In this episode, Joe and Terrence return to the show to have a conversation with one of their good friends, Eric Karpf, who is a PhD in mathematics. They discuss a variety of topics, including: 1. What does it mean to be a math nerd? 2. Why is it important to have an education in mathematics? 3. Why does it matter if you don t have a formal education in it? 4. What is the role of a mathematical genius? 5. What are the worst things a mathematician can do with a PhD? 6. What's the worst thing a mathematician does with a degree in math? 7. What do you think of Terrence's work? 8. What would you do if you were a mathematician? 9. How do you feel about the current state of mathematics in general? 10. How should a mathematician be educated? 11. Is there a place for mathematicians in movies? 12. Should mathematicians be allowed to be mathematicians? 13. Is it a good thing? 14. What s the role model? 15. What makes a mathematician good at maths? 16. How can a mathematician have a good idea? 17. Does it matter? 18. Who is a mathematician better than a scientist? 19. Is a scientist good at math or not? 20. How does a mathematician belong in a movie? 21. How much money does it take to be an idiot? 22. Who are mathematician? 25. How do we learn how to make sense of something we don t know? 26. What kind of mathematician should we need to be mathematical? 27. What should we know how to understand something? and so on? And so on and so forth, etc., etc. We hope you enjoy this episode? Don t forget to subscribe to our newest episode of the show, and don't forget to leave us a rating and review it on Apple Podcasts! We'll be looking out for the next one! We're listening to you in the next episode of Portal, coming soon! - Joe and Eric (and we'll be listening to it in the future, too! . Thanks, Joe & Eric - Terrence Joe and Brian -- and the rest of the crew at Portal & more!
00:00:36.000So I'm a PhD in mathematics, specifically in mathematical physics.
00:00:42.000I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, Oxford.
00:01:41.000I need to also just say that I was not...
00:01:43.000Terrence, I think, I heard him on TMZ. I was not looking for a debate.
00:01:49.000I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel-manned so that anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit gave a chance to put his best foot forward before he got, like, reviewed.
00:02:07.000I'm happy to do it because I'm a friend of the show.
00:02:09.000Well, you reached out about the episode specifically, and I felt like if anybody could talk to Terrence and actually understand what they're talking about...
00:02:15.000Yeah, and after I watched the interview with you and Brian Keating, I realized that you weren't trying to eviscerate me or anything like that.
00:02:25.000You actually wanted to hear a well-put-together argument concerning these things.
00:02:32.000So I appreciated you taking the time to come and examine these things and love to hear your stuff.
00:02:37.000But I wanted to say thank you to you, Joe, and for putting me on the show initially and for your audience.
00:03:01.000I'm hoping that today we can move people over to one side or the other.
00:03:07.000Well, at least we can better inform people.
00:03:10.000And Terrence, it's been really cool to meet you, because I've heard about you, and you're an exceptional human being.
00:03:46.000What out of the podcast that I did with Terrence really stood out with you or something that you wanted to...
00:03:52.000Well, what I thought is, I have to be honest, I've been listening, I was not so happy with certain things that happened in the podcast, and then I started hearing the response to it.
00:04:02.000And I was much more infuriated by the response than anything I heard in the podcast because I thought that a lot of people just used their position of greater formal education in some of these areas to be jerks and to be really dismissive and pretend that they couldn't understand things that you were saying.
00:04:51.000I would do is I can't critique a man if I haven't built a model of what he's actually saying in my own mind that he agrees with.
00:04:59.000In other words, if I start coming after Terence and saying, I think this stuff here is bullshit, and he's like, I didn't say that, that's what you inferred from what I wrote, then I've just basically insulted a person incorrectly.
00:05:12.000And if I praise something, I don't know whether I built that in my mind or he built it.
00:05:16.000The first thing I thought we would do Is I would try to recapitulate what I understand of Terence's sort of grand arc and see whether or not I can steel man it and then Terence can say yes and then I can evaluate it but until we do that I don't know whether I'm actually reacting to the real man.
00:05:33.000I think that's really important and what you said about the viciousness of academics.
