Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Part 2 Eric Weinstein: Geometric Unity...REVEALED! (#135)

Episode Date: April 9, 2021

Weinstein, host of the Portal Podcast, reveals Geometric Unity, his provocative new Theory of Everything. First discussed in 2013, later explored on the Joe Rogan Experience and Lex Fridman’s podcast, I am delighted Eric revealed the published version FIRST on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast. Thanks to today’s sponsor, LinkedIn Jobs! Visit linkedin.com/impossible to post your job ad for FREE! Get a copy of the paper at https://GeometricUnity.org See this Collection of Videos in Support of Geometric Unity https://pullthatupjamie.com Watch Weinstein’s April Fool’s 2020 episode of The Portal, where he explains aspects of his theory of Geometric Unity: https://youtu.be/Z7rd04KzLcg Watch Eric Weinstein’s latest interview on The Joe Rogan Experience: Harvard suppressed me: https://youtu.be/l1jTUhwWJYA and the Wuhan theory here https://youtu.be/6hrd9Z4gUL4 See Eric Weinstein on Lex Fridman’s podcast https://youtu.be/ifX_JnBfxTY https://youtu.be/wf0_nMaQ6tA 🎥 🎥 Watch my most popular videos🎥 🎥 Frank Wilczek https://youtu.be/3z8RqKMQHe0?sub_confirmation=1 Weinstein & Wolfram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI0AZ4Y4Ip4?sub_confirmation=1 Sheldon Glashow: https://youtu.be/a0_iaWgxQtA?sub_confirmation=1 Michael Saylor The Physics of Bitcoin https://youtu.be/CaN_CDKqXOg?sub_confirmation=1 Sir Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize winner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMuqyAvX7Wo?sub_confirmation=1 Jill Tarter https://youtu.be/O9K9OBd3vHk?sub_confirmation=1 Sara Seager Venus LIfe: https://youtu.be/QPsEDoOTU6k?sub_confirmation=1 Noam Chomsky: https://youtu.be/Iaz6JIxDh6Y?sub_confirmation=1 Sabine Hossenfelder: https://youtu.be/V6dMM2-X6nk?sub_confirmation=1 🏄‍♂️ Find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔥 Find me on Instagram at https://instagram.com/DrBrianKeating 📖 Buy my book LOSING THE NOBEL PRIZE: http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA 🔔 Subscribe for more great content https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 ✍️Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog.php 📧Join my mailing list: http://briankeating.com/mailing_list.php 👪Join my Facebook Group: https://facebook.com/losingthenobelprize 🎙️Please subscribe & review the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/into-the-impossible/id1169885840?mt=2 🎙️Listen on all other platforms: https://wavve.link/into A production of http://imagination.ucsd.edu/ Artwork: Sloan Sobie Research: Nick Daigler Support the podcast: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to part two of this special two-part episode of Into the Impossible on Geometric Unity. Sit back or rather lean forward and listen to Professor Brian Keating and Eric Weinstein continue this in-depth discussion about Eric's theory of geometric unity. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Essentially, spinners can be defined without choosing a metric. That is new. I don't think that any critic, any anonymous, pseudonymous or an anonymous person can really criticize that. I mean, that's just a fact. So why wouldn't, if it's not true, it would be, you know, almost surprising. But if it is true, why haven't physicists noticed this before? Why aren't they making a bigger deal out of it?

Partially, it might be your fault because you haven't published this. Blame the victim. Who else? You know, what I usually hear about this is people say, oh, you don't understand Jean-Pierre Borgignon told us how to move spinners under variation of the metric. But he's varying the metric continuously. There's always a metric present. What if there's no metric for a little while?

Right. Which could be the universe before God interview. Are you going to do a Feynman integral over? over all variations of the metric. I mean, I don't know what kind of pain you're signing up for, but I'd certainly rather free... Look, here's the basic statement.

If we're serious about quantum gravity, we should be very serious about trying to get fermions that don't require their bundles to be dependent on the existence of a metric at all times. And I'm sure that

either there's a brilliant explanation that I don't understand and I'm eager to hear it. Or it's a key sign that the community really dropped the ball. Remember, for example, that the Bohm-Arenoff effect, I'm sure that when Aaronoff and Boem said, hey, shouldn't there be an effect of this zero field strength, they probably thought, have I lost my mind?

