Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Did Eric Weinstein Just Delete Einstein’s Cosmological Constant - Confirmed by DESI? [Ep. 493]

Episode Date: May 23, 2025

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥 Can geometric unity actually solve the deepest mysteries of our universe, or will it join the many others that have tried unsuccessfully in the past to create a new unified theory? Eric Weinstein is one of the most revered thinkers of our generation. Though not an academic physicist, he proposed a unified theory of physics in 2013, which is supposed to have the potential to explain phenomena that string theory cannot. In a lecture held live at UCSD in April 2025 at the prestigious Astrophysics and Cosmology Seminar, Eric presented an update to his groundbreaking theory. Today, we’re sharing his fascinating lecture with you!  Eric is an investor, financial executive, and host of The Portal. He and his brother, Bret Weinstein, coined the term Intellectual Dark Web to refer to an informal group of pundits. Eric is a vocal critic of modern academic hierarchies and advocates for advances in scientific theory over an emphasis on experimental results. He proposed a new unified theory of physics in 2013 and has been an active member of the physics community.  — Key Takeaways:  00:00 Intro 01:58 Cosmological sector and geometric unity  03:57 The Poincaré group  08:31 Quantum gravity and the standard model  14:41 Torsion and gauge invariance  28:13 Spinor group and 14-dimensional space  38:24 Grand unification and spinors  42:34 The Higgs is an illusion 50:08 Outro — Additional resources:  ➡️ Learn more about Eric: 🎙️ Website: https://ericweinstein.org/ ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter:⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating⁠⁠⁠⁠  🔔 YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1⁠⁠⁠⁠  📝 Join my mailing list:⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/list⁠⁠⁠⁠  ✍️ Check out my blog:⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/⁠⁠⁠⁠  🎙️ Follow my podcast:⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://briankeating.com/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠  — Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to follow so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water.

The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building.

Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Quantum gravity is a mental disease, which theoretical physics needs to rid itself of, and people have to be willing to say that in public. Eric Weinstein is one of the most feared thinkers of our generation. The Great Nap is now over. Right now, where we are is four light years from the nearest star. There is no way to get to the speed of light or even close.

The problem is that the culmination of all human theory about the base reality stagnated abruptly and mysteriously in 1973. Is the cosmological constant really necessary? So we have a cosmological constant term without an explanation and an explanation torsion without a term. And a radical new prediction that could explain the recent results from the DESE Project, A startling claim that Einstein's cosmological constant is not at all what Einstein thought it was.

This is the term which everyone loves. This is the term which we keep going back and forth. Is it a blunder? Is it a blunder? Is it a blunder? Is it a blunder? Einstein compared this to a building with fine marble, think leaning tower of Pisa, his greatest blunder and cheap wood on the other side. The field is not producing new results. This is also terrible.

but it turns wonderful because if we can find the problem, we can make progress and reach the stars. In today's talk, you're about to witness an update to his groundbreaking theory first presented at Oxford in 2013. This lecture was held live at the UC San Diego Physics Department in the mayor of in April 2025 at UCSD's prestigious astroparticle cosmology seminar. Here, one of the most brilliant mathematical physicists of our time presents his revolutionary theory of everything to an audience

of odd skeptics and supporters. Can geometric unity actually solve the deepest mysteries of our universe? Or will it join a host of others who have tried in the past unsuccessfully to create a new unified theory? Thank you guys so much. What I wanted to talk about is the cosmological sector has a very different character than either the general relativistic attempted an equation for the gravitational field or the standard model because, in essence,

the standard model got codified in Erismanian bundle theoretic geometry. So only the Higgs sector sort of has this kind of hobbyist flavor. Everything else is pretty much kind of locked in. So what I have is three basic equations. The central one is from geometric unity. This is the bosonic part. This is the fermionic part. My difficulty with this field concerns the bottom equation, which in 1987 or thereabouts was called insufficiently nonlinear. It later became sufficiently unlinear in 1994 when Ed Witten and Natty Cyberg did it. And on top, I have the Einstein field equations. So what I want to talk about is the fact that we can't continue with dark energy. as a constant lambda times the metric just for the purpose of maintaining divergence free across the various terms

of the equation. In case any of you have to leave early, my claim is that this is going to end up as the formula for dark energy, what currently is lambda times gm u new. Epsilon sub omega is going to be a gauge transformation. This is going to be an exterior derivative minimally coupled to a connection that will come from something called alpha. And this is actually a pie, which we

don't use all that much, which is an add valued one form or a gauge potential. So basically, this whole thing is going to live in add valued one forms, and it's going to replace the cosmological constant times a metric. And you have to ask yourself on what kind of a gadget does that live? So the claim is that what we're going to be doing

is taking a semi-direct product. So if you are familiar with the Pancore group, think about the group of gauge transformations as what the Lorentz group always wanted. it to be and the space of add valued one forms or gauge potentials being the natural linear space upon which an affine space of connections is modeled, so that will be playing the role of the form momentum. So the idea is that you form the semi-direct product as a group to begin with.

