸 use 7 planes of light ✨️ will he step INTO WAR, for his manners & memes, Tim, Sexton he can punch 👊 or take HITS. Taking both, seems your a 🕺 beyond Eric Weinstein, honestly a Champion 🏆 🥇
Science depends more heavily on character than on intelligence. That was Einstein’s observation. Intelligent liars can do the most harm. Those with a modest intellect but who can summon an uncompromising strength of character are the most successful inventors, entrepreneurs, and managers of the work force.
Being a liar is not science, so why are you even considering liars as scientists? If you are a liar, you are not a scientist, no need to compare intelligence or character. Define scientists as a truthful person.
@@CrucialFlowResearch I don’t consider liars as true scientists but many people are famous scientists in the eyes of the public and who are not severely truthful as a true scientist should be. It’s not me but the public who are deceived by these fakers.
Had a friend who was tired of being a dumb jock, champion athlete though he was, so he applied his sports discipline to self education. Met him in my major, where he forged ahead to be a scholar to be reckoned with, often the backbone of intellectual discussions with others. He just finished his thesis 😊
Yes, Eric has a unique way of communicating. Yes, he likes to be dramatic. Is his dramatic form of communication warranted? That's a subjective decision. Eric has many interesting things to say. Instead of asking yourself whether you like his form of communication, maybe look at his points. Are they accurate or not? Is there a crisis in physics? Is there a crisis in science? How dramatic are they? Those are the important questions, not if you like someones style of communication. Btw: If there is a big crisis, being dramatic and revolutionary in your thinking and speech might be excatly the right course to take.
@@MR-backup Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No. So your comment is completely pointless. Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards...
@@youlig1 Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No. - I never said you did. So your comment is completely pointless. - If only you had eyes to see what your reply is. Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards... - I understood the first time; clearly you should be taking your advice, first.
Kinda bizarre for the interviewer to say the way Feynman conducted science what “not very popular at the time; not seen as good science.” He was offered professorship to Cornell in his 20s, the people in the academic establishment were very impressed by him, as far as I know, he was one of the most famous physicists of his time, he won the Nobel prize in his 40s lol… the interviewer tried to make it seem like he was some unrecognized recluse in his own time, which was not the case at all.
What I've always felt like Eric was saying that there is just far too many amazing minds that are just being led the wrong career paths and ways of thinking. They are put into a box when they should be taking risk on stuff than string theory.
Here after watching him talk to Terrence Howard, so these first 2 minutes about 'great' science really shows how open mindedness is what will lead to great discovery and he puts it into practice when he talks to Terrence, even if Howard is seeing patterns in everything I appreciate someone sat him down and tried to reign him in .
Nice :) To the factors revealed in this conversation, I would like to add three for your consideration. 1. Reviewing those who gave us the big jumps, … many seem to have been outsiders, not groomed in the guild's version of Right Thinking. 2. The progress made by those who, even without the experiential learning required to understand Eastern metaphysics, nonetheless found sufficient inspiration from the old Eastern crib notes to make serious progress. Exposure to alternatives to one's (trained, borrowed, assumed) paradigm can be very fruitful. 3. The (largely unknown, hence largely untrained) mental capacity for overview. The nearest academia gets to this is multi-disciplinary stuff - just people that are weak in two or three linearities. Even polymaths, having expertise in up to a dozen linear studies, is typically not great at Overview, aka Feminine mind. Note Noether, Curie, and the many other women who made great contributions. So, sure, it would be nice if academia better accommodated the kinds of minds which can make the big jumps, but to my (admittedly male, but heavily exercised and trained) overview it looks like a few more decades of mostly "good" science can be expected. And that might be a good thing ;)
Based on what you wrote, may I put here... Polanyi explained it. You don't calculate or figure to create underived new knowledge. You fall in love with the question. Science must be completely personal. It is not only the scientist that must be fearless, but also the person that recognizes their work must lose their fears and inhibitions to be able to see something 100% unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Then look for someone doing unacceptable science, so unacceptable that they are not involved in science. They will be completely on their own. You want a Hail Mary? Find someone who cannot be stopped, cannot be restricted. Look for the person driven to solve the problem. What problem. What questions need to be answered? Energy? Sure, but what about the basic question of human survival. Hey, a topic science doesn't talk much about. It is interested in it, but does anyone get traction. Look for something like that, maybe a systematic study of how humans can adapt genetically and strategically for long term survival. It might reveal the unexpected and be very useful. The person would have to understand science, history, law, religion, which science won't look at, and even philosophy that science is only realizing it needs to look at. ... RUclips blocks the title, but if you want to see some new science, unscramble and look for EneticsG orF A EnW UmanH cologyE My apologies, but RUclips does block that title if unscrambled.
What an incredible conversation. So much was said in such a short period of time. I can’t say how happy I am for that last bit on faith, I truly believe that’s why we don’t see great science anymore. Too many good scientists have spent an incredible amount of energy mocking great scientists.
How can the speculative integration of quantum mechanics with neuroscience, specifically through concepts like quantum neurology and the idea of a universal, interconnected consciousness, be empirically investigated to validate or refute the theory that individual consciousness is a manifestation of a universal consciousness governed by quantum principles?
Eric Weinstein is what us Aussies describe as a "Cluey-Clot". This does not mean he a clot amoung the clueless but a parady reflecting its opposite. Therefore, Cluey-Clot is the highest complement of being "brainy" us Aussies can bestow upon someone.
It's suspicious how they don't show the interviewer and how the IAI logo seems to be digitally inserted onto the coffee table. I suspect this is just a repost of some older interview done by someone else.
Eric Weinstein is a great voice for Science. He delivers frank and honest criticism with extraordinary wit. I wish scientists and particularly science communicators (NDT) would have his attiude. Science has been stuck in the mid 20th century and has become a field where test and verification has been replaced by math and ideas cant really be shot down because they are untestable. What can we possibly get out of this??