I'm sure that Yang and Lee, when they proposed that maybe the weak force was left-right asymmetric, probably thought, are we going to be laughed at? Do we just not understand what everybody else understood? Physics gets things really spectacularly wrong occasional. And I'm curious to know if this is one of those moments. Yeah. I mean, you might also say, oh, there's 26 dimensions in heterotic string theory. That can't be right. No, it's only 10 or 11 or 5 brain and brain theory. I want to ask another question, which is frequently used in criticisms, both anonymous

and anonymous, which is that this doesn't... Actually, I really don't want to talk about anonymous trolls with PhDs criticizing the theory. And I also don't want to talk about non-constructive hit jobs on new theories. Last time I checked, physics was in a crisis that some people were admitting to it other people were sweeping under the rug. Okay. You have a crisis. Wait, wait.

If you have a crisis, for God's sake, open it up. We don't need one more talk from the same crowd of people who have been keynoting every conference of note for the last 30 years who haven't got the new ideas. Let's at least hear crazier, weird, or wilder people. And if you guys don't have the guts and courage to do it from inside the community, hear it from a podcast. Okay. Well, this is my podcast. And I do want to respond to these criticisms because for me, I don't find them legitimate. And you can choose to be silent as is your want.

No, it's rare to... No, I wish to punish dysfunctional cowards who attempt to snipe pretending to be helpful. You can do better here. Okay, I can do better as well. But I do want to say that this is maybe a general comment, not for pseudonymous and anonymous people, bananimous.

But this is a general complaint. that I have hurt. It has to reproduce quantum theory. And I think, forget about that with regard to GU. It could be said about other theories, loop quantum gravity, et cetera. First of all, I think GU does produce what we would say is a relativistic quantum field theory in the Dirac equation, which is manifestly resplendent and produced and predicted. I'm not going to, I don't want to hear from you just yet, Eric. I do want to get your response. But this notion that a theory of everything has to subsume anything. I said this to our mutual friend,

Stefan Alexander, professor at Brown University and esteemed cosmologist and close friend to both Eric and myself. I said, look, I don't think it's valid to say that any theory of everything, string theory or whatever, has to predict every manifestation of physics. And this is where I take issue and I make truck with Professor Kaku,

who says things like the one inch long God equation will predict everything. I don't think that's possible, A, I don't think it's useful to think about the goal of physics is to predict every phenomenon in physics. Because it's an incautious statement. Really what you're trying to say is that there's stuff that you should be able to read off from the basic setup of theory directly. And there's stuff that you should work your ass off in order to get from the theory. Now, you know, we don't see quarks running around free the way you might imagine naively you would if you were looking at the hedronic part of the standard model

Lagrangian. So you have to work pretty hard, I would imagine, in order to find these bound states that we call protons and neutrons and try to understand infrared slavery, etc., etc. Now, that's part of the hazard of saying I can predict everything. No, even computationally, you don't think so. Really, it's just a question of we should be able to recover everything that we've already done. And actually I think that that's pretty fair. So even there's a dumb way of doing, I think there's a dumb way of doing it where you try to say,

um, show me this or then you don't have anything. And I have to say, I, I encounter a tremendous amount of that from people who are old enough to drink. And I, it gives me pause as to who's raising the young. Um, that's not the issue. The issue is they're right, they should be saying, look, here's what we know how to do, and you should be looking to recover what we already know how to do from what you're saying. And I think that's actually fair. There's a question of should you be able to do everything on day one? Should you be able to do it when you've been cut off for 27 years working completely on your own under totally weird circumstances where every month you feel you get farther and farther away from the literature

and your brain hasn't spoken this language in a million years. Those are questions that I feel like that's really sad because people don't understand what the cost of isolation is. I do think, however, that working in a context with competent people who aren't constantly trying to rename everything after themselves, there's no question that that's a reasonable and fair thing. If we had a collegial world based on a desire to advance our understanding. And I'm happy if I fail at that with a collection of constructive colleagues to say that that's a black mark against the theory. That's fine. Now, when I look at the corresponding, shall we say, imprecations against string theory, I would say things like the swamp land, the multiverse problem, these may be issues that cause stillbirth.