That object seems to be wildly understudied, which I find very strange. If you have a single connection, you can push it around either by gauge transfermation. or you can push it around by adding gauge potentials to it. So you have two different ways to take a single connection from every element in this semi-direct product and to create two connections from which you can examine curvature and you can also look at their differences. Y-14 is going to be the space of point-wise Lorentzian metrics on an X-4 that has not yet become space-time. So imagine that you're given space-time, which is a four-dimension, four-dimensional structure, But you're going to use what mathematicians would call a forgetful functor, forget the metric, at least initially.

Pass to the frame bundle, the fearbines, take a double cover of those. So you're in GL4R double cover, mod out by spin 1 comma 3. And that will give you a 14-dimensional object naturally. And the idea is that that will end up replacing X4 as the place where we do our quantum work And then X4 will be the place where we do our classical work. And so you'll keep this separated in two different spaces. So unlike other branches of physics which keep progressing, what we know in fundamental physics is measured by the Lagrangian

or the direct Euler-Lagrange equations has not been moving very much at all so that the CERN and related mugs don't need to be changed in the merch shop. And the question is, what is going wrong that somehow we used to be great at this stuff? and then we discovered Ken Wilson, and then we became really bad at it because we believed that we couldn't figure out how to do anything that doesn't have a unique UV completion. So today's talk is the dark energy fragment of a larger theory, to your point, and you're just anticipating this. Imagine that you have general relativity in the standard model, first two rows. You want to know over what ambient space are they phrased, what bundle will concern us most, what will be the structure group of that bundle, What is the field content of the theory, at least in this case, A would be a space of connections,

and S would be the space of spinners. I'm leaving out the Higgs for the moment. And you have an action, in this case, Yang Mills plus Dirac plus Higgs. In G.U, there's a first order theory and then a second order theory that's built from the first order theory. So the first order theory encapsulates the Einsteinian and Dirac components. And then the second order theory effectively is it's square. So you have a square and a square root, think double copy. You've got Yang Mills, Link Narowitz, Laplashians, et cetera, et cetera. So this is the schematic for comparing.

The X4 is contained here in this Y14 that is endogenous. It's not extra dimensions. It's not Kaluza Klein. The space that is four-dimensional births its own 14-dimensional ambient space. So if you think about the leaning tower of Pisa, you already made a mistake. And what is that? If you have a problem in a system and you only see it in one place, you try to fix that problem. You might try to fix the cosmological constant.

What's not as well known is that all the towers in Pisa seem to lean. In fact, the leading tower isn't the leaniest of all of the towers in Pisa because they've got a soil problem from the Arnault River. And so effectively what I'm talking about is not complaining about these beautiful structures, but moving them wholesale to a different world, which doesn't have all the world. of these problems of, let's say the diffemorphism group is notoriously badly behaved as an infinite dimensional function space group. You can't quantize spin two fields very easily. There are all sorts of problems with going through the degeneracy point that takes a Euclidean signature metric into a Lorentzian one. And so effectively what you need to do is you need to

take all of the stuff that physics has done really well and resituated on totally different soil according to G. Many of you will... It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month.

Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. I think that the purpose of theoretical physics, if you came up after Ed Witten, and I was there at the first lecture Ed Witten ever gave on D equals 10 supersymmetry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1983, I'm the only person I think in my 50s still who was at that lecture. Everything changed around that time. We started hearing a perseverant cry that quantum gravity is the holy grail of theoretical physics. And I just want to say categorical. historically that the fact that no one stands up against this wholesale and says, this is a complete bait and switch in the history of physics. This has never been the Holy Grail of physics. This is a pet project of Bright's DeWitt, and it is not something that is intrinsic to this field. This is the youngest theorist with a Nobel Prize in fundamental physics. You'll notice that it changes character around 1984. That person was always below 50 years old. Currently, that person is Frank Wilcheck. his early to mid-70s born in 1951.

What's going on? This is a search on quantum gravity, all books published in English. If this was the holy grail of theoretical physics, somebody explained to me why there's no trace of this phrase before we stagnated in 1973. I would submit to you that quantum gravity is a mental disease, which theoretical physics needs to rid itself of,

and people have to be willing to say that in public, and not simply continue to spend decade after decades spinning our wheels getting nothing done. Let's talk about Einstein and the Einstein field equations. Supposedly, this is one of the most beautiful and powerful equations. It landed Einstein the man of the century for Time magazine back in the 20th century. This is the term which everyone loves. This is the term which we keep going back and forth. Is it a blunder? Is it a blunder? Is it a genius? Is it a blunder? Is it a genius?