@@lepidoptera9337 Your attitude proves my point. What lab experiment can you design to show that doppler shift observed in Galaxies.. is caused by recessional velocities? There isnt one. Yet, you can go one and build up on theories and the consequences of theories without realizing that some of the initial assumptions may not be on ground as solld as you wish. Then, any criticism is unwelcomed. How dare I? Right? You know that I have been to a Lab probably as Much as Einstein and that doesnt change anything. I am sure that the scientists in a lab do a great job and it has nothing to do with my point. There are unverifyable things that are assumed as truth. Is the really isotropic and homogeneous? Is it really expanding? Besides doppler what is the evidence? CMB? Hmm ok
@@lepidoptera9337 By test and verification, I am not referring to the type of lab experiments that are being performed. For example, what lab experiment can you do to verify that the Universe is expanding and that the doppler shift is caused by recessional velocities.? There isnt one. Yet this assumption is the basis of all cosmology. Eventually, they will tell themselves that this has been verified and our certainty in this assumption is 100%. Well, it isnt.. period. So, is it that lab experiements are bad? No. Its the attitude. Even your question.. hey, how many times have you been to the Lab? Not at all. And it doesnt change anything. There are things we know, and things that we know if a bunch of assumptions and models are correct. Scientists place too much faith on models that do not have the solid foundatiin that they think they have. This attitude can stop new ideas and models from being considered. That was Eric’s point.
@@lepidoptera9337 If you wanted to find out if the expansion of space is causing the doppler shift seen in the light of galaxies. Which lab would you go to and what experiment.? Its not that labs are not performing experiments, but that there are some measurements beyond the abilities of our labs. Now, this is crucial to know to verify our cosmological models. Yet, it is treated as fact and any other ideas are ridiculed. Thats the point.
"A scientific revolution in which we tell the administrators to get the hell out of our labs." I would go so far as to say a social revolution in which we tell the government administrators to get the hell out of our lives."
There was a time when Scientists, Historians, Political Scientists, and Soldiers all got together to do just that; and with barely the shirts on their back!
His dissertation was cited in a paper that was peer reviewed. He left Harvard University in disgust after his work was stolen, and has had a career in finance whilst working on _Geometric Unity_ in his spare time. There is a draft paper for that but it is a work in progress, so don't assume that because it is typeset using LaTeX like papers which have been through a process of academic peer review that it is of comparable quality. He is quite honest about it not being finished. It is version 1.0 and he will probably have a new, still unfinished, version out in 2025 as he has said he plans to bring his podcast _The Portal_ back, and my guess is that he would feel better doing so after a constitutional election has calmed tempers as there hasn't been one since 2016 in the United States. Fact is, Joe isn't President. No one is.
Audio editing couldd help here a lot. Interviewer constantly making confirming sounds, utterances while listening (which probably in person is good for engagement with the interviewee) is very VERY distracting to viewer.
Eric tells you what you want to hear. Every kid who failed in school and never got over it wants to hear that what they taught him in school was wrong. ;-)
I couldnt agree more with Mr. Weinstein on this. He is such a necessary menace, thank you Eric. And your special presentation on geometric unity is EVERYTHING!
I think Eric is talking more about philosophy than what we call science. Science is VERY basically epistemology. But still, it’s basic understanding through repeatability of observation. How do we know what we know? Great Science is not being afraid. We are here, we are alive, and it’s all us. We should push smartly. I’d talk to that guy and tell him what I know.
An excellent interview, not just about science. As someone who has taught students with dyslexia and sponsored training programs for teachers, I have experienced first hand how the sheer numbers in schools make teachers defensive and shift the burden on students. Professor Weinstein is wrong though to dismiss learning disability as a problem. Schools can only deal with the ‘normal’ and find ways to exclude others, forcing the creation of separate institutions for certain groups of students. Doubt there’s a simple solution. His distinction between good and great science is in a sense present in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions but remains valid more so today
I was under the impression that Eric was a believer, but it seems he is more complicated. However, this video shows a side of Eric that surprised me, he is a true revolutionary fighting Talmudic excesses. Previously I didn't like Eric, but now I have started to like his ideas. Besides a scientific revolution he should endorse a Chinese style 'cultural revolution'.
mhmm! The east is embarrassing the west right now... from papers on electrochemical transmutation in china - indian engineers and mathematicians proving calculus is false math.... john napier made most mathematicians redundant so they turned solutions into problems to give themselves a long lasting career in physics.
What does this comment mean? I'm curious, but I don't get it. I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to "Talmudic excesses" but I don't understand what that means or how it bears relevance in this context. The reference to a Chinese style cultural revolution is also lost on me.
My bad, I'm sorry, I'm only 4:00 but I assumed the whole thing was about science. Judging by the other comments it seems like there's some discussion of faith and religion so perhaps "Talmudic excesses" will make more sense in that context.
This is a short video about abuse of good/great science and I am with you. What i make fuss about is the fact QM isn't a theory, yet few rules make it the most unreasonably effective, but since the time of Einstein it remains 'incomplete' and avoid good/great science and resort to what results in covid and opioid abuse in the name of science. Moreover I think we aren't doing anything to improve the situation. I got the impression you want to rectify the situation. Chinese cultural revolution was devised to ensure that global powers never again humiliate the Chinese, expecting this philosophy of Mao would help you in your fight to establish good science.@@avisternlieb449
I found this to be unexpectedly and unfeasibly good. Eric is right about great science. The problem of course is that if great science often emerges (in part) from “fringe” practices and attitudes, and from a pool of much failed science, then how do you incentivise people and institutions to invest time and money into it? And the reality is that the future Feynmans and Einsteins are going to have to do much of their work outside the system and without much support, at least not much support for their wacky habits and ideas.
This made me think about my disastrous experience with TED pulling my license to produce TEDX West Hollywood over the content of my program, which they labeled pseudo-science, instead of appreciating whatever new ideas came from renowned thought shapers, that included Russell Targ and Larry Dossey. Their slogan, "Ideas Worth Spreading," should be, "Ideas worth spreading except if they don't conform to materialistic science."
What other science is there? Non materialistic science can't ever be proven, because once proven it becomes materialistic. So non materialistic science could only be ideas.
