Kind: captions
Language: en
you recently published the video of a
lecture he gave at Oxford presenting
some aspects of a theory theory of
everything called geometric unity so
this was a work of 30 30 plus years this
is his life's work let me ask her of the
silly old question how do you feel as a
human excited scared the experience of
posting it you know it's funny one of
the one of the things that you you learn
to feel as an academic is the great sins
you can commit in academics is to show
yourself to be a non-serious person to
show yourself to have delusions to avoid
the standard practices which everyone
has signed up for and you know it's
weird because like you know that those
people are gonna be angry he did what
you know why would he do that and and
what we're referring to for example
there's traditions of sort of publishing
incrementally certainly not trying to
have a theory of everything perhaps
working within the academic departments
that all those things so this drew and
so you're going outside of all that well
I mean I was going inside of all of that
and we did not come to terms when I was
inside and what they did was so outside
to me we're so weird so freakish like
the most senior respectable people at
the most senior respectable places were
functionally insane as far as I could
tell and again it's like being
functionally stupid if you're the head
of the CDC or something where you know
you're giving recommendations out there
aren't based on what you actually
believe they're based on what you think
you have to be doing well in some sense
I think that that's a lot of how I saw
the math and physics world as the
physics world was really crazy and the
math world was considerably less crazy
just very strict and kind of dogmatic
well psychoanalyze those folks but I
really want to
maybe linger on it a little bit longer
of how you feel because yes is such a
such a special moment in your life I
really appreciate is a great question so
that if we can pair off some of that
other those other issues um its new
being able to say what the observer's is
which is my attempt to replace
space-time it's something that is both
closely related to space time and not
space time so I used to carry the number
14 as a closely guarded secret in my
life and where 14 is really four
dimensions of space and time plus ten
extra dimensions of rulers and
protractors or four the cool kids out
there symmetric to tensors she had a
geometric complicated beautiful
geometric view of the world that you
carry with you for a long time yeah did
you did you have friends that you
colleagues they essentially no talk no
in fact part of these part of some of
these stories are me coming out to my
friends and I used the phrase coming out
because I think that gays have
monopolized the concept of the closet
many of us are in closets having nothing
to do with their sexual orientation yeah
I didn't really feel comfortable talking
to almost anyone so this was a closely
guarded secret and I think that I let on
in some ways that I was up to something
and probably but it was a very weird
life so I did write I have a series of
things that I pretended to care about so
that I could use that as the stalking
horse for what I really cared about and
to your point I never understood this
whole thing about theories of everything
like if you were gonna go into something
like theoretical physics isn't that what
you would normally pursue like wouldn't
it be crazy to do something that
difficult and that poorly paid if you
were gonna try to do something other
than figure out what this is all about
now I have to reveal my cards my sort of
weaknesses and lack and an understanding
of the music of physics and math
departments but there's an analogy here
to artificial intelligence
and often folks come in and say okay so
there's a giant department working on
quote-unquote artificial intelligence
but why is nobody actually working on
intelligence like it you're all just
building little toys right you're not
actually trying to understand and that
breaks a lot of people and that they it
confuses them it's like okay so I'm at
MIT I'm at Stanford I'm at Harvard I'm
here I dreamed of being what kind of
artificial intelligence why is everybody
not actually working on intelligence and
I have the same kind of sense that
that's what working on the theory of
everything is that's strangely you
somehow become an outcast for even but
we know why this is right why well it's
because let's take the artificial let's
play with AGI for example yeah I think
that the idea starts off with nobody
really knows how to work on that and so
if we don't know how to work on it we
choose instead to work on a program that
is tangentially related to it so we do a
component of a program that is related
to that big question because it's felt
like at least I can make progress there
and that wasn't where I was where I was
in it's funny there was this book of
called Friedan uhlenbeck and it had this
weird mysterious line in the beginning
of it and I tried to get clarification
of this weird mysterious line and
everyone said wrong things and then I
said okay well so I can tell that
nobody's thinking properly because I
just asked the entire department and
nobody has a correct interpretation of
this and so you know it's a little bit
like you see a crime-scene photo and you
have a different idea like there's a
smoking gun and you figure that's
actually a cigarette lighter I don't
really believe that and then there's
like a pack of cards then you think huh
that looks like the blunt instrument
that the person was beaten with you know
so you have a very different idea about
how things go and very quickly you
realize that there's no one thinking
about them
there's a few human-sized to this and
technical size both of which I'd love to
try to get down to so the human side I