00:05:39.000I think that's just a human thing that exists at the highest levels where people are doing something very difficult and there's a lot of stress and anxiety involved.
00:05:48.000And you attack even your peers because your biggest fear is your peers attacking you.
00:05:53.000And usually, generally, it happens with people that are getting more recognition than someone who thinks they should be getting more.
00:06:59.000They kind of fight each other, but they all get rich together, and then they bury hatchets and things like that.
00:07:03.000You don't see that as much in academics because it's kill or be killed.
00:07:08.000And so we've had an implosion ethically.
00:07:11.000And so one of the things that I wanted to do...
00:07:13.000Was to try to just begin by steel manning because I've been really disappointed in a lot of the critique that Terence has experienced.
00:07:21.000The funny thing is the scientists that attacked, most of them was upset that I got into their lane and climbed into their lane talking about science, but here they're not inside a lab somewhere.
00:07:36.000They're not in Cambridge or Oxford somewhere.
00:08:17.000But this personal attack shit If you're talking about something as complex as the things that you discussed on this podcast, there's no room for bullshit.
00:09:21.000I want to offer to you, I want to be able to show you the things that I tried to show Neil deGrasse Tyson that he would not even really take a look at.
00:09:30.000But no, he did take a look at it, right?
00:09:32.000He responded in a long video recently.
00:09:34.000Yeah, but his response was disingenuous.
00:10:35.000He might be in a position to defend him, but he might be in a position where he's like, look, I just said what I said about all this stuff.
00:11:11.000And I believe that, but if you've got 97, 98 patents and four supersymmetrical systems that you're claiming you have, and all you need is someone to review them.
00:11:36.000Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is that there's a problem in general, which we scientists do not behave honestly with respect to certain things.
00:11:51.000Science is about communication and challenging ideas and all these things, and everybody can be a scientist, and all these sorts of things that we say.
00:12:37.000And this is going to involve peer review.
00:12:40.000It's going to involve people who are It's a dual in terms of both doing research and being public figures.
00:12:46.000People who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really doing much research.
00:12:51.000People who are pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition that their colleagues don't think much of what they're doing.
00:12:59.000I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terence has walked into.
00:13:04.000And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they hear things, what they will say.
00:13:10.000And so I am in part speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking to a thousand people who are seeing this at a different level.
00:13:18.000But just for the record, like I said, I grew up watching Neil and having someone that was light-skinned, that looked like me, up there making these grand steps towards helping people to understand.
00:13:35.000And I still would like the opportunity to sit down and show him these things and have that beer because I think that he will be pleased once he sees the supersymmetry associated with it and understand where all of the passion came from.
00:13:52.000And I hope that other scientists will take a look at it, but that's the whole point of us doing this.
00:13:56.000I don't know how serious he is about that beer.
00:14:02.000And, you know, that was a very complicated thing that he did.
00:14:06.000And it had many layers as to whether or not you took it on the surface, you took the hidden meaning, and you took the meaning below that.
00:14:13.000And so plunging right into that from the beginning, in my opinion, is not served very well by having the three of us here.
00:14:21.000Because the first thing is, what is the nature of Terence's idea?
00:14:25.000I don't think Neil actually understood some of your ideas, to be entirely honest.
00:14:28.000No, and what he forgot is when I say 1 times 1 equals 2, that's a metaphor for challenging the status quo.
00:14:37.000Despite the fact that the square root of 2 has all of its issues, when you cube it or you multiply it by 2, which creates a contradiction, despite the fact that the square root of 2 has a problem with the prime numbers,
00:14:53.000the fact that they call number 2 a prime number, When it's clearly a composite number, any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number, you always get a composite number, except with the situation of the number two.
00:15:10.000And there's so many people that, and that's why the prime numbers are unpredictable, because of that problem associated.
00:15:17.000So there's been a problem with two for so long.
00:15:52.000Possibility to steal Man U. So all the algebraic topologists who just heard, you know, for characteristic not equals to two, they're like saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fair.
00:16:01.000And so in part, by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the benefit of putting your best foot forward because, you know, if you say one times one equals two, everybody knows that that's crazy.