in many people's minds. I've talked to you about Paul Steinhardt, the Einstein professor of natural science at Princeton. He regards the string theory is essentially bad for society, not just for physics, not just for science, but bad for society because of the extravagance in a truest sense of the word, in a bad sense of the word, of the multiverse and string landscape. Now, I know you're shaking your head. Let me be very clear about it. We're wimping out from what needs to be said. and it's really important that the community, I think, gets it right. I don't think string theory is a problem. String theory can't harm anyone. It's the string theorists when they're in their triumphalist mode,

which it's an insufferable state of being. But even then, you know, I'm sure Feynman was insufferable. And I think Murray, Gelman, was insufferable, and Pauli was pretty insufferable. We've had insufferable members of our community for a very long time, and we should not be getting rid of insufferable people. The problem is what happens when people become insufferable, and they don't constantly check in with the unforgiving nature of the universe.

I mean, Pauley predicted the neutrino in an insufferable fashion. He apologized profusely. I have done something which should never be done. Now, I ask you, though, should these should string theory? just be neutral to GU for a second. Should string theory from string theory emerge the Aharanov-Balm effect? I mean, a true theory of everything, it would, right? Look, and if it took a while to recover certain features of the world at an effective theory, I mean, look, let's put it this way. If you look at Marshallian demand in economic theory,

Should you be able to predict that from the Lagrangian of the universe? No, it's in a different strata of the world. You should be able to predict things that are within, you know, the adjacent strata of the theory. And then you should, you might have to appeal to some higher effective theory. Look, I want to defend both the string theorists and string theory. These are incredibly smart people who found some real structure and who never knew when to quit when it came to trumpeting just how much better string theory is than everything else. Even there, they had a point. They were smarter and deeper in general than everyone else.

And they just weren't as good as they claimed to be and they weren't as successful as they claimed to be. And what they did succeed at, they didn't want to take credit for because it was really mathematics done in physics departments rather than physics. And so we have a problem that sociologically, nobody wants to say that the Institute for Advanced Study has the smartest guys around. And a lot of what they do is in physics in standard terms. It's the mathematics of physics. And these are uncomfortable truths just the same way that it's uncomfortable that we're taking seriously somebody who's been out of the field for 27 years. But these are end times. We're having end time conversations.

And I think that it's, you know, we don't need to be. mean about it. I think it just needs to be more honest. Okay. With that, I give some applause here. Let's see if we can hear that. Got some applause, Eric. A smattering. That just was a smattering. I want to take a pause for the cause and to have a pause to recognize our guest today as the esteemed Dr. Eric Weinstein, who is a seeker after truth, a seeker after my own heart in the authentic tradition of the old one his namesake, Albert Wine. Now, they say this is not a serious podcast

until you break out the puppets. Now, I know Rogan has a supply of bows and M16s and all sorts of other things. I don't have any of those accoutrements. I only have my sock puppets and my Gelt Nobel Prize. But I do want to say that this is a special conversation with Eric because it really fulfills a promise

that was made basically a year ago and then again, again, about six months. ago on this podcast, which is to release a stunning amount of new technical details. And you've really surpassed that. Our mutual friend, James Altoucher, a podcaster extraordinaire, he says that you should never under promise and over deliver. You should never under promise and under deliver. You should over promise and over deliver, meaning that if you say you're going to get it done in three months and get a million customers, you should get it done in one month. get 10 million customers. Or as one Peter Thiel said once, what do you think a will require

10 years but could be done in six months? So what you've done is released a tremendous amount of technical information that will be fully released at some point to the public. But also, I want to take our audience through some of these delightful animations. I put the link in the chat. There are some names associated with these videos. Brooke Dallas has been shepherding the project, Brendan Stone has been incredibly helpful technically. Boku, a mysterious German man who animates many of these things. There's a list of people who've contributed Tim the Muthless Swagman from Australia, a math student down there.

So what they've done is they've tried to interpret what it is that I'm saying because I tend, because of learning issues, to not think symbolically. That ship that you're seeing is called curvature. And it has three masts because it has three irreducible components, usually. One mast is called vial curvature, one mast is called traceless reichy curvature, and one mast is called Ritchie Scalar. And the first greatest insight maybe of the 20th century was the way in which we could feedback the curvature of the Levitumina connection into being a co-vector field on the space of all metrics.