and then there's this sort of ad hoc term that you get from taking random field content and an oligranjean varying the metric. Now, Einstein compared this, and I don't speak German, so forgive me, to a building with fine marble, think leaning tower of Pisa, his greatest blunder, and cheap wood on the other side. So basically, one out of three terms is perfect, and I would say artificially so, and the other two terms are sort of unsalvageable. And the question is, why would we have this situation? Well, this satisfies an automatic differential equation. There's an intertwining operation where

if you take the divergence operator attacking G-MU-NU, not as a tensor, but as an operator, on ad-valued two forms, where the ad-joint bundle is that of the Lorentz group, you get an R-I-J-K-L, or in this case with Rose Muse News. And if you pass the, you pass the this differential operator through this, you get the exterior derivative, minimally coupled to the Levychevita connection of its own curvature has to equal zero by the Bianchi identity. So you got a contracted Bianchi identity. That means that if this gadget over here is zero and you throw the dark energy term to the other side, you need an automatic reason why it will also be divergence free. Now what you have is you have the metric, which is always annihilated

by its own Levi-Chevita connection. And so if you take a product, by the product rule, you have to have that the derivative of lambda as a field has to die. And that's how we ended up with a cosmological constant. And once it's constant, it has no explanation. It can't rise and fall to meet the needs of the Riemann Curvature tensor in its Einsteinian form.

And so as a result, we're left with a term that does satisfy an automatic differential equation, just like this one. But it's completely preposterous. and we can't figure out how to do better. That's why it's the greatest blunder because it's sitting inside of this beautiful equation, but it, in fact, has a lousy reason for being divergence-free.

So why is it that Einstein only embraced his own tensor as being made of marble? Well, it's dynamic and natural. We love that about it. It's interpretable. It measures something that we care about, which is curvature, even if it takes a little bit of effort to feel reaching. curvature. Its second order or less, it's divergence-free from what we were just talking about.

And it turned out that when Einstein corrected it with the minus scalar curvature over two times the metric, that it became divergence-free, which Hilbert pounced on and said, well, that's because it comes from the simplest possible Lagrangian. And as we've just said, such a curvature term appears to be unique, and there appears to be no other ways to get dark energy so long as it's sitting on the lousy foundation of the space of all metrics. That's an infinite dimensional badly behaved function space. So conclusion is we are likely not working in the right place. Have any of you heard of geometric unity? Do you have any understanding of what it is? In essence, geometric unity is a claim that the two theories that are thought to be

incompatible, the standard model and general relativity, are after Jim Simons and C. N. Yang and Stony Brook, both based on differential geometry. But they're based on two different flavors. One is Erismanian geometry in the case of the standard model, only known since around 1975, and the other one is Riemannian or Sudo-Romanian geometry based since inception of general relativity, around 1913 through 15 with Grossman. The key features that I want to call is that you have complete content freedom. You can dial in SU3 cross SU2 1, you just have to worry about things like anomalies. You don't need to know where that comes from in the case of Erismanian geometry. But in the case of Ramanian geometry, you have a

distinguished connection, which we don't actually use all that much in the theory of general relativity unless you're in the Palatini sort of a school. But what Einstein did that we all should... Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th. the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at yamava Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino,

celebrating its 40th anniversary. UN must be 21 to enter. Think about is he used a contraction. He used the fact that he had a remand curvature tensor that was an ad-valued two-form, and he said, you know, ad is just another copy of the two-form, so I have a two-form-volute-to-form. I can contract one index on either side of a tensor product to get a symmetric two tensor.

And that move is not allowed in the Erismanian world because it says you're treating the two different forms differently. You're gauge rotating one, you're holding the other fixed because it's tied to the manifold. So in essence, you have two different geometries. And rather than it being a fight about the quantum and the children of boys, versus the children of Einstein. It's really about two different versions of differential geometry. It's an unacknowledged battle between Charles Erism and the Elization and Bernard Riemann, the German. Those two people had two different flavors that they based this theory on.

And the key issue is that general relativity is not compatible with the classical version of the standard model before quantization, because you can't gauge general relativity. And there's a fake meme that goes through the physics community that says, oh, the diffemorphism group is just like the gauge group and it all looks the same. That is not gauge theory. That is an attempt to make everything look the same when it really isn't. Okay. So we have a cosmological constant term without an explanation and an explanation torsion without a term. So we have these three basic tensors that pervade differential geometry.

The metric tensor, which we use all the time, the remand curvature tensor, which we use all the time, and the torsion tensor that you briefly learn about during your first week in differential geometry and then is studied by somebody in Uruguay or Botswana. The question is, why is torsion the weak sister in this triumvirate? So the obvious guess is that if you wanted to rebase the cosmological constant, you would find some way to integrate the torsion, which is sitting there neglected like a wallflower where everyone else is at the dance. So here's some simple observations that I want to make clear.

So in that you have a theory in which there's a distinguished connection, A sub-alif, on a principal bundle over the space Y. If you ask what is the formula for a random connection that can be thought of relative to your base connection, the formula for a gauge transformation is that if I take a connection A, the connection A, which is up to you to choose, minus the distinguished connection. That gives me an ad-valued one form.