@@inajosmood As you state it, you seemingly make sense, but you're behind the times where there is a movement to expand the parameters of science to include what is beyond that narrow band of materialism. Do a search for "non-materialist science" and you'll find a treasure trove.
😊His confession as an atheist who prays: “ you Can’t Speak no Language, and similarly you can’t escape the human need for metaphysics. But the idea should be that you have that need cloud your reason as little as possible and as much as as necessary.”
One must also content with the destructive human attribute of envy entering scientific rivalry between good science and great science, and between those who are good and those who are potentially great.
Yet we (at least most of us) don’t delve deeper than what the immediate concern is of our social standing, question our foundational premises, or seek the beauty of connection for its own sake.
As much as I like to hear Eric's point of view about science, the fact that he is downplaying Feynman in this interview made me feel very uncomfortable...
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) 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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. 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.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. -------------
Just a tip, but try to make the explanation a bit more concise and intuitive or most will stop reading after the first sentence like I did. We can move forward when we fix calculus... its a false math after all. Limits, infinitesimals, etc. etc. are all quackery dressed up as sensible. Its 2023 and we still rely on outdated theories from the greeks and frameworks from newton and leibniz... its time for a major upheaval.
@@paulonius42 The two thumbs up above prove at least two people read the article and appreciated it. However, constructive criticism is always appreciated, if you have any specific ideas related to the article.
Need for metaphysics. Specific receptor. 5-HT2A. Religion. It's Chomsky like built in function of the mind. Good lord this man is brilliant. Takes understand that we can barely feel and draws it out into perfect illumination.
Need for metaphysics vary from person to person. I personally accepted that there are questions which we may never have the answer to. But I am cognizant of the fact that many people cannot live with "I don't know", they must have a belief that they have the answer, otherwise they are lost in uncertainty. I think that Eric conflates two things - the literal need for the answers, as I just described, which can be satisfied only by religion, and benefits of rituals (praying, meditation, etc.) which many atheists exercise without summoning supernatural. I think he is doing the latter. I don't do any of this, unless you count closing your eyes and listening to Oscar Peterson as meditation:)
Having looked at this content creators RUclips channel, I was disheartened that this discussion between multiple people has been cut down to just this 15-minute clip, how sad. The channel does not include a full video, and the other videos in the same time frame appear to be different videos about other subjects.! Science and the discussion of science should not be hidden, this is beyond sad, this is a disgrace.!
"Science cares about you" is an expression akin to that of a worshiper of deities envisioned in anthropomorphic terms...or at best, a rather poetic lyricist. Strange phrasing indeed...
What does that mean?! Atheist that prays?! What? What are you praying to?! Do you set time aside and pray to, what, nothing? Or is it that sometimes you feel like praying and you do even though you’re praying to nothing? I guess I don’t get it. I am new to this though, atheism.
This might just be the single greatest Eric Weinstein interview of all time. How you managed to ask just the right questions and yet receive consise answers.
My proposal is we should focus on saving humanity; if that's still an option; before throwing the best minds at fixing science. Specifically, game theory. How do we detect and remove psychopaths from the prisoner's dilemma? They are breaking the game and very close destroying all of human civilization.
Agree. In the area of AI, there are a lot of criticisms of current approaches as "hitting the wall" and calls for a new paradigm. I propose a new paradigm, which basically solves intelligence and what? I am ignored. Because I am not a "scientist".
Maybe ... But what he is saying is that the self and material involvement with the social, rely on our ability to be in language agreement... Which is what the scientific method should be used for. It's the move to individual spiritually derived language that is fracturing society into tribal pieces. The dangerous part that he points out ... But also the modern view of the larger scientific institution as some kind of sterile, humanless, anti religion device, only inhabited by monetarily privileged people, not those of actual intellectual merit, that causes academia to lose sight of it's full potential... Sort of the post modern version of elitism in academia. You can't have society without materialism and technology, causing the necessity to share ideas in the first place. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact they must exist together.
Personally, I like the "load-bearing behavior" line the best. This is really a powerful idiom, especially when combined with a lot of the topics his brother discusses.
I have a lovely paradigm shift for you! Here it goes. 1. People don't have five senses, they have six, and the sixth sense are the emotions, which are physical feelings without a physical origin. 2. By excluding the real 6th sense (which has nothing to do whatsoever with seeing dead people!), we have a reality reduced materialistic paradigm which is missing 16.7% of information. This is essential information to be able to de-code the science that is ever done (or the religion). You're welcome! 🙂
Do you agree with Eric that we need more great science rather than just good science? Let us know in the comments!
Watch Eric debate string theory with Brian Green at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?RUclips&+comment&
Yes. Great Science doesn't play safe.
I think what Eric says in this regard doesn't have any more significance than what a random toddler says. He never contributed to any scientific field. So my guess is that his goals is that the bar for scientific research and rigour will be lowered significantly, so other people like him to be able claim they're relevant scientists. He guises that ofcourse so he says we're limiting ideas and talent and all that.
Not to say there's a lot that should be improved in the world of research and academia, but it coming from him has no meaning at all.
No, Eric might need a scientific revolution, but he can't speak for all of us. All I need is a proper cup of coffee in the morning, and im good !
@@inajosmood "coming from him has no meaning at all" so I can safely disregard your comment as an ad hominem fallacy.
@@shanesweeney3583 ah so stating an obvious independently verifiable fact, import to the topic at hand is an ad hominem. So now we call it ad hominem we can stop thinking about it. Good night!
When Eric Weinstein said, to paraphrase, that there are "teaching disabilities," rather than learning disabilities, that was BRILLIANT. I'll never forget that.
intellectual masturbation at best
A clever turn of phrase. Also: wrong.
@@kreek22most experts are terrible teachers. Same with athletes being terrible coaches.
@@kreek22 He didn't say that learning disabilities don't exist.
It's empirically wrong. If one looks at the PISA results it's a clear pattern that the kids with low giftedness who are lowering the average. There's so much information today that it's the human ability to discern and process that's the bottleneck.