And this is depicted as a boat going into a bottle that has a rather wide opening. So let's run the animation. Okay. So we've got a metric. The metric has a connection. The connection produces curvature that is Ramanian. We find that by identities it's got three components. It tries to go towards metrics and the vial curvature is snapped off.

Afterwards, the scalar curvature is lowered somewhat or adjusted by scalar curvature over two, times gm u new and so symbolically what we've done is we've said Einstein threw away the vial curvature re-adjusted the reachy scalar curvature and fed metric information through to the levi-javida connection through to the remon curvature tensor and then played these projection games to feed it back to the space of metrics and that particular combination is perpendicular to the action of the diphthomorphism group on the space of all metrics, leading to a divergence-free condition via our friend the Bianchi identity. Now, why can't we do that and feed this information back to the space of connections rather than the space of metrics because we would love to link space-time games with gauge potential games.

So let's see whether general relativity and gauge theory have an incompatibility problem as we try to play the same game. We start off with the remon curvature tensor, but now the neck is narrower. And what's really going on is that this is kind of evocative of trying to feed it into the space of connections. But the gauge group acts differently on two different factors, namely if connections are add-valued one forms and curvature, is an ad or the algebra value two form. The problem here is that gauge transformations act on the lee algebra component and don't touch the form component. At first, I didn't think it was real.

I woke up to this blinding light and I was transported to another place. Pluto TV. Then I heard a voice. Come with me if you want to live. There were thousands of movies and shows and they were all free. The truth is our It's just so beautiful. On Pluto TV, free streaming of Terminator 2, Fringe, Arrow,

the 100 NX files may cause excitement, loss of sleep, and sudden belief in extraterrestrials, no credit cards or alien encounters necessary. Pluto TV, stream now, pay never. But Einsteinian projection or contraction or summing over GMU indices is democratic. It deals simultaneously with the form piece and the Lie algebra piece. So if you treat only the Lee algebra piece under a gauge transformation, and you don't touch the form piece, then contraction followed by gauge transformation will never be the same thing as gauge transformation followed by contraction. And so that's the puzzle, which is if geometric unity is really about the idea of trying to say, maybe it's not so much quantizing gravity, maybe it's a fight between the different geometry of Riemann and ERISA,

because gauge transformations are Erismanian geometry, but contractions are Riemannian geometry. So here's a GU approach. How do you get geometric harmony between general relativity and gauge theory when you have the ship in a bottle problem? And this is kind of almost a tight analogy. You've got the curvature tensor. You apply a gauge transformation to two of the masts and you pass them through into add-value D minus one forms

and then you do an inverse gauge transformation which is exactly how you do the ship in the bottle trick by the way Brian gave me a wonderful ship involved thank you very much raising the masks inside and then you can potentially if need be adjust one of the two masks again in order to get agreement

so in part the idea is how do you get harmony what you need to do is to promote one of the we need to promote the gauge transformations initially to field content in order to make sure that you're carrying around enough information effectively to ensure that contraction is compatible with gauge transformation.

So now that is a very tight idea of how these operators function inside of the theory. Well, this is just a very tight idea. for some reason, whenever we talk about gauge theories, we don't give people very concrete examples. Many of you who are not professionals will not know what a gauge theory. Let's imagine that we have a salary that is constant in dollar terms over time, but somebody is facing inflationary pressures on their basket of goods. What we now have is a $10 in our salary, and if we claim that it's constant, constant means derivative equals zero, yes?

but we know that it's not constant purchasing power. So we have two notions of constancy. How are they related? We do a gauge transformation. You now see that these little hash lines are the reference levels that we call a connection. And we decide that rise overrun should not be measured from a naive horizontal, but should be measured instead from a custom reference. reference level represented by the hash marks. Now, if you let it go a little bit and then stop it, stop.

Now you see that derivative equals zero, if we measure rise overrun above the hash marks, is a salary that keeps pace with inflation. And the current $10 an hour is actually a negative derivative because the rise overrun is measured beneath those hash lines. That situation is actually an application of gauge theory to a very simple problem in economics, completely depicted by stretching the fibers in the XY plane. And if you look online right now and say, what's the gauge theory?