00:16:14.000But what you actually may mean and the fact that you don't use certain terms or the fact that you use certain pronunciations that communicate to me something very positive, which is that you taught yourself.
00:16:25.000You learn the stuff from reading about it because nobody taught you or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them.
00:16:44.000So, in part, what I want to do is I want to start by giving you your best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into this whole Flower of Life riff that becomes your larger theory.
00:16:58.000And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped it.
00:17:05.000Because, you know, I also had to spend some time.
00:18:52.000I need to know whether or not I'm even building the right model of Terence, because otherwise it's just silly to have me here, and I'm going to critique what I built in my own mind from Terence's words.
00:19:16.000But what about what he was saying is incorrect just now?
00:19:22.000He's saying things that are often at a level that are allegorical, and you could make them – so Terence sometimes mentions something called category theory, right?
00:19:32.000And there's a weird way in which category theory can take something that seems to be an analogy.
00:19:39.000And make it precise and powerful, right?
00:19:43.000So you can have two systems that don't look the same and you spot an analogy between them and then you say, holy cow, there's an exact mapping of one system onto another in which it was unexpected that those are the same structure.
00:20:04.000So for example, We're going to get into something about multiplication, where Terence has an issue with multiplication.
00:20:10.000But to the best of my knowledge, you don't have an issue with addition.
00:22:18.000We do do things where sometimes we can divide by zero.
00:22:21.000We have concepts like the pointed infinity where you can complete a structure.
00:22:27.000The original structure can't accommodate an operation, but you can complete it to a larger system in which that thing does become sensible.
00:22:38.000As an example of the 1 times 1, assume that Terence doesn't have a big problem with addition because addition doesn't have the division by zero problem.
00:22:48.000It is the case that if you take any two numbers, A and B, two real numbers, right?
00:23:11.000The exponential of the ln of A plus ln of B. That is equal to A times B. In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic, or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing.
00:23:30.000So in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you allow me, because you like waves, so with waves you need exponentials and you need natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and accepting the law of addition because they're the same system.
00:23:49.000The multiplication should initially start as exaggerated addition.
00:23:56.000Well, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under multiplication, with the identity element being the multiplicative identity, being one, are isomorphic to the total real numbers Under addition,
00:24:12.000with the additive identity being zero.
00:24:15.000And the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect the two with one being the other's inverse.
00:24:23.000So by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part going to freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability.
00:24:30.000And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak one contradiction through TSA, The entire airport collapses.
00:24:42.000Everything that we do just is destroyed.
00:24:45.000And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and physical sciences is extraordinary.
00:24:52.000For outside ideas, because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it.
00:24:59.000If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses, where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing with with the principle of explosion.
00:25:10.000And that's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years.
00:25:38.000But because of the associative law, the associative law that says if A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself in multiplication.
00:25:48.000A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B. Well, hang on there.
00:25:54.000If I change the word itself to the word zero, which you're going to say there is no zero.
00:27:01.000But to multiply something by the nothing, to multiply something by nothing, don't they have to be dimensionally equal to in order to multiply?
00:27:12.000Like you can't multiply a human by an ant because they're not dimensionally equal.
00:27:17.000Well, if there was a thing called a human ant...
00:27:20.000No, that was your point about dollars, right?
00:28:11.000It's a unit of account, but it's an integer that still, now you're able to multiply it under different currencies.
00:28:18.000States are not allowed to print dollars, but states are allowed to print as much change.
00:28:22.000So who's to say that the state isn't saying, okay, we're going to make, we're going to print.
00:28:27.000We can get into seniorage, which is the concept of theft that occurs when either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing Increasing the unit, the number of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit.
00:28:45.000But my claim is, you're going to do a series of things.
00:28:48.000Like, I've watched how you deal with people in interaction.
00:31:07.000And the one thing I can't go with you on is I can't go on the Nantucket sleigh ride where we're talking about the Bose-Einstein condensate and then we're talking about the period.
00:34:24.000So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything...