can tell from my perspective I think it
was before he prefer stand April Fool's
maybe the day before I forget but I was
laying in bed in the middle of the night
and somehow it popped up
you know I my feed somewhere that your
beautiful face is speaking live and I
clicked and you know it's kind of weird
how the universe just brings things
together in this kind of way and all
sudden I realized that there's something
big happening in this particular moment
and strange like any day on a day like
any day and all of a sudden you were
thinking of you had this somber tone
like you were serious like you were
going through some difficult decision
and it seems strange I almost thought
you were maybe joking but there's a
serious decision being made and there's
a wonderful experience to go through
with you I really appreciate it was
April 1st yeah it was it's kind of
fascinating him he's just the whole
experience and and and so that I want to
ask I mean thank you for letting me be
part of that kind of journey of
decision-making that took 30 years but
why now why did you think why did you
struggle so long not to release it and
decide to release it now Anna while the
whole world is on lockdown an April
Fool's is it just because you like the
comedy of absurd ways that the universe
comes together I don't think so I think
that the Cova epidemic is the end of the
big nap and I think that I actually
tried this 7 years earlier in Oxford so
I and it was too early which part was
too is it the the platform because
you're alive I'm not quite different now
actually the Internet I remember you I
read several your brilliant answers that
people should read for the edge
one of them was related to the Internet
and it was the first one wasn't the
first one and that's they called go
virtual young man yeah yeah that seemed
that's like forever ago now you all that
was ten years ago and that's exactly
what I did is I decamped to the Internet
which is where the portal lives the
portal of the portal yeah once I told
the theme that surah - the music was
shit he just listened to forever I
actually started recording tiny guitar
licks for the audio portion not for the
video portion you kind of inspired me
with bringing your guitar into the story
but keep going you see you thought so
the Oxford was like step one and you
kind of you put your foot into the in
the water to sample it but it was too
cold at the time so you didn't want to
step it was really disappointed what was
disappointing about that experience very
is it's a hard thing to talk about it
has to do with the fact that and I can
see this in this you know as mirrors a
disappointment within myself there are
two separate issues one is the issue of
making sure that the idea is actually
heard and explored and the other is the
is the question about will I become
disconnected from my work because it
will be ridiculed it will it will be
immediately improved it will be found to
be derivative of something that occurred
in some paper in 1957 when the community
does not want you to gain a voice it's a
little bit like a policeman deciding to
weirdly and enforce all of these
little-known regulations against you and
you know sometimes nobody else and I
think that's kind of you know this weird
thing where I just don't believe that we
can reach the final theory necessarily
within the political economy of
academics so if you think about how
academics are tortured by each other and
how they're paid and where they have
freedom and where they don't
I actually weirdly think that that
system of selective pressures is going
to eliminate anybody who's going to make
real progress so that's interesting so
if you look at
the story of Andrew Wiles for example
with uh from last Last Theorem hehe as
far as I understand he pretty much
isolated himself from the world of
academics in terms of the big with the
bulk of the work he did and it from my
perspective is dramatic and fun to read
about but it seemed exceptionally
stressful the first step he took the
first steps he took when actually making
the work public that's him
to me would be hell yeah but it's like
so artificially dramatic you know he
leads up to it at a series of lectures
he doesn't want to say it and then he
finally says it at the end because
obviously this comes out of a body of
work where I mean the funny part about
for Moz Last Theorem is that wasn't
originally thought to be a deep and
meaningful problem it was just an easy
to state one that had gone unsolved but
if you think about it it became attached
to the body of regular theory so he
built up this body of regular Theory
gets all the way up to the end announces
and then like there's this whole drama
about okay somebody's checking the proof
I don't understand what's going on in
line 37 you know and like I was a
serious seems a little bit more serious
than we knew I mean do you see parallels
you share the concern that the year your
experience might be something similar
well in his case I think that if I
recall correctly his original proof was
unsalvageable he actually came up with a
second proof with a colleague Richard
Taylor and it was that second proof
which carried the day so it was a little
bit that he got put under incredible
pressure and then had to succeed in a
new way having failed the first time
which is like even a weirder and
stranger story has an incredible story
in some sense but I mean a you I'm
trying to get a sense of the kind of
stress I think this is okay but I'm
rejecting what I don't think people
understand with me is the scale of the
critique it's like I don't you people
say well you must implicitly agree with
this and implicitly agree it's like not
try me ask before you you decide that I
am mostly an agreement with the
community about how these things should
be handled or what these things mean keo