You'll be bamboozled by a bunch of stuff that nobody can understand unless they're actually insiders. So I think it's very interesting that, again, just as it was elementary to ask the question, what happens to the fermion medium while we're blinking out the supposedly quantum metric, why is it that we don't actually

explain to anyone what a gauge transformation and visualize it? And I'm very proud of our team for taking this very simple example and showing what a gauge field is. It's those little hash lines. Effectively, those things in higher dimensions

would be the electromagnetic potential. which becomes the photon under quantization. And if you're thinking about QED effectively, the electron is a function and the photon is a derivative because what you're specifying is the levels above which you're going to measure rise overrun. I just don't want to take a second here. This is Brian Keating now speaking.

So if you look up Juan Maldesana, you will find only one podcast that he's ever been on, and that is the Into the Impossible podcast. If you look up gauge theory and an intuitive way to understand gauge theory, something like that, you'll come up at this really brilliant economic analogy that sounds like, you know, Eric is copied from Juan Maldesana. And in fact, this came up recently. People talking about inflation-stabilized items and Bitcoin and so forth.

And then it was very frustrating to me, and I imagine much more so. so for Eric, although he doesn't have to comment. He's too much of a gentleman. This is Eric's work. This gauge theory applied to economic transactions. Eric and Pia Malani. Yep, Pia Malani, of course, the beautiful, talented wife of Eric Weinstein. Eric is known as the husband of Pia and Malani, mostly.

And this work was really as brilliant and is deserving of attention in its own right, independent of the brilliance of it as an analogy to explain a very complicated subject, such as gauge theory, or a very simple subject like calculus, as Eric is now explaining to us. I want it to say that. You don't have to respond if you don't want to, Eric. I find it very frustrating when I see, oh, Eric, you've got to learn what Mal de Sane has said about it. I'm like, F you. That's very frustrating to me.

That was what was hurtful because Juan knew that he had gotten this. He knew about Pia Malani. He needed to reference her. He did reference her, but in the very slight, like, minimal way. It's a footnote. It's a footnote. He knows better than that. The problem that I'm having, the problem what I'm having with it is that the professional community does not understand that it has impulses, that it hasn't faced, which is that it tends to brutalize those that it doesn't need to cite, that it doesn't see, just doesn't see people.

And so to have, look, I'm a huge Juan Maldesana fan as are we all. Me too. But I'm not going to sit around and have people say, what you really need to do is to listen to Juan Maldesana, whose brilliance knows no bounds. He did something really profound about markets and gauge theory because, quite frankly, P.M. Malani deserved to have an entire career built around it. I think it could easily be the most deep in the way. insight in mathematical economics of the last 25 to 50 years. And please show me another, given that the marginal revolution originally was the penetration

of differential calculus and the economics, her thesis, which is largely joint work, but was not even allowed to be what it was supposed to be, re-based the field of economics on gauge theory as the correct form of calculus. and I'll tell you what I don't really want to bitch about Juan Maldesana. What I would really love to do is to have Juan Maldesana who showed so much excitement when, you know, when I confronted him about this, he says, oh, you know who that is? Because he had no idea who Malani was. It would be really great if Juan Maldesana did this work, and I won't say another word this podcast about it.

Okay. And I will say only one word because it's my podcast and I can do whatever the hell I want. I had on Kamran Vafa, as you know, who wrote a book called Puzzles to unwrap the universe, in which he cites Juan Maldasena. And I called him on that. I said this was actually original work by P.A. Malani, Eric Weinstein. And it almost doesn't matter. And I find that very frustrating. The very same people, and you don't have to respond, please don't respond. Again, I'm a blowhard on my own podcast. It's one of our prerogatives. We get so little of these things and treats in life. but I find it very disingenuous of the community.

I love Comron too. But to say that, well, this isn't serious, Eric, you have to cite this paper, you have to put out a paper about GU, you've only done things on Joe Rogan, I find that disingenuous. You don't have to respond. Let's go on. What I will say is this. When you have gatekeepers in the form of advisors,

if you have job market meetings where people wield incredible power and they hold other people's careers in the palm of their hand, if you use these places to crush people, you have no right to comment after the fact as to why are these people behaving bizarrely and strangely? Because in essence, whether you submit things to journals and have a perfectly reasonable relationship with peer review or whether you find that peer review is basically a tool

to exclude you and your insights and your claims from the world, depends in large measure on who you are, where you're coming from. It's human dependent. It's not independent of who submits and how protected they are. And, you know, the thing that I want to get across is that the community is producing trauma in people and then claiming that it's paranoia. And you have to recognize that trauma and paranoia look exactly the same when you can't see what the source of it is.