00:34:26.000I've seen this pattern before, didn't know its history.
00:34:29.000I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a mathematical thing about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments.
00:34:37.000But what these overlapping circles are is a question.
00:34:40.000And the way in which I got to understand how Terence sees the world is he says, look, there's this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world.
00:34:50.000And there isn't a great explanation for why it's found in so many different places, at least as far as I'm aware and part of your point.
00:34:58.000And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet that this thing is hiding a secret.
00:35:04.000And that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic.
00:35:09.000There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface.
00:35:13.000And then you said something that's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is that maybe this is like a shadow on a flat wall and that those two things are exploitable.
00:35:26.000And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface Is, first of all, suspicious to you because of that curved linear triangle that you see in black.
00:35:37.000And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say, as above, so below, but what if you said, as below, so above, and you imagine that there was a three-dimensional structure floating above this that actually projects down to this and distorts down to this?
00:35:53.000The first idea is it's not this, it's the thing that projected to this.
00:35:58.000And that's what you mean when you say opening the flower.
00:36:00.000Because the flower, when I was researching where the platonic solids came from, this is the oldest version that I got from all of antiquity.
00:36:15.000Well, there are no platonic solids because you're in dimension two, except for what you built, which is the thing above in black.
00:36:23.000But what they did years ago, 6,000 years ago, was draw straight lines where the circles overlapped.
00:36:29.000And I thought, in what I was reasoning with regard to all energy being expressed in motion, all motion being expressed in waves, all waves being curved, and that there were no straight lines in the universe.
00:36:41.000So there's several errors in what you just said.
00:36:44.000If I stop there, we'll get off track again.
00:36:46.000Yeah, but you should correct those errors while we're there.
00:36:49.000It is not true that all energy is expressed in motion.
00:36:52.000What energy is not expressed in motion?
00:36:54.000Potential energy is not expressed in motion.
00:36:57.000If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't know this, but most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a spring.
00:37:07.000So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of all physics, even the most theoretical physics.
00:37:13.000It's a very strange thing, Hooke's Law.
00:37:16.000When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, Energy is conserved.
00:37:22.000Now, at the top and at the bottom, that weight is not moving because all of the energy is in the potential of the spring.
00:37:30.000It's in the stress of the crystallization that has occurred within that system.
00:37:37.000And then you will say something like...
00:37:40.000But that energy is still being held together.
00:41:21.000I had to run it by you, because you're probably the only one that I know, other than maybe Terrence, that could understand what the fuck they're saying.
00:42:20.000High-dimensional bifoton states are promising resources for quantum applications ranging from high-dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging.
00:42:31.000Just that phrase, what fucking percentage of human beings breathing on Earth right now have any idea what any of that means?
00:42:39.000I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space, which is multi-particle.
00:42:48.000So you've got something in the degree to...
00:43:11.000Geographically distributed, but also linked at the point of creation.
00:43:17.000Like if a photon decays into an electron-positron pair, those two are going to be entangled.
00:43:24.000And if you make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of the entire system.
00:43:30.000And so what they're trying to say is, if you want to get jiggy, people always want to talk about faster-than-light communications by taking an entangled...
00:43:38.000Pair and saying that if I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light cone.
00:43:43.000So we can give meaning to these things.
00:43:45.000Then you have to say, well, it doesn't allow you to create information transfer faster than the speed of light.
00:43:50.000You have to be very careful and precise about it.
00:43:52.000But if you just start getting jiggy, then you start thinking...
00:43:58.000So, you know, in part, when I've been here on previous versions of JRE, I talked about vector bundles.
00:44:07.000And in a certain sense, how do you have a wave without a medium?
00:44:10.000The medium was supposed to be this ether, but the medium is actually something called a vector bundle.
00:44:16.000It's a little bit weird that you're a wave.
00:44:17.000No, it's perfect because the vector bundle, go ahead.
00:44:20.000You're a wave in a medium, and you as a wave don't know that you're a wave and you don't know what medium you live in.
00:44:28.000And it's funny that you go through life not understanding what you are.