I can conjugate and take an ad-joint representation based on a gauge transformation. And then I get this other term over here that is not so nice because it spoils gauge invariance. That's why we can't have a bare term where we can't just give mass easily to, let's say, photons and gluons and things like that, because that would spoil gauge invariance. But what if we had a second connection? What if you had a theory not of one connection, but of two connections? You'd repeat exactly the same statement. But the funny part is that the thing that doesn't look good from the point of view of gauge equivariance is exactly the same.

It has no dependence on the connection that you're looking at. It's simply a feature of gauge transformations of connections. So there's a rule. any time you have a disease, you should either try to get rid of the disease and go for zero or to find an even number of diseases so you can have a Mexican standoff where every disease kills every other. If you take a difference of these objects, the resulting difference in the space on which the affine space is modeled will be perfectly gauge equivariant. So the key problem is that we have a theory in the standard model where we have a single connection. But what if you have a

distinguish connection and two different ways of pushing it around. You can either push it around by taking a gauge transformation, or you can add a random gauge potential to it. So in other words, if I have an element of the in homogeneous gauge group, I have two sub elements that can both push that one connection into different places, and then I can take a difference. And by the magic of the in homogeneous gauge group, both of those connections are going to transform properly. as well as their difference is going to be perfectly gauge equivariant. So imagine that you're in this inhomogeneous gauge group. Then you have a map, tau, which takes the ordinary gauge group,

let's make a tau plus, into the inhomogeneous extension, where G goes to tau plus of g equal to g to g to g. to G. Now I could just put in a zero here, and that would be the sort of obvious homomorphism, but I can do a little bit better if I have a distinguished connection, which is D, olive, G, and then I pre-multiplied by G inverse. So once you have this copy of the gauge group, sitting inside diagonally of the in-homogeneous gauge group, I can multiply on the right So in other words, I have Curly MathCalW

for those of you in latex head going to Omega 1 of add P of G for a principal bundle Equivariant says that this map Theta is G equivariant under this subgroup. In other words, I can multiply

this in homogeneity gauge group by its subgroup, and I can represent the gauge group on the space of add valued one forms, and those are compatible under this map theta that we're going to take. So that's what G equivariant means. G equivariant means I've got a map between two spaces, both of them have G actions, and it doesn't matter whether I first rotate and then map or first map and then rotate. It's a commutativity concept. Thanks for asking, very appreciate it.

Are you always going to get torsion in this? Well, no, you always have a place for torsion, but the torsion can be zero. My claim is the reason none of us ever really use torsion is that it's slightly the wrong concept. Torsion is something called contortion. There's a slight difference is usually the difference of any connection minus the love of, chavita. Okay? That's wrong. It should be any connection minus the gauge transformed Levi-Chiveda. If you make that little adjustment, torsion is your best friend. And so there's this weird way in which, I guess it's a weird claim to make, we've been using

slightly the wrong notion of torsion our entire lives. So which is better, a theory with one or two diseases. Here we have this in homogeneous gauge group. we actually have two separate connections. So for any element, Omega, sitting inside of curly MathCalW, if I have a distinguished connection, I can either add the part of this that's an add-valued one form, or I can gauge-transform the Levechevita connection, as per your question.

This is the transformed, displaced base place where you're going to take the torsion with the displaced version of the Leveecevita, not the Leveecevita naked. And that that thing is going to turn out to be exactly what we want. By the way, this is also the rule for letting the entire inhomogeneous gauge group act on the space of connections. Remember, for some reason we didn't do this.

You have two different ways of acting on connections. You put them together in an inhomogeneous gauge group. And then you have to say, well, does that thing continue to act on the space of connections? And it absolutely does. So the distortion with superior equivariance is intended to replace the well-known but often useless torsion. And you see this sort of worse version of it here that should be gauge transformed. And for those of you who are true enthusiasts, you might think about the Stuckleberg trick and how to maintain gauge invariance under difficult circumstances.

So can we recover dark energy on A mod G after all? Now, some of you will know that there was an attempt in the 70s by McDowell and Mansouri. I did not know about this, where they attempted to reformulate general relativity as a gauge theory of gauge potentials directly, but it doesn't work. So what you need to do is you need to recognize that there's a double co-set where you're multiplying on either physical side of the in-homogeneous gauge group by either the tau-plus homomorphism on the right side or the inverse so that everything remains a right-to-relivenous. action on the left-hand physical side of that gauge group.

If you take the double quotient, you're in something that's equivalent to A mod G. Then you get this first really cool payoff, which, forgive me, you're not supposed to read this, except if you wanted to, you'd start off here and you'd say theta, which is given by pi minus epsilon inverse d epsilon, pre and post multiplied by two separate elements G.A and G.B under the tau plus homomorphism. If you go through the long derivation, you end up with a very simple statement that it's just the adjoint based on the second of these two transformations, and the first one actually has no effect. In other words, you've got a tremendous object with great equivalence properties, and equiviance is what leads to divergence free.