If you want to understand what happened to this theory, read the physics of Wall Street by James Weatherall Chapter 10 in the epilogue. It's rather clear about the fact that four gentlemen and one lady tried to steal a trillion dollars over 10 years by pretending to fix the CPI because Social Security and tax brackets were indexed. And they came up with 1.1%

adjustment that would be needed. And then they broke into two teams to find exactly out the 1.1% that they wanted. This was admitted to by Robert Gordon. And the most brilliant thesis that probably came through Harvard in terms of mathematical economics was destroyed so that Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bob Packwood could have a back-end run around the third rail of politics, which is slashing benefits and raising taxes, using economists to destroy, funnily enough, a bright, promising woman of color from the developing world in an essentially all-male field.

And these people should pay with their reputation. All right. Let's look at one last video here. Let me imagine that that torts that you see in the lower left corner of the screen, okay? is a two-dimensional model, toy model of space time. So going around through the center is like Groundhog Day, you come back

to the same place and it's a repeating time cycle. And space is simply a circle. Now in such a world, we would normally think of quantum field theory or gravity is taking place on that object. and you'd have fields, you'd have effectively functions called sections on that object. What you're seeing here is something that's very hard to picture because it's five-dimensional. But one trick here is because the Taurus has a property called parallelizability.

The object on the right is a depiction of a metric, each point that isn't on one of those two shapes. is a potential metric at any given point on the torus. So in other words, if a metric is a symmetric non-degenerate two tensor, if you think of it as a matrix, it would be of the form X, Z, Z, Y. And the non-degenerate means that X, Y minus Z squared, is not equal to zero. So that's what's cutting out that variety, if you will. The zeros of the determinant would be points,

given that there are three degrees of freedom in the metric. And so instead of actually having a metric space time, G.U would say replace the Taurus by the entire space in that sort of hourglassy region. So the top region would be like space space metrics. The bottom region below that sort of weird diaphanous scarf is time-time metrics, and the weird middle region, which is sort of around that singularity, would be space-time metrics. Every way you can stick that donut into that middle region without touching one of those two sheets is a valid space-time metric. And what G.U would do is to say, don't only dance on the points of the two-dimensional torus. Again, the surface is two-dimensional, even though it seems to be three-dimensional

to naive investigation. You should actually have fields that are dancing on all of the points of the Taurus and simultaneously all of the points in that middle region of the what we call the Diablo diagram. So every point in that region is, you know, is in play. And if you mapped, imagine that the stuff in that weird hourglassy region, on the far right was like very warm and on the far left was very cold. That if you map the Taurus into the far left region, it would be, it would show up as being cold. If you mapped it into the far right region, you'd see it as being very hot.

So every way of mapping the Taurus in pulls back different information from that hourglassy region. And that is in large measure, in part, one of the things that may be going on with the illusion of many worlds. What you're seeing is that the metric may be capable of pulling back data that is dancing on the space of all metrics as well as the space of all points on the original manifold X. So in this case, you've got two degrees of freedom on the tourists. You've got three degrees of freedom around the hourglass and two plus three equals five. Now notice that thing up in the top left, which is a ruler protractor combination that I just gave a copy to Joe Rogan. Those two sliders are recalibrations of what it means to be one unit. And that protractors are recalibration of what you're going to define to be 90 degrees.

So every way of keeping that bottom arm in a single horizontal position, moving the top arm and moving the two sliders, that's three degrees of freedom in the space of metrics. So that's a different depiction of the space of metrics. So the big take home from the restrictive version of GU that we're exploring here is that if you allow fields to dance on the space of metric apparatus, measurement apparatus, that kind of the paradoxes of measurement start to make a lot more sense. You could also potentially try to keep the metric classical,

because we have two spaces. We have a space downstairs X, which is just the Taurus, and we have a space upstairs, which is the Taurus, in this case, cross the hourglass region as long as it doesn't touch the two sheets. So you've got a five-dimensional manifold hovering over a two-dimensional manifold, and fields on the five-dimensional manifold will be perceived on the two-dimensional manifold when you pull them back via a particular Einsteinian space time, as fields on the tangent bundle of what you will call space time,

together with fields on the normal bundle inside of the five dimensions. So the normal bundle of a two-dimensional manifold in a five-dimensional space is three-dimensional. So you're going to see fields that look like, let's say, spinners on two dimensions, tensor spinners on three-dimension. If you were in four dimensions, make that torus in your mind represent a four-dimensional space time, then that Diablo region would be a ten-dimensional region of metrics, right? Because four-by-four matrices that are symmetric have four-squared plus four divided by two due to different degrees of freedom.