"We've diminished scientists so far below administrators, that we have to seek their permission." Great phrase. My hope is as the cost of conducting interesting science decreases, we can rely less on external funding and the bureaucrats that coordinate that money.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of society is too stupid to care about how science conducts itself. Our education is failing and has failed generations. That being said, science resides in the hands of the old guard gate keepers as well as the younger scientists who are part of that failed education system. It's only going to get worse for science from here. Let's not even talk about how the older generations have taught the younger generations a bastardized woke version of science which is actually non science. The future is bleak.
We could but physicists actually do the most expensive experimental science
Because there are way to many "scientists."
@@cybyrd9615But at the same time, it has the greatest impact to our life.
@@mikolajr4700 no it doesn’t material science does
Eric's points are brilliant. In the 1980's, I spent 12 years trying to find the first planet orbiting another star. The senior astrophysicists told me this quest was thoughtless folly, as planets are dark and have tiny masses compared to stars. They told me I was ruining my career, by embarrassing myself. Then, in 1995, we found the first "exoplanets" along with the Swiss team. People didn't believe us for 5 years, publishing papers saying we were wrong and fools. But, we proceeded to find hundreds of exoplanets, and motivated the NASA Kepler telescope that we helped to find Earth-size planets.
Bravo
@@geoffmarcy677 More of this!
This is the best interview I've heard from Eric Weinstein. He needs to repeat this message all over the place. Take this issue and run with it, Eric!!
I'm surprised you don't think he has! This is basically 40 episodes of the portal condensed into 20 minutes haha. He has been banging this drum for a while. Though he does a great job using different analogies to keep it fresh.
@@drewmueller4609 Admittedly, I've only seen a few of his appearances in the last few years. He seemed scarce for a while more recently, but it could be that I just missed his interviews.
@@paryanindoeur hey it’s me Eric. Thanks for the support!
Mendel may have fudged his peapod data but peas prevailed... all we are saying, is give peas a chance ❤
“The human need for metaphysics should cloud your reasoning as little as possible and as much as necessary.”
Metaphysics is the basis of science. Science is the study of the causal universe.
Thank you for not putting some of this conversation behind a paywall. I would understand IAI doing so if it was over 20 minutes.
I recently watched Mel Acheson's dissertation on charge separation on YT and I was amazed at how detailed and logical the entire lecture was. I hope more people see it and scratch their heads just a little, and yes, science needs to be shaken to its roots.
Thunderbolts seemed to be a bit of a mixed bag, but so much of it is compelling. People hold many of these older models on too high of a pedestal.
Thanks for Sharing!!! I'm getting my mind boosted on intellectual drugs
"Discovering competency then shielding those treasured people from the rigors of daily life" : Tell that to the accountants who run institutions.
I gather Mr Weinstein would like to see himself included among those sheltered and treasured few, though I have heard him at his charming humblest admit a possibility that he may not qualify, yet in that case he would still consider himself a supremely qualified discoverer--and judge--of competency. The problem is that such judgement is highly subjective. Will there be a committee? And who will qualify for that? Science proposes, nature disposes.
It might be worth noting that human culture has overrun biological evolution, thanks to hastily applied science--other than for a few troublesome microbes and such that really know how to multiply. Science, done by brilliant scientists, recently handled that evolution problem badly (and still does), not for lack of funding, but because the accountants weren't doing their job. And maybe a bit because the elite of the scientists were out of touch with the rigors of ordinary daily life.
What does the first comment here say?
Science used to be the realm of the wealthy and their patrons...
.
It is worth noting that many talented and brilliant people struggle so vehemently with activities that are perceived as normal or routine. The money wasted on unnecessary investments could be allocated to funding the advancement of science. The argument regarding the aforementioned accountant then becomes “from what less important investments can I redirect funds?”
It’s not like it all comes down to money. Sometimes a hint of madness mixed with genius can offer fresh perspectives. There is often more than one way to achieve various results. Problem solving is key.
I actually like this way of interviewing somehow, you only see the guy who's being interviewed, you see how the person reacts and how he's conducting himself thinking and answering the question at hand.
I like Eric, he has so many thought provoking things. Thanks for this interview.
An "atheist who prays" ? 🤔
What we need In Science Is TURNOVER! Listening to the generation that hoarded resources and won’t retire opine about progress is stale and telling. ✌🏼😊
Churn is great. That way no one knows what's trusted or not.
@@JeffCaplan313 not sure if you are expressing something positive or negative…all I would say is you don’t trust or believe in Science; rather you constantly question it with new ideas. New ideas come from new humans. Happy holidays friend. ✌🏼😊
The "generation" thing sounds petty.
.
@@jgcelliott1 so does hoarding resources and knowledge…”generation” was a metaphor for the “elder” state of our situation. It is stagnant! Imo.
Have a great day and thanks for the input✌🏼😊
@@brandonb5075... I don't disagree with you, but I would argue that far, far too much is being made of "generational issues".
.
"I'm an atheist who prays." - Eric Weinstein
I don't know how many people think like Eric, but I, truly, consider him a soulmate/brother from another mother.
One more brother from still another mother here. 🙋🏻♂️
@@Prof-Joe-H
🤝
I'm an Athesit intoxicated on god!
Eric makes his points eloquently and always provides some interesting reference points.
We need more people like Eric.
No. We do not. He speaks outside of his field and it is flat-out embarrassing. He isn't even aware of classic books on the topic such as "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Science is just a _method_ it is "good" or "bad" depending upon adherence to that method.
@@nsbd90now the current paradigm is in need of change and we get to see the shift live... back off square and go back to your complex plane.
@@jaydenwilson9522 Oh please. You're just parroting phrases you don't even understand and bordering on a word salad Jayden.
@@nsbd90now There are plenty of good ideas, the problem is that everyone is too isolated.
@@granddefectus4602 There are also plenty of bad ideas. The problem is people are no longer educated within the classic curriculum of The Liberal Arts & Humanities which provides basic critical thinking skills and a broad foundation of basic knowledge. Instead, they are _trained_ to serve corporate interests... not educated to be good citizens and people. This is by design. Do a search for "The Powell Doctrine" written in 1971 by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. It is a call to business about the danger of a citizenry capable of critical thinking.