00:44:32.000No, but that medium, that luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of his equations off of, Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium.
00:44:44.000The only reason that special relativity came along was because they couldn't...
00:45:16.000And what you are trying to say, the way I interpret it, again, and I don't know if I'm right if we don't do the work, is, hey, the spiritual successor to the idea of the ether exists.
00:45:30.000And that thing has properties and if you say, if I put a vector bundle on top of a Lorentzian manifold, Then you don't have a contradiction.
00:45:40.000And if you call that the ether, that's more or less what we work with.
00:45:44.000And then we do this weird thing where we say, well, they used to think the ether existed and it didn't.
00:46:34.000If you're careful about it, It makes sense.
00:46:37.000If you're not careful about it, the whole thing blows up in your face.
00:46:40.000And the reason that I speak about the ether, all of the wave conjugations, all of my patents, have been defining different aspects of the ether.
00:46:50.000I believe that I've defined the electric side, the plasmoid side, and I believe that I've defined the magnetic side.
00:47:04.000Oh, but before you go from that other spot, if you look at that picture again of those two photons interacting, it looks like it's at the center of what would typically be a whirlpool.
00:47:16.000This is like the very center of a whirlpool.
00:47:18.000So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vortices.
00:47:42.000Here we introduce bifoton digital holography.
00:47:46.000In analogy to off-axis digital holography where we coincidence, imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography.
00:48:06.000Because they started off trying to predict an electron cloud and find a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties and probabilities came out, but they were doing things on a two-dimensional basis.
00:48:20.000That's what I believe that I've figured out with the wave conjugations, because they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through all these unnecessary steps to reach it.
00:48:33.000I'm just so happy that someone's doing something like this.
00:48:36.000I'm so happy that we can talk about it.
00:48:38.000I don't think most people have any understanding of what's going on at the highest levels of this kind of science, because it's so damn fascinating.
00:48:49.000These people are finding the very building blocks of the universe and studying them.
00:49:00.000Is like how we assemble a picture of you when we do an NMR or a CAT scan.
00:49:08.000We have this thing called the radon transform where we send waves through your body and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body, reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system responds.
00:49:27.000We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly.
00:49:32.000That would take me 15 minutes with looking things up.
00:49:37.000I was just going to say, it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can actually look at these quantum entangled photons like that and just see it.
00:49:55.000Nobody knows where they can trust, you know, what they can trust, who they can trust.
00:49:59.000And one of the things that actually, you know, moved me to come and to reach out to Joe is that by default, I think, you know, I've addressed the National Academy of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them.
00:50:15.000And so they wanted to know how much I knew about their lie.
00:51:02.000All of these things, I went up to Oxford eight years ago and tried to present them there to be examined.
00:51:11.000They didn't want to take me seriously.
00:51:13.000Because you keep coming at it in the way that you're doing.
00:51:14.000Because the one times one, when I say the one times one, but like I said, that was a metaphor to say something's wrong, something's wrong, but they know something's wrong with the math.
00:51:30.000Renormalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math that's wrong and on the other hand we have a way of working with math that's wrong even though we know it's wrong.
00:51:39.000If you have an error of a particular kind and you can find an expression with the same error That's different in the denominator.
00:51:48.000Sometimes you can cancel the part that's wrong because you introduced it twice.
00:51:53.000So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you have the opportunity to have one problem kill another.
00:52:00.000Is there a potential future where human beings, through whatever means, develop a superior method of mathematics that doesn't have a problem with the number two?
00:52:11.000That doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about.
00:52:14.000Well, that's what I think I've done with my wave conjugations.
00:52:33.000And by doing the Nantucket sleigh ride, you lose everybody like me because nobody thinks it's real.
00:52:38.000And what parts of it are real and what parts of it are wrong and what parts can be improved and what parts should be improved and how important it is is never going to get adjudicated.
00:53:06.000Terence has a couple of ideas, maybe three, one of which is Maybe it's not about that flower of life because that's in a two-dimensional plane.
00:53:13.000Maybe that is a shadow cast by something in higher dimensions.