In other words, you hear a ten-dimensional normal bundle. Now you'll notice that if you have ordinary spinners on 14-dimensional spinners, and you pull them back via a metric, which is a mapping of four into 14, it looks like spinners on the four-dimensional space, tensors spinners on the ten-dimensional normal bundle. If the normal bundle inherits the Frobenius metric from X-1-3, and you glue in the trace piece in the right way, if you glue it in the wrong way,

you'd get a 7-3 metric on the normal bundle. But if you glue it in the right way, you'd get a 6-4 metric on the normal bundle. And 6-4, spin-6 comma-4 is a sort of nasty non-compact group. So you might want to break to its maximal compact subgroup like Witten and Barnaton discuss. And the interesting thing about spin-6 comma spin-4 is that it has different names. By low-dimensional isomorphism, spin-6 is the same thing as SU4. And spin four is the same thing as SU2 cross SU2. And SU4 across SU2 cross SU2 is the Petit Salam theory.

So you can argue that ordinary spinners on the induced metric in 14 dimensions glued in the right way, pull back as Petit Salam. And I don't know if anyone's ever discussed the connection between Einstein and Petit and Salam. No. Well, no, I can't say no. I don't know. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. People have brought it up, but yes, has it ever...

Has it no? I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. The point is that spinners on 14 look like spinners on four tensors or spinners on some version of 10. Yeah. And whether you're talking about spin 10 models,

SU5 models, or SU4, cross-s-s-U-2, which is spin-6 cross-spin-4, isn't that exactly what we see in the standard model? So Frank Wilczek, let me just see if I can find this beautiful quote from him because he definitely brought this up. And what I recently did when I had him on my podcast, which we haven't released. So if we go over to my screen share. Yeah.

Give me one second. Let me do this. Here we go. So there we go. Yeah. Let me read it. A particularly intriguing feature of S-O-10, which is really spin-10, or could be spin-6 comma spin-4, is it spin-er representation used to house the quarks and leptons in which the states have a simple representation in terms of basis states labeled by a set of plus and minus signs. Perhaps this suggests composite structure.

Now here's the sentence that just floored me. Alternatively, one could wonder whether the occurrence of spinners both in internal space and in space time is more than a coincidence. And then he pulls back immediately. These are just intriguing facts. They are not presently incorporated in any compelling theoretical framework as far as I know. Geometric unity is that compelling framework. Awesome. Very interesting.

Look, let's be honest. I said I was going to release a document. and clearly we haven't. Okay, April fools. April fools. Uh-oh. A big reveal. Go to Geometricunity.org.

Geometric. And, yeah, and call that up. And then, Brian, why don't you be the first to put your email address in to request a copy? I wouldn't call it a paper. I'd call it a draft. And one of the things I'm looking to do is I'm looking to get constructive feedback from people who want to help me succeed as opposed to people who just want to be dicks and take me down

because that's just, to be honest, not very interesting to me, and I've had a little taste of that, and I'm not that interested. What I would love is to bring your positive energy, download it, read it, recognize that more or less I've been cobbling this together from a million and one different scraps

and that my ability to talk in this, this way has been degrading for years because I have no one to talk to. I'm not in a department. I'm doing this completely on my own. And I was a little bit frightened to figure out just how much I've forgotten. So we're still finding scraps of paper and files on old disks and things like that. I hope that the notation is getting more and more standard, that there are fewer errors. But this is basically me going back to 1984.

and all the time in between where mostly I didn't talk about this with anybody. And this has been really terrifying because, you know, I'm not a physicist. I don't come from this community. I revere the community. I don't think the community has been behaving well recently. I don't love saying that. But I think that the community is in a desperate situation. And let's find out whether I have anything to say or I'm just blowing hot air.