It went in the other direction where Einstein first said Arm you knew was the right curvature tensor, but then he had to be told, oh, no, no, you need it to be divergence free. And then he said, okay, so if it has to be perpendicular to orbits under the diphomorphism group, I can correct it. And then Hilbert said, well, the reason that worked is that you're now exact for the integral of the scalar curvature, that became the action. Here, what you're finding is, I've got a great tensor on this. this different object that I've never thought about and I've never heard about with beautiful

invariance properties, which tells you that in a schematic, you're going to have something like a divergence operator. There's going to be a curvature term, which is going to replace G-Mu-New, and there's going to be lambda times little G-MU, the metric, which is going to get replaced by this gadget. And so the question is, if I annihil, if I try to operate on both of these gadgets, imagine that there was an equal sign in the middle and you put a negative in front of this term. Then you'd have, with no stress energy, tensor, so sort of a vacuum only dark energy and the manifold itself, you'd have an attempt to use the divergence operator on these two terms, and you'd get zero zero. In other words, you've successfully found a candidate to replace the

Einstein field equations where there's a curvature term and there's a dark energy term, but the second thing is not constant. It's free to respond to gain a vev. If you have curvature stuck in your system, this thing can come roaring out of the vacuum. And as a result, you don't have this problem about, oh, the greatest problem in physics, 120 orders of magnitude. Yeah, of course you're going to have that problem

because it's not lambda times the metric. It's a field. All right, so now what? So having successfully changed our field content, for a new dark energy candidate from metrics to parameterize torsion, can we rescue Einstein's curvature tensor? And what I want you to think about is the following. Assume that you have the Lorentz curvature tensor where you have a two-form valued in the two forms. Now, for some reason, many of you don't know how this breaks up, which I think is criminal. We need to teach this to our

students. It breaks up into six pieces when the Lorentz group gets large enough so that you don't get accidental splittings and things. Two of those pieces, the scalar curvature and the traceless Ricci are depicted over here. This top thing is the vile curvature, which gets killed off by Einstein's capital GMU knew. And then you've got three terms that you don't see because of identities. They'll show up if you start allowing torsion, but they won't show up if you use the Levy-Tjuvita connection. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsor jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach

people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this shell will get a $75 dollar-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. The thing is, if you allow for torsion with just the Lorentz group, you see these

three gadgets here, which is the decomposition of irreducible components. And they would really fit here, here, and here. So there's no way of mapping curvature. into gauge potentials for the Lorentz group. So that's what I mean to show you, which is that the representation theoretically, you're not even in the right ballpark. So here's an idea.

We can first try to augment general relativity to Einstein, Cartan, Desider, ADS, or any theory with a copy of one forms in the ad bundle. Now, most of you who've gotten frustrated and bored by standard geometry will probably have spent a little bit of time in, let's say, Cartan theory. And so what you do is you have,

add potentials that are valued in the translations. So that's one forms valued in the one forms. But the two forms value in the one forms. That is the relevant curvature doesn't map to the right space. So there's no way of getting a map from curvature forms yet into the right place in terms of gauge potential. But here's the, I just find this really mind-blowing, and nobody remarks on it. Einstein effectively taught us that we can treat a four-manifold like a three-manifold.

What's the best thing about a three-manifold from an Ed Witten's style position? It's that the Hodge Star operator maps something that you know and care about, curvature tensors, to something else that you know and care about, gauge potentials. And the idea is that's because two is dual to one on a three-manifold. But what Einstein did, if you allow him meet the liberty of expanding to the Pongaree group rather than just the Lorenz group, is he gave you a map which maps the curvature to the gauge potentials on a four manifold. He just doesn't use the Hodge Star operator.

He uses his own contraction through the tensor product. Therefore, what I would submit to you is that Einstein, by about 65 years, is really anticipating churn Simons. telling us that if you restrict your field content to things that have to do with tangent bundles, you don't need to be on a three manifold to relate curvature two forms to gauge potential one forms. By the way, I am not a physicist, so I have no idea whether this is all standard to you guys or not. I am a humble podcast host. If you want to stop me, I will be happy to slow down. Now the point is, is that the Ponqueray group, the DeSitter group,

which would be like decider and anti-decider would be spin 1-4 and spin 2-3. So you've got three different groups that share the same Lie algebra as a vector space with different brackets on them. We've got the Poncouré decider and anti-desider groups. Should you use any of them? Absolutely not. What you should use is you should use a spinner group because the spinner group has a lee algebra that effectively, up to, you know, among friends, just looks like the exterior algebra.