00:53:18.000And it's a cryptic message from an advanced consciousness that will open its secrets when we finally understand it.
00:53:29.000Now, there was something, for example, called the Antikthera Mechanism, which is a bunch of gears found by this Greek island of Antikthera.
00:53:37.000And famously, it was just in the Athens Museum.
00:53:50.000And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how much ancient wisdom and knowledge there was, because this was a mechanical calculator for understanding Yeah, I'm helping.
00:54:21.000A different version of this, the Kerala School of Astronomy, which was a religious school in the south of India, in the west coast of India, more or less worked out— Look at that beautiful thing.
00:54:53.000This is when they still believed in the Ptolemaic example of the world, but this doesn't seem to follow Ptolemaic equations, those 39 equations from now.
00:55:04.000Well, it's, you know, because of so many different factors, war, natural disasters, there's been a lot of moments in history where shit got lost.
00:55:14.000Just the pyramids are the best example of that, right?
00:56:06.000That's one of the reasons I believe that we listen to people who have things to say.
00:56:10.000So if we go back to the flower of life.
00:56:17.000So Terence has a couple of ideas, one of which is this is the shadow, another of which is that once you go into higher dimensions, you should be thinking of these curved linear structures,
00:56:33.000and then instead of focusing on the spheres, You should focus on the areas in between, the voids.
00:56:41.000And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids.
00:56:48.000So there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are beautiful.
00:56:57.000That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with.
00:57:04.000Is he saying, look, the circles are cross-sections of spheres, and the spheres have to be placed in very precise places to generate what Terence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations.
00:57:20.000And he has different ways that spheres run into each other.
00:57:24.000Then he says something very cryptic, where he says, if you drop a...
00:57:34.000The wave will radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore, and then it will radiate back.
00:57:42.000And so he's talking about this, and he says wave conjugations, and wave conjugation didn't call up anything directly when I heard him say it.
00:57:49.000They would call it a phase conjugation.
00:57:53.000The conjugate wave coming back, if you do something like a garden hose that's affixed to the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something.
00:58:07.000Is the idea, and you could do this, where we could drop, like, let's say six stones in precise places in water, and then, you know, using super slow-mo, watch what happens as these waves in precisely placed places run into each other.
00:58:24.000Because really what physics is is waves in collision.
00:58:27.000And they're going to create a particular cymatics which is going to show the harmonic points where matter and all of those things occur.
01:00:25.000On the other hand, if you look at the crease of my nose, that's going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and another that's going like that.
01:00:34.000Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?
01:00:44.000So that would be negatively curved, right?
01:00:46.000Because you'd have things going in opposite directions.
01:01:51.000And then you get where eight bubbles work.
01:01:53.000So now what he's doing is he's saying, if I have eight bubbles, And these bubbles, each face of this object, this octahedral object, he's taking a sort of curved linear triangle on a sphere,
01:02:11.000and he's imagining that these things are all sort of Racing towards each other.
01:02:53.000You take the eight vertices of a cube and you put a sphere at each one, a small sphere.
01:03:08.000So imagine that you had a vertex at 1, 1, 1 in three-dimensional space, and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to have either 1s or negative 1s.
01:04:59.000That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians interacting, and they create that other greater pressure condition.
01:05:10.000That's the negative space that they generate, but it's a massless area because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away and the energy generated disappears.
01:05:22.000But it's a part of everything in my motto.
01:07:20.000Spheres of radius root two at the eight vertices of a cube passing through each other but closing off an octahedral cavity with positively curved triangles inside.
01:07:48.000Can I ask you, Terrence, before we go any further, what was the inspiration for diving into this?
01:07:53.000Like, what revelation did you have that caused you to start looking at this as a 3D structure and the space inside of it?
01:08:01.000They're going to call me crazy again, but when I was 42 and had been kicked out of the world as a result of the allegations, I had another dream.
01:08:12.000And that same being woke me up and took me back to where I was when I was a child.
01:08:17.000And I started putting the pieces together, the all shapes.
01:08:47.000But the all shape is a different thing.
01:08:49.000Because in this case, in order to do this, what he did is he said...