He said schools have teaching disabilities that was pure genius.
His brother is a teacher who taught children to ignore authority and when the students cancelled him, he acted surprised and called it a complete mystery.
@@CoolChannelNameO have a feeling there's more to the story.
You could make the same argument for most of what's considered art these days also, especially music. Even in the outskirts of the art form, musicians have become ultra safe resulting in a whole lot of bland regurgitation of tried and tested methods, whilst not having the balls to take things to the next level like we saw in the first 3/4 of the 20th century, and previous, for fear of being frowned upon.
Amen
Eric Weinstein is a figure who should be modeled and duplicated.
Dude is not only extremely intelligent and self aware, he has imaginative properties & abilities which continue to astound me.
*_TRUST! !_*
Yet he still cannot tell you geometrical unification is by 7 planes of light, by r > c, r = c, r < c as per H Bar to a note, music he still can not sing.
@@channelwarhorse3367 Lol, so I guess Eric is unfit for duplication & aerosal dispersal?
*_TRUST !!_*
@timsexton Well, the pursuit of geometrical unification, he can only continue to step 🚶♂️ into shoes 👞 to fill.
Heroic BATTLES, to strike the heart of reality. With love, combustion of water, as UFOs 🛸 use 7 planes of light ✨️ will he step INTO WAR, for his manners & memes, Tim, Sexton he can punch 👊 or take HITS. Taking both, seems your a 🕺 beyond Eric Weinstein, honestly a Champion 🏆 🥇
Science depends more heavily on character than on intelligence. That was Einstein’s observation. Intelligent liars can do the most harm. Those with a modest intellect but who can summon an uncompromising strength of character are the most successful inventors, entrepreneurs, and managers of the work force.
Being a liar is not science, so why are you even considering liars as scientists? If you are a liar, you are not a scientist, no need to compare intelligence or character. Define scientists as a truthful person.
@@CrucialFlowResearch I don’t consider liars as true scientists but many people are famous scientists in the eyes of the public and who are not severely truthful as a true scientist should be. It’s not me but the public who are deceived by these fakers.
@@CrucialFlowResearch You still need a word for professional scientist. There are professional scientists who are liars.
Had a friend who was tired of being a dumb jock, champion athlete though he was, so he applied his sports discipline to self education. Met him in my major, where he forged ahead to be a scholar to be reckoned with, often the backbone of intellectual discussions with others. He just finished his thesis 😊
@@CrucialFlowResearch And many scientists are liars. Doesn't matter what is science. That there are morally corrupt scientists is what matters.
Eric Weinstein, brilliant as always.
Yes, Eric has a unique way of communicating. Yes, he likes to be dramatic. Is his dramatic form of communication warranted?
That's a subjective decision.
Eric has many interesting things to say. Instead of asking yourself whether you like his form of communication, maybe look at his points. Are they accurate or not? Is there a crisis in physics? Is there a crisis in science? How dramatic are they? Those are the important questions, not if you like someones style of communication.
Btw: If there is a big crisis, being dramatic and revolutionary in your thinking and speech might be excatly the right course to take.
Dramatic?
Because he made very parallel analogies to the FACTS of what's happening in the 21st century?
@@MR-backup Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No. So your comment is completely pointless. Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards...
@@youlig1 Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No.
- I never said you did.
So your comment is completely pointless.
- If only you had eyes to see what your reply is.
Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards...
- I understood the first time; clearly you should be taking your advice, first.
Kinda bizarre for the interviewer to say the way Feynman conducted science what “not very popular at the time; not seen as good science.” He was offered professorship to Cornell in his 20s, the people in the academic establishment were very impressed by him, as far as I know, he was one of the most famous physicists of his time, he won the Nobel prize in his 40s lol… the interviewer tried to make it seem like he was some unrecognized recluse in his own time, which was not the case at all.
This is probably a similar misconception that Einstein was bad at math and that he failed highschool or something.
Eric certainly talks a good fight - sadly, the world is still waiting for him to...actually do anything...apart from talk.
Exactly, blabla, but never contributed a single dime to any relevant field. But he, he talks like he knows all, so we should trust him!
What I've always felt like Eric was saying that there is just far too many amazing minds that are just being led the wrong career paths and ways of thinking. They are put into a box when they should be taking risk on stuff than string theory.
Isn't it important to educate people also and change minds?
Can't like this interview enough!
The problem is that almost no modern "science" follows the methodology of real science.
So short an interview but full of gems.
I cant emphasize how important his words here are. Every single one in one way or another is an apt description for a crucial problem in our society.
Seriously; who TF is this guy and where did he come from?!
"Based" ASF!
Eric is key to exposing the ills of our very important scientific ‘experts’
Here after watching him talk to Terrence Howard, so these first 2 minutes about 'great' science really shows how open mindedness is what will lead to great discovery and he puts it into practice when he talks to Terrence, even if Howard is seeing patterns in everything I appreciate someone sat him down and tried to reign him in .
Nice :)
To the factors revealed in this conversation, I would like to add three for your consideration.
1.
Reviewing those who gave us the big jumps, … many seem to have been outsiders, not groomed in the guild's version of Right Thinking.
2.
The progress made by those who, even without the experiential learning required to understand Eastern metaphysics, nonetheless found sufficient inspiration from the old Eastern crib notes to make serious progress. Exposure to alternatives to one's (trained, borrowed, assumed) paradigm can be very fruitful.
3.
The (largely unknown, hence largely untrained) mental capacity for overview. The nearest academia gets to this is multi-disciplinary stuff - just people that are weak in two or three linearities. Even polymaths, having expertise in up to a dozen linear studies, is typically not great at Overview, aka Feminine mind. Note Noether, Curie, and the many other women who made great contributions.
So, sure, it would be nice if academia better accommodated the kinds of minds which can make the big jumps, but to my (admittedly male, but heavily exercised and trained) overview it looks like a few more decades of mostly "good" science can be expected.