So you've got all the degree forms, including the two forms which give you the Lorentz, and including the one forms, which give you the magic of the Einstein version of the star operator. So if we're not on the space of metrics, and we're not on the tangent bundle, because we're on the spinner bundle, are we on X4 at all? And the answer to me is absolutely not. I don't believe we are sitting here in a four-dimensional world. I don't think we live in space time. I don't think any of that's true, and I think it's clearly not true.

I think we are stuck as a slice of a 14-dimensional object. And what this is is imagine, so if I'm going to call the metric upstairs on this Y-14 manifold, little G, I'm going to use Gimel to indicate I'm downstairs on X-4. A metric is a section of its own. own bundle of metrics. If something is going on upstairs in the bundle of metrics, you can pull back data. You don't have to compactify because you're not in a situation

with a random space. You've got a bundle. You can take a section. And if you pull back ordinary spinners, zero forms valued in the positive spinners direct some one forms valued in the negative spinners on that top space, you're going to get three generations of standard model fermions.

In other words, I haven't specified weak hypercharged, weak isis spin. I've just said, go to the bundle of metrics, pull back spinners, and you'll find that you're already in the standard model. One of the cool things about having a podcast and not being a scientist is you get to talk to interesting people like Frank Wilcheck. Frank wrote this in a book. A particularly intriguing feature of S-O-10, which by the way should be Spin-10, I have no idea why you guys call it S-O-10, is it's been a

representation used to house the quarks and leptons. Now, he says, perhaps this suggests that both the internal and the space-time degrees of freedom are spinners. Perhaps it suggests composite structure, but I really want to call your attention to this sentence. Alternatively, one could wonder whether the occurrence of spinners in both internal space and in space-time is more than a coincidence. These are just intriguing facts and not presently incorporated in any compelling theoretical

framework as far as I know. I found this vaguely offensive since I tried to talk to Frank about this in the 1980s, but he clearly doesn't remember it. What this is is a description of the fact that you're just pulling back vial spinners from the space of Lorentz metrics. So according to GU, it is telling us that we don't live in 4D, we live in 14. So Einstein made a 4-manifold look like a d equals 3 hodge star. G.U makes a 14 manifold do the same and creates a diram-derak Einstein complex.

So in three dimensions, you can take the ordinary duram sequence, tensored with spinners. You can rewrite that instead of omega-2 and omega-3, you can write omega-D minus 1 and omega-D for D equals 3. And then if you can find some way of filling in this middle map, you can bring that to a 14 manifold, a 2047 manifold, and that's going to be what's going to generate

three generations, the KM and the PNMS matrix. So this is an exterior derivative coupled to connection information that's housed in the inhomogeneous gauge group. So for example, part of the inhomogeneous gauge group looks like gauge potentials. So imagine that you take your special connection, you add a potential.

So there's connection information in the in homogeneous gauge group, and you're mining that for a minimally coupled exterior derivative. Now, the problem is, how the hell do you get from omega-1 to omega-D-1 with a differential? That's really going to be your issue. It's not up top, it's down bottom where it gets complicated. So this ultimately leads to a rolled-up direct-deram-Rarita-Schwinger shape, familiar from seesaw theory.

In other words, if you roll up a Durham complex on a three manifold, think about this as one forms, think about this as zero forms. They're valued in another vector bundle, the spinners. This thing here is the rolling up of what would normally be an elliptic sequence if there is no obstruction if D squared equals zero. You roll this up and you can create a Dirac-Daram Rarita Schwinger gadget, which will yield you three families, really two plus one. The third family is an imposter for representation theoretic reasons, but at low energy,

it'll look the same as the other two. And this symbol is the only thing that you need, which takes a two-form valued in the spinners and maps it back into one-forms valued in the spinners. So effectively, what I'm claiming, it's just the ordinary. derivative which would take you from one forms to two forms and then you knock it back from two forms to one forms with this ship in a bottle operator and then that's what gives you your rolled up complex and that's also what gives you that sort of famous structure from the if you want different wildly different masses of your neutrinos let's say you want a zero in a self-adjoint

operator that looks like that in order to get wildly different eigenvalues. Now, a spinner in an ambient space pulls back to a spinner on an embedded or immersed subspace, tensor a spinner on the normal bundle. If you think about grand unification, what are the numbers involved? S-O-10. Ten is 10 times one real dimension. SU5, five times two complex dimensions, five times two equals 10. Then the third most popular one is Petit Salam.

That doesn't fit. It's SU4 cross SU2, cross SU2. But that's not what it really is. It's spin six, which is SU4, cross spin four, six plus four, ten. Why is the number 10 suffused throughout all of grand unification and why doesn't grand unification work? There is no grand unification. It's just a normal bundle in your ambient space.

You're picking it up because you're pulling back spinners from the space of pointwise metrics and you're confusing the normal bundle as if it fell out of the sky in mitten the linen which it which it didn't do so your summer starts now with memorial day deals at the home depot it's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill four burner gas grill on special buy for only $199 and entertain all season with the hampton bay westgrove seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $499 this memorial day get low-priced This is guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, price in valid May 14th or May 27th.