keo
and also just why this criticism matter
so much here so you seem to dislike the
burden of criticism that it will choke
away all a lot of different kinds of
criticism there's constructive criticism
and there's destructive criticism and
what I don't like is I don't like a
community that can't first of all like
if you take the physics community just
the way we screwed up on masks in PPE
just the way we screw it up in the
financial crisis and mortgage-backed
securities we screw it up on string
theory can we just forget the string
theory happened or sure but let if
somebody should say that right somebody
should say you know it didn't work out
yeah but okay but you're asking this
like why do you guys get to keep the
prestige after failing for 35 years
that's an interesting question you guys
because to me where the profession look
these things if there is a theory of
everything to be had right it's going to
be a relatively small group of people
where this will be sorted out
absolutely it's it's not tens of
thousands it's probably hundreds at the
top but within that within that
community there's the assholes mm-hmm
there's the I mean you have you always
in this world have people who are kind
open my mind is it's a question about
okay let's imagine for example that you
have a story where you believe that
ulcers are definitely caused by stress
and you've never questioned it or maybe
you felt like the Japanese came out of
the blue and attacked us at Pearl Harbor
right and now somebody introduces a new
idea to you which is like what if it
isn't stress at all or what if we
actually tried to make resource start of
Japan attack us somewhere in the Pacific
so we could have cast a spell I to enter
the Asian Theatre in persons original
ideas like what what do you even say you
know it's like two crazy
well when Dirac in 1963
talked about the importance of beauty as
a guiding principle in physics and he
wasn't talking about the scientific
method that was crazy talk but he was
actually making a great point and he was
using Schrodinger and I think it was
Schrodinger was standing in for him and
he said that if your equations don't
agree with experiment that's kind of a
minor detail if they have true beauty in
them you should explore them because
very often the agreement with experiment
is that it's an issue of fine tuning of
your model of the instantiation
and so it doesn't really tell you that
your model is wrong and of course
Heisenberg told Dirac that his model was
wrong because that the proton and the
electron should be the same mass if they
are each other's antiparticles and that
was a an irrelevant kind of silliness
rather than a real threat to the Dirac
theory but okay so I'm amidst all this
silliness hmm I'm hoping that we could
talk about the journey that geometric
unity has taken and will take as an idea
and an idea that will see the light yeah
that so first of all let's I'm thinking
of writing a book called geometric unity
for idiots okay and I need you as a
consultant
so can we first of all I hope I have the
trademark on geometric unity you do good
can you give a basic introduction of the
goals of geometric unity the basic tools
of mathematics use the viewpoints in
general for idiots Sharik me okay great
fun so what's the goal of geometric
unity the goal of geometric unity is to
start with something so completely bland
that you can simply say well that's a
something that begins the game is as
close to a mathematical nothing as
possible in other words I can't answer
the question why is there something
rather than nothing but if there has to
be a something that we begin from let it
begin from something that's like a blank
canvas that's even more basic so what is
something what are we trying to describe
okay right now we have
a model of our world and it's got two
sectors one of the sector's is called
general relativity and the other is
called the standard model so we'll call
it gr for general relativity and SM for
standard model what's the difference you
need to what did the two describe so
general relativity gives pride of place
to gravity and everything else is acting
is a sort of a backup singer gravity is
the star of the show gravity is the star
of general relativity and in the
standard model the other three
non-gravitational forces so if there are
four forces that we know about three of
the four non-gravitational that's where
they get to shine great so tiny little
particles and how they interact with
each other so photons gluons and
so-called intermediate vector bosons
those are the things that the standard
model showcases and general relativity
showcases gravity and then you have
matter which is accommodated in both
theories but much more beautifully
inside of the standard model so what
what is a theory of everything do so
about that so first of all I think that
that's that that's the first place where
we haven't talked enough we assume that
we know what it means but we don't
actually have any idea what it means and
what I claim it is is that it's a theory
where the questions beyond that theory
are no longer of a mathematical nature
in other words if I say let us take X to
be a four dimensional manifold to a
mathematician or a physicist I've said
very little I've simply said there's
some place for calculus and linear
algebra to to dance together and to play
and that's what manifolds are they're
the most natural place where that where
our two greatest math theories can
really intertwine which are that you own
the tacos the linear algebra
okay now the question is beyond that so
it's sort of like saying I'm an artist
and I want to order a canvas now the
question is does the canvas paint itself
does the can't does the canvas come up
with an artist and an in paint and ink
which then paint the canvas like that's
the that's the hard part about theories