And that might be a good thing ;)
Based on what you wrote, may I put here...
Polanyi explained it. You don't calculate or figure to create underived new knowledge. You fall in love with the question. Science must be completely personal. It is not only the scientist that must be fearless, but also the person that recognizes their work must lose their fears and inhibitions to be able to see something 100% unfamiliar and uncomfortable.
Then look for someone doing unacceptable science, so unacceptable that they are not involved in science. They will be completely on their own.
You want a Hail Mary? Find someone who cannot be stopped, cannot be restricted.
Look for the person driven to solve the problem. What problem. What questions need to be answered? Energy? Sure, but what about the basic question of human survival. Hey, a topic science doesn't talk much about. It is interested in it, but does anyone get traction. Look for something like that, maybe a systematic study of how humans can adapt genetically and strategically for long term survival. It might reveal the unexpected and be very useful. The person would have to understand science, history, law, religion, which science won't look at, and even philosophy that science is only realizing it needs to look at.
... RUclips blocks the title, but if you want to see some new science, unscramble and look for EneticsG orF A EnW UmanH cologyE
My apologies, but RUclips does block that title if unscrambled.
Science of rationality as reached its peak and debate no longer happens.
@9:20 and @10:00 Thank you for this!
What an incredible conversation. So much was said in such a short period of time. I can’t say how happy I am for that last bit on faith, I truly believe that’s why we don’t see great science anymore. Too many good scientists have spent an incredible amount of energy mocking great scientists.
Perhaps next time greater care will be placed on the audio level of the guest, rather than the host.
How can the speculative integration of quantum mechanics with neuroscience, specifically through concepts like quantum neurology and the idea of a universal, interconnected consciousness, be empirically investigated to validate or refute the theory that individual consciousness is a manifestation of a universal consciousness governed by quantum principles?
Religion prostitutes science.
What a brilliant clear minded man !
Thanks for that episode!
Is that box taking interview from Eric?
Eric Weinstein is what us Aussies describe as a "Cluey-Clot". This does not mean he a clot amoung the clueless but a parady reflecting its opposite. Therefore, Cluey-Clot is the highest complement of being "brainy" us Aussies can bestow upon someone.
I’m Australian too: among; parody; compliment. Sorry, it’s Xmas.
its very nice to see someone speak on these topics consistently
Yes - _great_ science is audacious! I have newfound respect for Weinstein, he's smarter than often given credit for..
I learn alot about science but still it wasn't enough to provide me the answer to the question what I truly want.
What question is that?
@@alexgonzo5508 why you speak? Why not to fallow the law of nature?
How? Why ? What? ? When?
The big question 😄
Now you can learn something else; it's 'a lot' not 'alot.'
@@johnwarring2337 yah by playing words the next numbers.
@@johnwarring2337 oh I forgot I'm just lonely with my thoughts, don't mind me😂
Context!... When was this recorded? Considering how this discussion has changed over recent years, it's important to know
It's suspicious how they don't show the interviewer and how the IAI logo seems to be digitally inserted onto the coffee table. I suspect this is just a repost of some older interview done by someone else.
Too many clip accounts reposting out there to not be suspicious
Imagination, Courage and Fortitude are the pillars of breakthroughs ... too bad academia fails to reward these
Too many people, especially scientists, undervalue imagination.
What about dark energy? Heard that was a boring measurement. Just dotting the 👁️ and crossing the 🫖 . Turned into a huge wtf
Eric Weinstein is a great voice for Science. He delivers frank and honest criticism with extraordinary wit. I wish scientists and particularly science communicators (NDT) would have his attiude. Science has been stuck in the mid 20th century and has become a field where test and verification has been replaced by math and ideas cant really be shot down because they are untestable. What can we possibly get out of this??
You have never been in a lab, have you? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Your attitude proves my point.
What lab experiment can you design to show that doppler shift observed in Galaxies.. is caused by recessional velocities?
There isnt one.
Yet, you can go one and build up on theories and the consequences of theories without realizing that some of the initial assumptions may not be on ground as solld as you wish.
Then, any criticism is unwelcomed. How dare I? Right? You know that I have been to a Lab probably as
Much as Einstein and that doesnt change anything. I am sure that the scientists in a lab do a great job and it has nothing to do with my point.
There are unverifyable things that are assumed as truth.
Is the really isotropic and homogeneous? Is it really expanding? Besides doppler what is the evidence? CMB? Hmm ok
@@lepidoptera9337 By test and verification, I am not referring to the type of lab experiments that are being performed.
For example, what lab experiment can you do to verify that the Universe is expanding and that the doppler shift is caused by recessional velocities.?
There isnt one. Yet this assumption
is the basis of all cosmology. Eventually, they will tell themselves that this has been verified and our certainty in this assumption is 100%.
Well, it isnt.. period.
So, is it that lab experiements are bad? No. Its the attitude.
Even your question.. hey, how many times have you been to the Lab? Not at all. And it doesnt change anything.
There are things we know, and things that we know if a bunch of assumptions and models are correct. Scientists place too much faith on models that do not have the solid foundatiin that they think they have.
This attitude can stop new ideas and models from being considered. That was Eric’s point.
@@lepidoptera9337 If you wanted to find out if the expansion of space is causing the doppler shift seen in the light of galaxies. Which lab would you go to and what experiment.?
Its not that labs are not performing experiments, but that there are some measurements beyond the abilities of our labs. Now, this is crucial to know to verify our cosmological models. Yet, it is treated as fact and any other ideas are ridiculed. Thats the point.
The best interview on the web atm
"A scientific revolution in which we tell the administrators to get the hell out of our labs."
I would go so far as to say a social revolution in which we tell the government administrators to get the hell out of our lives."
There was a time when Scientists, Historians, Political Scientists, and Soldiers all got together to do just that; and with barely the shirts on their back!
Has Eric ever published original research in a peer reviewed journal?
No.
Who cares? I recently had a friend discount the nutritional counsel given to me by a doctor citing the doctor wasn't a published nutrition researcher.
@@moshet842if you think physics is like medicine or nutritional science you have no business commenting.