US only exclusions apply. See homedepot.com slash price match for details. If we've talked about the Lambda in Lambda CDM, we should also talk about the dark matter. If I take zero forms, tensor spinners and one forms tensor spinners, and I make that this entire column, these three representations are exactly what we now see in the standard model. The reason that I called this one an imposter is you'll see that it is parenthetically linked to two other representations. My interpretation is that if you were to turn up the heat sufficiently high, these two things would continue to behave the same way with the same internal quantum numbers. And this one will surprise the hell out of you because it'll reunify with all of these other particles from which it's become disconnected.

So many of you don't know, and I don't know why this is, that the spinners have an exponential. potential property that the spinners on a direct sum of vector spaces are the tensor products of the spinners on the individual sum ends. There's a slightly more complicated rule that looks vaguely like a product rule for the Rurita Shwinger three halves representation. And that's where this thing comes from. In other words, there's this extra term where it's like Rarita v. Tensor spinners on W. Spinner on V, tensor, Rarita Shwinger on W. we read a swinger on W plus spinners on V, tensor spinners on W. So that's where you get your third generation of matter from.

Everything below the line is dark. So it can say quite clearly what this matter is structurally in terms of groups. And these two things here are luminous, but you haven't seen them yet. Now, as our dear friend Sabina has pointed out, there's sort of three reasons why you don't see something. It's too massive and you haven't gotten enough energy to see it yet. It's too weakly coupled and you don't have instruments that are sensitive enough yet. Or the thing has to be in some special configuration like Bohem Aronoff, where you only get to see the effect if you contrived your laboratory to be just so.

So in GU, there's one family of 16 flipped chiral spin three halves particles. That is, there is a sort of spin three halves family, which aside from being spin three has is just the conjugate of the internal symmetry representation. But there's a lot more left to discover. And if you wanted the exact representations in terms of SU3, SU2, and the electric charge distilling the weak hypercharge into electric charge after symmetry breaking, you can say exactly what these things are. Some of these things will be electrically neutral, but lots of them won't be. Then it becomes a challenge. Why is it that we haven't seen the things that are predicted in the model? But one of the things online that I just find funny is people who don't read

things say, well, this makes no new predictions. In general, almost everything said about GU is untrue. You know, these would be the analogs of quarks. These would be the analogs of anti-quarks. These would be leptonic. So what limits are there on the fundamental spin to reanels? Well, Velo-Zwanziger is the big one. Vela Zwanziger says that if you have spin-3-haves matter that is coupled to some sort of non-trivial acting group, you have to be very careful. You acquire tachions or failures of unitarity, causality goes out the window. But again, you know, one of the things you have to remember about physics is that physicists

tend to remember the conclusions of their no-go theorems. They don't tend to remember exactly what the assumptions. are. So if your model differs by having no internal symmetry groups, I have no idea whether it has any kind of a Velazwanziger problem. But I would start with Velazwanziger. Are there constraints on spin three halves from growth factor or spin the G factors, spin statistics, I still don't know where the mass is stuck in the distance structure. We have some that's a model. Sure. But there's no Higgs. The Higgs is an illusion. If you look at the Yang-Mills sector, of the standard model versus the Higgs, it's almost exactly the same.

They both have a Klein-Gordon kinetic term. They both have a quartic term. You have that A-Wedge A in the pertinent expansion of a curvature tensor. So when you take its norm square, you get a quardic. If you take the norm square, you also get a term that looks like the unperturbed curvature, interproducted with A-wedge A, which is a quadratic. So if your curvature is negative, now you start to get a Mexican hat potential. Minimal coupling and Yukawa coupling are the same thing.

the only thing that's really different is the spin. So on the Y-14, you have a vertical tangent space, which is a 10-dimensional space. You have a four-dimensional space, which is the pullback under the projection map of the cotangent bundle downstairs, which lives inside of the cotangent bundle upstairs. Both of those separately have metrics automatically, because it's the space of metrics. You trace-reverse the Frobenius metric along the fibers, which gets you from a 7-3 signature to a 6-4. and then you combine these two, and suddenly you have spinners because you have a bundle that is semi-canonically equivalent to the tangent bundle upstairs with a God-given metric without ever choosing a metric. So part of the whole point of GU is that your quantum gravity escapade will never work as long as you have fermions because you don't have a metric bundle.

if you don't have a metric between observations of the metric in a quantum theory, in the case of integral spin fields, you have the bundles, but you don't know where the wave is. In the case of fractional spin bundles, you can't even define spin one-half without a metric. Standard model answers the question, what is the maximal compact subgroup of SU3-coma-2, and that's SU3-2-cross-U-1? In other words, the punchline comes first. What is SU3 cross S2 cross U1? And it's an answer to the question, what is maximal compact of SU3 comma 2?