of everything which I don't think people
talk enough about okay can we just you
bring up a sure and then hand the drums
itself as a the fire that lights itself
or drawing hands the drawing hands yeah
and every time I start to think about
that my mind like shuts down no don't do
that
there's a spark and this is the most
beautiful part we know it's beautiful
but this robots brain sparks fly so can
we try to say the same thing over and
over in different ways
about what what would you mean by that
having to be a thing we have to contend
with sure like why why do you think that
understand creating a theory of
everything as you call the source code
our understanding our source code
require a view like the hand the draws
itself okay well here's what goes on in
the regular physics picture we've got
these two big main theories general
relativity in the standard model right
think of general relativity as more or
less the theory of the canvas okay
maybe you you have the canvas and a
particularly rigid shape maybe you've
measured it so it's got length and it's
got angle but more or less it's just
canvas and length and angle and that's
all that there's really general
relativity is but it allows the canvas
to warp a bit then we have the second
thing which is this import of foreign
libraries where it which aren't tied to
space and time
so we've got this crazy set of
symmetries called su 3 cross su 2 cross
u 1 we've got this collection of 16
particles in a generation which are
these sort of twisted spinners and we've
got three copies of them then we've got
this weird Higgs field that comes in and
like deus ex machina solves all the
problems that have been created in the
play that can't be resolved otherwise so
that's the standard model of quantum
field theory just plopped on top yes
it's a problem of the the double origin
story one origin story is about space
and time the other origin story is about
what we would call internal quantum
numbers and internal symmetries and then
there was an attempt to get one to
follow from the other called Kaluza
klein theory which didn't work out and
this is sort of in that vein so you said
origins story so in the hand that draws
itself what is it so it's it's as if you
had the canvas and then you ordered up
also give me paint brushes paints
pigments pencils and artists but you're
saying that's fucked like if you want to
create a universe from scratch the
canvas should be generating the
paintbrushes and the paintbrush and they
are turning the canvas Yeah Yeah right
like usually who's the artist in this
analogy well this is sorry then we're
gonna get to do a religious thing I
don't wanna do that
okay well you know my shtick which is
that we are the AI we have two great
stories about the simulation and
artificial general intelligence in one
story man fears that some program we've
given birth to will become self-aware
smarter than us and will take over in
another story there are genius
simulators and we live in their
simulation and we haven't realized that
those two stories are the same story in
one case we are the simulator and
another case we are the simulated and if
you buy those and you put them together
we are the AGI and whether or not we
have simulators we may be trying to wake
up by learning our own source code so
this could be our Skynet moment
which is one of the reasons I have some
issues around it I think we'll talk
about that because I well that's the
issue of the emergent artist within the
story yeah just to get back to the point
okay so so now the key point is the
standard way we tell the story is is
that Einstein sets the canvas and then
we order all the stuff that we want and
then that paints the picture that is our
universe so you order the the paint you
order the artist you order the brushes
and that then when you collide the two
gives you two separate origin stories
the canvas came from one place and
everything else came from somewhere else
so what are the mathematical tools
required to to construct consistent
geometric theory you know make this
concrete well somehow you need to get
three copies for example of generations
with 16 particles each right and so the
question would be like well there's a
lot there's a lot of special personality
in those symmetries where would they
come from so for example you've got
would would be called grand unified
theories that sound like su5 the Georgia
a theory there's something that should
be called spin 10 but physicists insist
on calling it s Oh 10 there's something
called the petit Salam theory that tends
to be called su 4 across su 2 cross su 2
which would be called spin six cross pin
four I can get into all of these but
what are they all accomplishing they're
all taking the known forces that we see
and packaging them up to say we can't
get rid of the second origin story but
we can at least make that origin story
more unified so they're trying-- grand
unification is the attempt that's a
mistake in your in you've got a mistake
that the problem is it was born lifeless
when when Georgia in class how first
came out with the su5 theory it was very
exciting because it could be tested in a
South Dakota
mind filled up with like a cleaning
fluid or something like that and they
looked for proton decay and didn't see
it and then they gave up because in in
that day when your experiment didn't
work you gave up on the theory it didn't
come to us born of a fusion between
Einstein and and and Bohr you know and
that was kind of the problems it had
this weird parenting where it was just
on the Bohr side there was no Einstein
Ian's contribution Lex how can I help
you most I'm gonna try to figure what
questions you want to ask so that you
get the most satisfying answers there's
there's a there's a bunch there's a
bunch of questions I want to ask I mean
one and I'm trying to sneak up on you