His dissertation was cited in a paper that was peer reviewed. He left Harvard University in disgust after his work was stolen, and has had a career in finance whilst working on _Geometric Unity_ in his spare time. There is a draft paper for that but it is a work in progress, so don't assume that because it is typeset using LaTeX like papers which have been through a process of academic peer review that it is of comparable quality. He is quite honest about it not being finished. It is version 1.0 and he will probably have a new, still unfinished, version out in 2025 as he has said he plans to bring his podcast _The Portal_ back, and my guess is that he would feel better doing so after a constitutional election has calmed tempers as there hasn't been one since 2016 in the United States. Fact is, Joe isn't President. No one is.
You mean having the same quality as with all that covid "research" ?
Audio editing couldd help here a lot. Interviewer constantly making confirming sounds, utterances while listening (which probably in person is good for engagement with the interviewee) is very VERY distracting to viewer.
Eric tells the truth with direct speech. It’s super refreshing. It’s a crazy-extra bonus, that he’s so flipping intelligent.
Eric tells you what you want to hear. Every kid who failed in school and never got over it wants to hear that what they taught him in school was wrong. ;-)
Happy Xmas Eve to IAI and Eric
Super science sensemaking indeed.
Truly grateful for all you do.
💜
Merry Christmas.
This man has my respect
2:18 feynman was a fine man, charming, funny and warm…. Like Mr. Rodgers if he had a couple of cocktails 😂
I relate to the idea of learning in different ways
We are not farming ourselves to our fullest potential.
I couldnt agree more with Mr. Weinstein on this. He is such a necessary menace, thank you Eric. And your special presentation on geometric unity is EVERYTHING!
"ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya....interesting". Has no idea what Brett's talking about. Neither do I
Eric is brutally honest and thats why we love him!!
I think Eric is talking more about philosophy than what we call science. Science is VERY basically epistemology. But still, it’s basic understanding through repeatability of observation. How do we know what we know? Great Science is not being afraid. We are here, we are alive, and it’s all us. We should push smartly. I’d talk to that guy and tell him what I know.
“Survivors of the School Wars.” Best education line I have heard yet 😂😂😂😂😂😂.
There is no real science without spirituality
Ok.
An excellent interview, not just about science. As someone who has taught students with dyslexia and sponsored training programs for teachers, I have experienced first hand how the sheer numbers in schools make teachers defensive and shift the burden on students. Professor Weinstein is wrong though to dismiss learning disability as a problem. Schools can only deal with the ‘normal’ and find ways to exclude others, forcing the creation of separate institutions for certain groups of students. Doubt there’s a simple solution. His distinction between good and great science is in a sense present in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions but remains valid more so today
What an extraordinary mind. I love the way he pulls on disparate ideas in making his arguments.
I was very moved by.
I relate to it deeply.
I was under the impression that Eric was a believer, but it seems he is more complicated. However, this video shows a side of Eric that surprised me, he is a true revolutionary fighting Talmudic excesses. Previously I didn't like Eric, but now I have started to like his ideas. Besides a scientific revolution he should endorse a Chinese style 'cultural revolution'.
mhmm! The east is embarrassing the west right now... from papers on electrochemical transmutation in china - indian engineers and mathematicians proving calculus is false math....
john napier made most mathematicians redundant so they turned solutions into problems to give themselves a long lasting career in physics.
What does this comment mean? I'm curious, but I don't get it. I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to "Talmudic excesses" but I don't understand what that means or how it bears relevance in this context. The reference to a Chinese style cultural revolution is also lost on me.
My bad, I'm sorry, I'm only 4:00 but I assumed the whole thing was about science. Judging by the other comments it seems like there's some discussion of faith and religion so perhaps "Talmudic excesses" will make more sense in that context.
This is a short video about abuse of good/great science and I am with you. What i make fuss about is the fact QM isn't a theory, yet few rules make it the most unreasonably effective, but since the time of Einstein it remains 'incomplete' and avoid good/great science and resort to what results in covid and opioid abuse in the name of science. Moreover I think we aren't doing anything to improve the situation. I got the impression you want to rectify the situation. Chinese cultural revolution was devised to ensure that global powers never again humiliate the Chinese, expecting this philosophy of Mao would help you in your fight to establish good science.@@avisternlieb449
You should read up on the Chinese "cultural revolution". You may change your mind about seeing it repeated.
.
I would love to see a long conversation with Ian McGilchrist and Eric!! Anybody else?
Believing in you’re own self worth..
A Weinsteinian trait through the roof
Be brave Eric and say if trump is the next president then fkn disaster ensues
But he has his audience
This interview needs to last AT LEAST another 2-3h...
Thanks, though 😊
Eric has his own podcast named the portal!
Eric on top form imo
I found this to be unexpectedly and unfeasibly good. Eric is right about great science. The problem of course is that if great science often emerges (in part) from “fringe” practices and attitudes, and from a pool of much failed science, then how do you incentivise people and institutions to invest time and money into it? And the reality is that the future Feynmans and Einsteins are going to have to do much of their work outside the system and without much support, at least not much support for their wacky habits and ideas.
This made me think about my disastrous experience with TED pulling my license to produce TEDX West Hollywood over the content of my program, which they labeled pseudo-science, instead of appreciating whatever new ideas came from renowned thought shapers, that included Russell Targ and Larry Dossey. Their slogan, "Ideas Worth Spreading," should be, "Ideas worth spreading except if they don't conform to materialistic science."
What other science is there?
Non materialistic science can't ever be proven, because once proven it becomes materialistic.
So non materialistic science could only be ideas.
@@inajosmood As you state it, you seemingly make sense, but you're behind the times where there is a movement to expand the parameters of science to include what is beyond that narrow band of materialism. Do a search for "non-materialist science" and you'll find a treasure trove.
Welcome back Eric, a most warm welcome =)
😊His confession as an atheist who prays: “ you Can’t Speak no Language, and similarly you can’t escape the human need for metaphysics. But the idea should be that you have that need cloud your reason as little as possible and as much as as necessary.”