I'm not afraid of that. But you know what would really be meaningful to me is for people to bring kindness, benefit of the doubt, hope, and recognition that it's pretty tough to try to do all this on your own. And be constructive and take a look. And I think there are two email addresses on the paper in draft form, one for technical feedback and one for general feedback. So I hope that there's a lot of food for thought. And I do think that let me just close this out. I think it's a coherent story.

I think it's the first time I've ever heard a coherent story about how a very simple beginning would produce something that would look like our world. There are things that I would call predictions in it that talk about what internal quantum numbers you would expect to find likely next in terms of there's much more matter. There's matter that should be dark. There's matter that might be luminous but not at the right energy level yet.

You would have to, in order to compute with it, be able to figure out what fields have acquired VEVs and where we are in anthropic spaces in some places. But the internal coherence is much sharper than a few. There's still some things that I'm trying to locate my favorite version of, one is the Shiaab operator. I know how to produce Shiav operators in general, but I had a sheet of paper with,

do you remember paper with feeds, with holes on either side? Oh, yeah, loose leaf. Oh, feed. No, no, not loose leaf. Printer paper. Pinter paper. Dot matrix.

Yeah, so I did some calculations in representation theory that came up with the projections that I used to use that I'm looking for. And the thing that I remember is that they've got the yellow highlighter and these perforated holes on either side of it. I haven't been able to find it yet.

So it's a very long process taking about 37 years of speculation, sometimes more active than others, and trying to put it in one document. So I would really appreciate it if people wanted to take a gander through it, try to see some of the ideas, and recognize that if we are going to get off this planet with its hydrogen bombs and crazy leaders, and diversify and take some bets,

rockets are not going to do it. There is no real Mars or bust or Occupy Mars strategy. There's one quote that keeps coming back to me. Our home is in the stars or not at all. If we're going to sit here on a hot-crowded planet with thermonuclear weapons, maybe we have hundreds of years, but we don't have thousands. And if we're going to get off this planet

and go someplace interesting, we're going to have to recognize that we don't have the source code yet in Einstein, and it's very limiting, and we're going to have to actually say, what is the source code? And if it turns out that we can find it, we're going to have to be good stewards,

and we're not going to do the same thing that we've been doing by handing the stuff over to leaders who don't take seriously the burdens of godlike powers that we, the technical people, bestowed. So, Brian, thanks for having me on. And it's a pleasure to interact with your audience. Eric, it's a pleasure to have you on the show, as always, you're welcome back any time.

I do love the fact that you made this promise back in early or late December of 2020, that year that may it soon be forgotten in some sense. I said I was going to try. I said I was going to try. That's right. Well, you succeeded. You succeeded for sure, Eric. I want to thank you for your generosity of time and spirit and advice that you've given to me. I hope I can help to serve you in this, wherever this project may take you.

It's now out of your hands. It's into the world. And it's going to hopefully sprout many, many delightful new discoveries for the benefit of all mankind, as our friend Alfred Nobel so warmly engendered upon the world. Eric, best of luck. Congratulations. We'll do a part three next year on this date, on this auspicious date, and let it forever be known as a day of FAMI, not infamy, for years. to come in physics if we can follow the lead of the generous, the mercurial, the geniorific,

Eric Weinstein. Thank you so much, Eric. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Hello, I'm Stuart Volko, producer of Into the Impossible. If you enjoyed this episode with Professor Brian Keating, please let us know by subscribing, commenting, sharing, and most importantly, reading and leaving reviews. It really helps keep our universe expanding. We appreciate hearing from you and read every review and comment. We're always open to your suggestions for future episodes.

Watch our YouTube channel at Dr. Brian Keating, DR. Brian Keating, and join our premieres every Tuesday at 8 a.m. Pacific time for live chats. Follow Brian on Twitter, Medium, and support us on Patreon at Dr. Brian Keating. That's DR Brian Keating. For free access to exclusive content, please visit Professor Keating's website,

and sign up for his informative newsletter at Brian Keating.com. Into the Impossible is produced with the Arthur C. Clark Center for Human Imagination in the Division of Physical Sciences of the University of California, San Diego. Herrick Vary, Director, Brian Keady, co-director, Hector, Hector Coleman, Associate Director, produced by Stuart Balco and Brian Keating. For more information on the Arthur C. Clark Center, go to www.orgonation.ucsd.edu.