somehow to reveal in an accessible way
then the nature of our universe so I can
just give you a guess right
like I we have to be very careful that
we're not claiming that this has been
accepted this is a speculation but I
will I will make the speculation that
what I think what you would want to ask
me is how can the canvas generate all
the stuff that usually has to be ordered
separately all right should we do that
let's go there okay so the first thing
is is that you have a concept in
computers called technical debt you're
coding and you cut corners and you know
you're gonna have to do it right before
the thing is safe for the world but
you're piling up some series of i/o used
to yourself and your project as you're
going along so the first thing is we
can't figure out if you have only four
degrees of freedom and that's what your
canvas is how do you get at least in
Stan's world Einstein says look it's not
just four degrees of freedom but there
need to be rulers and protractors to
measure length and angle in the world
you can't just have a flabby four
degrees of freedom so the first thing
you do is you create ten extra variables
which is like if we can't choose any
particular set of rulers and protractors
to measure length and angle let's take
the
the set of all possible rulers and
protractors and that would be called
symmetric non-degenerate two tensors on
the tangent space of the four manifold x
four now because there are four degrees
of freedom you start off with four
dimensions then you need four rulers for
each of those different directions so
that's four that gets us up to eight
variables and then between four original
variables there are six possible angles
so four plus four plus six is equal to
so now you've replaced X four with
another space which in the lecture I
think I called you 14 but I'm now
calling Y 14 this is one of the big
problems of working on something in
private is every time you pull it out
you sort of can't remember it you name
something something new okay so you've
got a fourteen dimensional world which
is the original four dimensional world
plus a lot of extra gadgetry for
measurement and because you're not in
the four dimensional world you don't
have the technical debt no now you've
got a lot of technical debt because now
you have to explain the way a fourteen
dimensional world which is a big you're
taking a huge advance on your pay day
check alright but aren't more dimensions
allow you more freedom says I mean maybe
but you have to get rid of them somehow
because we don't perceive them so
eventually have to collapse it down to
the thing that we procedure you have to
sample a four dimensional filament
within that fourteen dimensional world
known as a section of a bundle ok so how
do we get from the fourteen dimensional
world where I imagine a lot of folks
wait wait yeah you're cheating the first
question was how do we get something
from almost nothing like how do we get
the if I've said that the who and the
what in the newspaper story that is a
theory of everything are bosons and
fermions so let's make the who the
fermions and the what the bosons think
of as the players and the equipment for
a game are we supposed to be thinking of
actual physical things with mass or
energy okay so they think about
everything you see in this room so from
chemistry you know it's all protons
neutrons and electrons but from a little
bit of nut
these physics we know that the protons
and neutrons are all made of up quarks
and down quarks so everything in this
room is basically up quarks down quarks
and electrons stuck together with with
the the what the equipment okay
now the way we see it currently is we
see that there are space-time indices
which we would call spinners that
correspond to the whoo that is the
fermions the matter the stuff the up
quarks the down quarks the electrons and
there are also 16 degrees of freedom
that come from this in the space of
internal quantum numbers so in my theory
in fourteen dimensions there's no
internal quantum number space that
figures in it's all just spin oriole so
spinners in fourteen dimensions without
any festooning with extra linear
algebraic information there's a concept
of a spinners which is natural if you
have a manifold with length and angle
and why 14 is almost a manifold with
length and angle it's it's so close it's
in other words because you're looking at
the space of all rulers and protractors
maybe it's not that surprising that a
space of rulers and protractors might
come very close to having rulers and
protractors on it itself like can you
measure the space of measurements and
you almost can and in a space that has
length and angle if it doesn't have a
topological obstruction comes with these
objects called spinners
now the spinners are the stuff of of our
world we are made of spinners they're
the most important really deep object
that I can tell you about they were very
surprising what is this spinner so
famously there are these weird things
that require 720 degrees of rotation
in order to come back to normal and that
doesn't make sense and be the reason for
this is that there's a knotted Miss in
our three-dimensional world that people
don't observe and then you know you can
famously see it by this Dirac string
trick so if you take a glass of water
imagine that this was a tumbler and I
didn't want to spill any of it and the
question is if I rotate the cup without
losing my grip on the base 360 degrees
and I can't go backwards is there any
way I can take a sip and the answer is
this weird motion which is go over first
and under second and that that's 720
degrees of rotation to come back to
normal so that I can take a sip
well that weird principle which
sometimes is known as the Philippine
wineglass dance because waitresses in
the Philippines apparently learned how