One must also content with the destructive human attribute of envy entering scientific rivalry between good science and great science, and between those who are good and those who are potentially great.
I'm surprised but glad that EW didn't get wrapped around Thomas Kuhn's axel.
All human minds perform science; we observe, we associate, we place cause (blame), gather past info and sometimes get things wrong.
Yet we (at least most of us) don’t delve deeper than what the immediate concern is of our social standing, question our foundational premises, or seek the beauty of connection for its own sake.
some more some less
As much as I like to hear Eric's point of view about science, the fact that he is downplaying Feynman in this interview made me feel very uncomfortable...
Then don’t watch the GellMann interviews
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
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. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
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.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
-------------
it was a bit long for my liking... @@paulonius42
Just a tip, but try to make the explanation a bit more concise and intuitive or most will stop reading after the first sentence like I did.
We can move forward when we fix calculus... its a false math after all. Limits, infinitesimals, etc. etc. are all quackery dressed up as sensible.
Its 2023 and we still rely on outdated theories from the greeks and frameworks from newton and leibniz... its time for a major upheaval.
@@paulonius42 The two thumbs up above prove at least two people read the article and appreciated it. However, constructive criticism is always appreciated, if you have any specific ideas related to the article.
Need for metaphysics. Specific receptor. 5-HT2A. Religion. It's Chomsky like built in function of the mind. Good lord this man is brilliant. Takes understand that we can barely feel and draws it out into perfect illumination.
Need for metaphysics vary from person to person. I personally accepted that there are questions which we may never have the answer to. But I am cognizant of the fact that many people cannot live with "I don't know", they must have a belief that they have the answer, otherwise they are lost in uncertainty. I think that Eric conflates two things - the literal need for the answers, as I just described, which can be satisfied only by religion, and benefits of rituals (praying, meditation, etc.) which many atheists exercise without summoning supernatural. I think he is doing the latter. I don't do any of this, unless you count closing your eyes and listening to Oscar Peterson as meditation:)
I was expecting a mention of "Against Method" in the beginning.
Wait…he didn’t cite Kuhn here……..??😑
Happy holidays everyone. Peace 😎 ✌️ from Canada, eh.
🎄Merry Christmas!🎄
Merry Christmas
Merry XMas From London, Ontario Canada
Good example of someone who is great at critiquing while offering no solutions
Eric - "Feynman wasn't really great. He didn't know what he had created, someone else did it for him"
Host - "yeah. Yeah. Yeayeayea".
Having looked at this content creators RUclips channel, I was disheartened that this discussion between multiple people has been cut down to just this 15-minute clip, how sad. The channel does not include a full video, and the other videos in the same time frame appear to be different videos about other subjects.! Science and the discussion of science should not be hidden, this is beyond sad, this is a disgrace.!
Its on the website
It’s hard to know who’s brighter, Eric or Bret Weinstein but they both deserve Nobel Prizes.
" we own the science "
- U.N., 2023
Iran making drones and gps.
- yea it's yours.
Why can't we see the interviewer? It's bizarre to not see how the interviewer responds to Weinstein's statements
Yes, very strange.
just concentrate on the ideas
@@morgengold Ideas are carried on by humans who express emotion, surprise, frustration, puzzlement, etc. Why not have both?
@@InMyBunker The intervewier exists as waves for us viewers, and as particles for Weisntein.
Amongst his many talents, Eric Weinstein is a skilled ventriloquist.
"Science cares about you" is an expression akin to that of a worshiper of deities envisioned in anthropomorphic terms...or at best, a rather poetic lyricist. Strange phrasing indeed...
What does that mean?! Atheist that prays?! What? What are you praying to?! Do you set time aside and pray to, what, nothing? Or is it that sometimes you feel like praying and you do even though you’re praying to nothing? I guess I don’t get it. I am new to this though, atheism.
Thank you, Eric and iai !
This might just be the single greatest Eric Weinstein interview of all time. How you managed to ask just the right questions and yet receive consise answers.
My proposal is we should focus on saving humanity; if that's still an option; before throwing the best minds at fixing science. Specifically, game theory. How do we detect and remove psychopaths from the prisoner's dilemma? They are breaking the game and very close destroying all of human civilization.
Well scientific revolution comes from sober theories like Oppenheim's one, not from theories like Geometric Unity or String theory
I love hearing this guy.
Revolution? Like looking into ESP and other psychological phenomena? That’s the one I’m interested in.
Agree. In the area of AI, there are a lot of criticisms of current approaches as "hitting the wall" and calls for a new paradigm. I propose a new paradigm, which basically solves intelligence and what? I am ignored. Because I am not a "scientist".
That is a technocrat, through and through
Maybe ...
But what he is saying is that the self and material involvement with the social, rely on our ability to be in language agreement... Which is what the scientific method should be used for. It's the move to individual spiritually derived language that is fracturing society into tribal pieces. The dangerous part that he points out ... But also the modern view of the larger scientific institution as some kind of sterile, humanless, anti religion device, only inhabited by monetarily privileged people, not those of actual intellectual merit, that causes academia to lose sight of it's full potential... Sort of the post modern version of elitism in academia. You can't have society without materialism and technology, causing the necessity to share ideas in the first place. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact they must exist together.
Personally, I like the "load-bearing behavior" line the best. This is really a powerful idiom, especially when combined with a lot of the topics his brother discusses.
We must never forget when they coerced the children for use as shields to temporarily and marginally "protect" adults,
Science does not care.....
Science is a method .
Not an ethic.
I had to stop the video after he said Science cares about you
Whoaaaa. That language analogy at the end about religion blew my mind.
Copied Chris Langan CTMU
I have a lovely paradigm shift for you! Here it goes. 1. People don't have five senses, they have six, and the sixth sense are the emotions, which are physical feelings without a physical origin. 2. By excluding the real 6th sense (which has nothing to do whatsoever with seeing dead people!), we have a reality reduced materialistic paradigm which is missing 16.7% of information. This is essential information to be able to de-code the science that is ever done (or the religion). You're welcome! 🙂