Same question. What is the Petit Salaam group? It's not SU4 cross SU2 cross SU2. It's Spin 6 cross spin 4 and it's the maximal compact subgroup of spin 6 comma spin 4. So you can see this chain. Everything is contained in spin 10C, which mathematicians care about. My guess is physicist less unless they're string theorists.

And what you see is that this spin 10 is not right. We wasted the 70s because we wanted to avoid indefinite signature on the killing form. And I don't know what to do because we're in a maximally compact subgroup. We're shielded experimentally from understanding how nature handles the indeterminacy of the killing form. But this is the right chain. spin 6-4, spin 3, 2, SU3-crest, SU2, U1, Brian, in terms of the axis of evil

in certain Lorentz breaking directions in space, if you take the one dimension that's distinguished in the space of all metrics, and this has a complex structure, you can ask where that gets sent to, and that will actually break in a certain sense your Lorentz invariance. Okay, we will never find space-time,

Sussi. We fed Salam Strathdi, which always needs to eat an affine space, the wrong affine space. Don't feed it Minkowski space. Feed it the space of connections. Then the Lorentz group is the gauge group, the space of form momentum becomes the space of gauge potentials. And what you find is that the fermionic extension gives you exactly three families of chiral fermions if you have a decreased veve in the total space taking a derog equation into two vial equation. equations because the mass is actually a variable to your point. So astounding simple, little known fact, general relativity knows Patti-Salem. That is, I don't need to talk about weak hypercharge, weak isis-spin, I can just say the following facts. I have a four-manifold,

pass to its bundle of metrics, take the Fribenius metric, reverse the trace, reduced to maximal compact subgroups along the fibers, pull-back vial spinners, and you have one grand unified generation where the lepton, the electron and the electron neutrino become the fourth flavor of quark. I don't have to specify quark content. I don't specify weak isis-spin. I don't specify weak hypercharge. It comes out that simply, and yet we don't talk about it.

I'd like to hear why this is such a dumb idea. Let me just make a claim. Four days ago, this gentleman, Kurt Geimungle, dropped a three-hour discussion of this it's now at about a hundred thousand views in four words Einstein knows petees salam in under 30 words he just said what I said now we can pretend that I'm not saying what I'm saying we can pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about that this is all nonsense it's coming from outside the community peer review blah blah blah blah blah fine let me tell you what's about to happen the LLMs are about to be good enough

to do the work that physics isn't doing for itself. We've been stuck and stalled listening to the same voices for 40 or 50 years. And it's time to say it's possible that Leonard Suskin, Ed Whitten, and company just don't know what they're talking about. It's possible that Bryce DeWitt and Ed Witten and Lewis Witten led us astray that we're not supposed to be quantizing gravity, that we're supposed

to be looking for a unified field, and that all efforts in order to do this are going to come to not. And that's why the Lagrangian doesn't move. So in conclusion, it is emergent from GU that unified algebraic field theory is far more important than quantum gravity, assuming that this approach is valid. If it's Fools Gold, at least give me that it's pretty interesting Fools Gold. The unified field sought by Einstein is the observational graded in homogeneous gauge group of the unitary chimeric spin bundle. In other words, you have X4, it grows a space of metrics. You do this construction of the vertical direct sum, the horizontal that I was just talking about.

It has an automatic metric. You haven't chosen a metric. You form spinners on that because you can form it because it has a metric. You take the unitary group of those spinners. Then what you do is you take the inhomogeneous gauge group on that group and you extend it through supersymmetry. Now that's a mouthful, but it's also the entire universe without making any choices. So I would represent to you that this is the best candidate we have for Einstein's unified field. And what you can see is that it's super simple in terms of the linearized field content.

It's zero forms and one forms valued either in ad or in the spinners, and that's it. It's very symmetrical. So in some sense, it has to be intricate and Baroque because when you unpack it, it has to explain the universe, if that's at all a valid approach. On the other hand, it's basically the result of choosing four degrees of freedom, one dimension of time on those four degrees of freedom, and a spin structure. In other words, everything seems to unpack from that. Thank you for your time. But wait, there's more, a lot more.

Eric and I recorded an exclusive conversation right after this lecture. And let's just say we went even deeper down a rabbit hole. Some say we're still there, but you can watch the full interview from Eric. Eric's previous podcast at UC San Diego right here, or check out his conversation with Dan Green, also recorded in his last visit to UCST right here. Smash that like button and subscribe even harder than Eric smash his conventional physics. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer?

Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount. New vehicle discount. Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Hey, sweetie. Your mother showed me this Carvana thing for selling the car.

I'm going to give it a try. Wish me luck. Me again, I put in the license plate. It gave me an offer. Unbelievable. Okay, I accepted the offer. They're picking it up Tuesday from the driveway. I haven't even left my chair.

It's done. The car is gone. I'm holding a check. Anyway, Carvana, give it a whirl. Love you. So good, you'll want to leave a voicemail about it. Sell your car today on... Carvana.

Pick up fees may apply.