to do this that that move defines if you
will this hidden space that nobody knew
was there of spinors which Dirac figured
out when he took the square root of
something called the klein-gordon
equation which I think had earlier work
incorporated from carton and killing and
company in mathematics so the spinners
are one of the most profound aspects of
human existence
let me forgive me for the perhaps dumb
questions but what a spinner be the
mathematical objects that's the basic
unit of our universe when you when you
start with a manifold which is just like
something like a doughnut or a sphere
circle or a Mobius band a spinner is
usually the first wildly surprising
thing that you found was hidden in your
original purchase so you you order a
manifold and you didn't even realize
it's like buying a house and finding a
panic room inside that you hadn't
counted on it's very surprising when you
understand that spinners are running
around on your spaces again perhaps a
dumb question but we're talking about 14
dimensions and four dimensions
what is the manifold or operating under
in my case it's proto space-time it's
before it's before Einstein can slap
rulers and protractors on space-time and
when you mean by that sorry to interrupt
is space-time is the 4d manifold
space-time is a four dimensional
manifold with extra structure most of
the extra structure it's called a semi
romanian or pseudo romani and metric in
in essence there is something akin to a
four by four symmetric matrix from which
is equivalent to length and angle so
when I talk about rulers and protractors
or I talk about length and angle or I
talk about romani and or
pseudo-riemannian or semi romani and met
manifolds I'm usually talking about the
same thing can you measure how long
something is and what the angle is
between two different rays or vectors so
that's what Einstein gave us as his
arena his place to play his his canvas
there's a bunch of questions I can ask
here but like I said I'm working on this
book geometric unity for idiots and I
think what would be really nice as your
editor to have like beautiful maybe even
visualizations that people could try to
play with try to try to reveal small
little beauties about the way you're
thinking about this world I'll usually
use the Joe Rogan program for that
sometimes I have him doing the
Philippine wine glass dance
I had the hopf fibration the part of the
problem is is that most people don't
know this language about spinners
bundles metrics gauge fields and they're
very curious about the theory of
everything but they have no
understanding of even what we know about
our own world is it is it a hopeless
pursuit so like even gauge Theory right
just this I mean it seems to be very
inaccessible is there some aspect of it
that could be made accessible I'm
actually go to the board right there and
give you a five
lecture I engage theory that would be
better than the official lecture engaged
there you would know what gauge Theory
was so it is it is possible to make it
accessible yeah but nobody does like in
other words you're gonna watch over the
next year lots of different discussions
of a quantum entanglement or you know
the multiverse where are we now right or
you know many worlds are they all
equally real yeah did that right I mean
yeah that that's it but you're not gonna
hear anything about the hopf fibration
except if it's from me and I hate that
why why can't you be the one but because
I'm going a different path I think that
we've made a huge mistake which is we
have things we can show people about the
actual models we can push out
visualizations where they they're not
listening my analogy they're watching
the same thing that we're seeing and as
I've said to you before this is like
choosing to perform sheet music that
hasn't been performed in a long time or
you know the experts can't afford
orchestras so they just trade Beethoven
symphonies and as sheet music and they
oh wow that was beautiful but it's like
nobody heard anything they just looked
at the score well that's how
mathematicians and physicists trade
papers and ideas is that they they write
down the things that represent stuff I
want to at least close out the thought
line that you started yes which is how
does the canvas order all of this other
stuff into being so I at least like I
say some incomprehensible things about
that and then we'll we'll have that much
done all right and that just point does
it have to be incomprehensible do you
know what the Schrodinger equation is
yes do you know what the Dirac equation
is what does know mean well my point is
you're gonna have some feeling that you
know what the Schrodinger equation yes
as soon as we get to the Dirac equation
your eyes are gonna get a little bit
glazed yeah right so now why is that
well the answer to me this is that you
you want to ask me about the theory of
everything but
haven't even digested the theory of
everything as we've had it since 1928
when Dirac came out with his equation so
for whatever reason and this isn't a hit
on you yeah
you haven't been motivated enough in all
the time that you've been on earth to at
least get as far as the Dirac equation
and this was very interesting to me
after I gave the talk in Oxford New
Scientist who'd done kind of a hatchet
job on me to begin with sent a reporter
to come to the third version of the talk
that I gave and that person had never
heard of the Dirac equation so you have
a person who was completely
professionally not qualified to ask
these questions wanting to know well how
does how does your theory solve new
problems like well in the case of the
Dirac equation will tell me about that I
don't know what that is so then the
point is okay I got it
you're not even caught up minimally to
where we are now and that's not a knock
on you almost nobody is yeah but how