01:08:53.000I'm going to make mathematical spheres, they're going to start to intersect each other, right?
01:08:57.000And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material, until they close off the holes in the cubical lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature.
01:09:12.000To make what he calls the all-shape, you do something very different.
01:09:16.000You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self-dual.
01:09:22.000That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces, and you can interchange faces with vertices.
01:09:29.000And in fact, I don't know if you guys have these things.
01:09:40.000So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Haberman figured out how to take the self-duality of a tetrahedron, and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up.
01:09:54.000And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, In between them are four triangles.
01:10:34.000Alright, now my point is that one of the things that Terence has going against him is people are saying, oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity.
01:10:55.000And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons and Dragons they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and you put the tetrahedron in the middle and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides,
01:11:16.000there's a duality That interchanges the pairs with the center being self-dual.
01:11:25.000In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices.
01:11:30.000The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices.
01:11:41.000Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal two for anything that is spherical in nature.
01:11:52.000Now, if all of my things, when they come together, if they create a natural dodecahedron and they create a natural icosahedron, What does that say?
01:13:42.000I call bullshit on the idea that because Terence is playing with stuff that people have been playing with since antiquity, that there's nothing new under the sun.
01:13:51.000Because if there's nothing new under the sun, first of all, how did Charles Haberman come up with something so cool?
01:14:17.000Just the way the Rubik's Cube came out of nowhere, or Hungary, and that thing took over the world by storm.
01:14:26.000So to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up with something new, the Rubik's Cube, the Habermans switch pitch, these things prove that that's not true.
01:14:40.000I think it's a foolish thing almost always to pretend there's nothing new under the sun.
01:14:46.000It might not be correct, but there's only one way to find out.
01:14:50.000Well, there's a difference between – you see, Terence has much greater odds of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics.
01:14:58.000I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt, are very, very small.
01:15:04.000Even though I have patents on it that shows that all of this...
01:15:43.000So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up, but supersymmetry is a reserved term that means something hyper-particular between bosons and fermions.
01:16:47.000Supersymmetry and geometry allows you to visualize, like you look at the ocean and you see the supersymmetry associated with it.
01:16:55.000I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the term supersymmetry, and he's saying that supersymmetry only applies to a very specific thing.
01:17:05.000Because in their math, the platonic solids, like I said before, have a discrete symmetry.
01:17:12.000You can only line up the blocks and all of those things.
01:17:15.000You can't put all of them together and tell a full story to where they fold into each other.
01:17:21.000I don't think he's disagreeing with you with that.
01:17:23.000I think he's disagreeing the term that you're using.
01:17:33.000This is a thing where, like, if I'm watching an MMA fight and someone's doing commentary and they call a kick wrong, I'm like, why are you doing this?
01:17:45.000It's very specific that we've been talking about for a long time.
01:17:49.000If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's not wearing any clothes, is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind?
01:18:06.000In the world of physics, in the world of mathematics, is there a supersymmetrical system, geometric system, ever been produced in mathematics?
01:22:37.000I come on your show and I do this thing, which I've never really discussed why I do it.
01:22:41.000I have this feeling that somehow Sean Carroll, 15 years ago, started talking about a suite of ideas like entanglement, the multiverse, these Boltzmann brains, whatever.
01:22:53.000And people have been talking about them ever since because it was a very successful tour.
01:22:58.000Much of the coolest stuff in mathematics and physics that's completely established, that's non-speculative, is not discussed.
01:23:41.000So the Tetrean that is the thing that is closest to us, the black thing that is closest to us.
01:23:45.000So he then starts to make noises about it, and he says things that I don't love, which are that those faces he associates with the electric field And the vertices, which sometimes he calls vortices and sometimes I'm not quite sure,
01:24:02.000he associates with the magnetic field.
01:24:05.000Now, I don't have a clue Why he says the next thing, which is, and because the number of magnetic and the number of electric things are balanced,
01:24:20.000they cancel out and therefore it's the weak force.
01:24:23.000And to me, it's just like super cool stuff and then suddenly turns into horseshit.