does it become my job to digest what has
been available for like over 90 years
well to me the open question is whether
what's been available for over 90 years
can be there could be a a blueprint of a
journey that one takes to understand it
not all I want to do that with you and I
I one of the things I think I've been
relatively successful at for example you
know when you ask other people what
gauge theory is you get these very
confusing responses and my response is
much simpler it's oh it's a theory of
differentiation where when you calculate
the instantaneous rise over run you
measure the rise not from a flat
horizontal but from a custom endogenous
reference level what do you mean by that
it's like okay and then I do this thing
with Mount Everest which is Mount
Everest is how high then they give the
height I say above what then they say
sea level and I say which sea is that in
Nepal like oh I guess there isn't a sea
cuz it's landlocked it's like okay well
what do you mean by sea level oh there's
thing called the geoid I'd never heard
of oh that's the reference level it's a
custom reference level that we imported
so you all sorts of people have
remembered the exact height of Mount
Everest without ever knowing what it's a
height from well in this case in gauge
Theory there's a hidden reference level
where you measure the rise and rise over
run to give the slope on the line
what if you have different concepts of
what of where that rise should be
measured from that vary within the
theory that are endogenous to the theory
that's what gauge Theory is okay we have
a video here right yeah okay I'm gonna
use my phone if I want to measure my
hand and its slope this is my attempt to
measure it using standard calculus in
other words the reference level is
apparently flat and I measure the rise
above that phone using my hand okay if I
want to use gauge theory it means I can
do this or I can do that or I can do
this or I can do this or I could do it I
did from the beginning okay
at some level that's what gauge theory
is now that is an act now I've never
heard anyone describe it that way so
while the community may say well who is
this guy and why does he have the right
to talk in public I'm waiting for
somebody to jump out of the woodwork and
say you know Eric's whole shtick about
rulers and protractors leading to a
derivative derivatives are measured as
rise over run above for reference level
of reference level stuff it to get like
I go through this whole shtick in order
to make it accessible I've never heard
anyone say it I'm trying to make the
Prometheus would like to discuss fire
with everybody else all right I'm gonna
just say one thing to close that the
earlier line which is what I think we
should have continued with when you take
the naturally occurring spinners the
unadorned spinners the naked spinners
not on on this fourteen dimensional
manifold but on something very closely
tied to it which I've called the
chimeric tangent bundle that is the the
object which stands in for the thing
that should have had length and angle on
it but just missed
okay when you take that object and you
form spinners on that and you don't
adorn them so you're still in the single
origin story you get very large spin
oriole objects upstairs on this fourteen
dimensional world y 14 which is part of
the observers when you pull that
information back from Y 14 down to X 4
it miraculously looks like the adorned
spinners the festooned spinners the
spinners that we play with in ordinary
reality in other words the 14
dimensional world looks like a four
dimensional world plus a 10 dimensional
complement so 10 plus 4 equals 14 that
10 dimensional complement which is
called a normal bundle generates spin
properties internal quantum numbers that
look like the things that give our
particles personality then make let's
say up quarks and down quarks charged by
negative one-third or plus two thirds
you know that kind of stuff or whether
or not you know some quarks feel the
weak force and other quarks do not so
the x4 generates Y 14 Y 14 generates
something called the chimeric tangent
bundle chimeric tangent bundle generates
unadorned spinners the unadorned
spinners get pulled back from 14 down to
4 where they look like adorned spinners
and we have the right number of them you
thought you needed 3 you only got 2 but
then something else that you've never
seen before broke apart on this journey
and it broke into another copy of the
thing that you already have two copies
of one piece of that thing broke off so
now you have two generations plus an
imposter third generation which is I
don't know why we never talked about
this possibility in regular physics and
then you've got a bunch of stuff that we
haven't seen which has descriptions so
people always say does it make any
falsifiable predictions yes it does it
says that the matter that you should be
seeing next
has particular properties that can be
read off like like we guys to spend weak
hypercharge like the responsiveness to
the strong force the one I can't tell
you is what energy scale it would happen
at say you would you can't say if those
characteristics can be detected with
current it may be that somebody else can
I'm not a physicist I'm not a quantum
field theories I can't I I don't know
how you would do that the the hope for
me is that there's some simple
explanations for all of it like should
we have a drink you're having fun no I'm
trying to have fun with you you know
there's a bunch of fun things to talk
about here anyway that was how I got
what I thought you wanted which is if
you think about the fermions as the
artists and the bosons as the brushes
and the paint what I told you is that's
how we get the artists what are the open
questions for you in this what were the
challenges so you're not done well
there's the things that I would like to
have in better order so a lot of people
will say see the reason I hesitated on
this is I just have a totally different
view than the community so for example I
believe that general relativity began in
1913 with Einstein and Grossman now that
was the first of like four major papers
in this line of thinking to most
physicists general relativity happened
when Einstein produced a divergence free
gradient which turned out to be the
gradient of the of the so called Hilbert
or Einstein Hilbert action and from my
perspective that wasn't true is is that
it began when Einstein said look this is
about differential geometry and it's the
final answer is going to look like a
curvature tensor on one side and matter
and energy on the other side and that
was enough
then he published a wrong version of it
where it was the Ricci tensor not the
Einstein tensor then he corrected the
reach the Ricci tensor to make it into
the Einstein tensor then he corrected
that to add a cosmological constant I
can't stand that the community thinks in
those terms there's some things about
which like that there's a question about
which contraction do I use there's an
Einstein contraction there's a Ricci
contraction they both go between the
same spaces I'm not sure what I should
do I'm not sure which contraction I
should choose this is called a Shia
operator for ship-in-a-bottle
and my stuff you have this big platform
in many ways that inspires people's
curiosity about physics
yeah automatics right now and I'm one of
those people and great but then you
start using a lot of words that I don't
understand and like I might know them
but I don't understand and what's
unclear to me if I'm supposed to be
listening to those words or if it's just
if this is one of those technical things
that's intended for a very small
community or if I'm supposed to actually
take those words and start you know a
multi-year study not not a serious study
but a the kind of study when you you're
interested in learning about machine
learning for example or any kind of
discipline that's where I'm a little bit
confused so you you speak beautifully
about ideas you often reveal the beauty
in mathematic and I'm unclear and what
are the steps I should be taking I I'm
curious
how can I explore how can i play with
something how can i play with these
ideas well and and enjoy the beauty of
not necessarily understanding the depth
of what the theory that you're
presenting but start to share in the
beauty as opposed to sharing in and
enjoying the beauty of just the way the
passion with which you speak which is in
itself fun too
- but also starting to be able to
understand some aspects of this theory
that I can enjoy - uh and start to build
an intuition what the heck we're even
talking about because you're basically
saying we need to throw a lot of our
ideas of views of the universe out and
I'm trying to find accessible ways in
okay long not in this conversation no I
appreciate that so one of the things
that I've done is I've I've picked on
one paragraph from Edward wit and I said
this is the paragraph if I could only
take one paragraph with me this is the
one I'd take and it's almost all in
prose not an equation and he says look
this is this is our knowledge of the
universe at its deepest level and he was
writing this during the 1980s and he has
three separate points that constitute
our deepest knowledge and those three
points refer to equations one to the
Einstein field equation one to the Dirac
equation and one to the yang-mills
Maxwell equation now one thing I would
do is take a look at that paragraph and
say okay what do these three lines mean
like it's a finite amount of verbiage
you can write down every word that you
don't know if you can say what do I
think
done now young man yes there's a
beautiful wall in Stoneybrook New York
built by someone who I know you will
interview named Jim silence and Jim
Simons and he's not the artist he's the
guy who funded an world's greatest hedge
fund manager and on that wall contained
the three equations that Witten refers
to in that paragraph and so that is the
transmission from the paragraph or graph
to the wall now that wall needs an
owner's manual which Roger Penrose has
written called the road to reality let's
call that the tome so this is the
subject of the so called graph wall tome
project that is going on in our discord
server and our
general group around the portal
community which is how do you take
something that purports in one paragraph
to say what the deepest understanding
man has of the universe in which he
lives
it's memorialized on a wall which nobody
knows about which is an incredibly
gorgeous piece of art and that was
written up in a book which is has been
written for no man right
maybe if maybe it's for a woman I don't
know but no no one should be able to
read this book because either you're a
professional and you know a lot of this
book in which case it's kind of a
refreshers to see how Roger thinks about
these things or you don't even know that
this book is a self-contained
invitation to understanding our deepest
nature so I would say find yourself in
the graph wall tome transmission
sequence and join the graph wall tome
project if that's of interest okay
beautiful now just to linger on a little
longer
what kind of journey do you see
geometric unity taking I don't know I
mean that's the thing is that first of
all the professional community has to
get very angry and outraged and they
have to work through their feelings this
is nonsense this is bullshit or like no
wait a minute this is really cool
actually I need some clarification over
here so there's going to be some sort of
weird coming back together process are
you already hearing murmurings of that
it was very funny officially I've seen
very little so it's perhaps happening
quietly yeah
you