01:24:33.000Here we have those two tetrians on the end, they both have equal poles, four electric poles and four magnetic poles, according to how I see it, where magnetism is spinning off of the tips,
01:24:48.000the vortices, because it's no longer able to maintain that center space of spinning centrically.
01:24:54.000I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
01:25:37.000South, no matter where you are, South is always away from the higher point when you're talking about universally, not talking about geographically on the Earth.
01:25:47.000North is always seeking a higher position.
01:25:50.000South is always seeking a lower position.
01:25:52.000That's based upon stuff that Walter Russell talked about, based upon the stuff that Victor Schauberger talked about.
01:25:58.000But it's a problem with the definition of the words, the terms.
01:26:02.000Right, but your description of electromagnetic force and magnetism, like what is happening that it's bringing you to this conclusion?
01:26:15.000That you're so specifically saying that something that you literally can't even see with the human eye is happening very clearly.
01:26:23.000I'm saying four magnetic fields are pushing in on that area.
01:26:48.000Part of the same force, and you have them coupled together.
01:26:52.000Jamie, could I ask you to find a Faraday tensor?
01:26:57.000Yeah, what I was trying to get to the conclusion, like magnetism and electricity, like what brings you to this definitive conclusion that you can so clearly state that this is what's happening there?
01:27:08.000Well, based upon any time there's an electric force acting on something, it causes a cavity.
01:27:16.000Electricity is always pulling in from the inside.
01:27:18.000It's always trying to tighten the density.
01:27:22.000And you assume this energy exists in the flower of life.
01:28:52.000People who see many connections are often bad at cleaning up their own stuff.
01:29:00.000And people who don't see connections are often very rigorous and they don't do shit for their entire life, right?
01:29:06.000See, that's why I love the geometry, because the geometry demonstrates, even though I've been autodidactic and have learned these things on my own, the geometry is its own proof.
01:29:19.000Like, even in showing that these create an icosahedron, if you'll move those just for a second...
01:29:26.000Eric, you pulled this up, though, before we get any further away from that.
01:29:38.000That is, there are only six independent components, because if you flip that matrix from the northwest to the southeast as the line in which you flip over with the zeros, The things above the zeros determine the things below.
01:29:56.000So there's six independent entries in the top triangle.
01:30:00.000Now, the top three are the electric components in a Cartesian coordinate system of the tensor, and the B fields are the magnetic, okay?
01:30:12.000Terence could say something closer to what we understand reality to be.
01:30:17.000He could, for example, hold up a cube and say, you know, the six faces of the cube Remind me of the six independent entries in the electromagnetic field strength.
01:30:30.000And then the idea is there's a duality, and the duality relates the electric field to the magnetic field.
01:30:36.000And then you might invent something called Olive-Montone and electromagnetic duality, right?
01:30:43.000So, in other words, if I took the top three, if I hold the cube up like this, and I put electric above and magnetic below, and then I did a transformation that took top faces to bottom faces, He would be doing something that might bring him to recent research on electromagnetic duality.
01:31:05.000But instead, what's happening is that the spheres are reminding him of waves, like wave fronts, that are expanding spherically.
01:31:41.000Now, with that said, you're taking something where he's saying real stuff...
01:31:47.000About geometrical understanding based on a spiritual undertaking.
01:31:53.000And it used to be that spirituality and science were hand in hand.
01:31:56.000That's what I was trying to say about the Kerala school that figured out almost got calculus coming out of religious verse, like stuff that rhymed.
01:32:29.000Because they could help him, This electromagnetic tensor, how does this apply to these patterns and the void between these patterns?
01:32:44.000That thing, we did not understand until the mid-1970s.
01:32:49.000Remember I tried to tell you to get Jim Simons on this podcast and then he just died?
01:32:54.000Jim Simons and C.N. Yang figured out, and this is going to figure into what Terence is saying, that everything, all forces are curvature.
01:33:02.000It's not just gravity, which we've known has been curvature since 1915, actually 1913 for Einstein Grossman.
01:33:09.000It's actually the case that electromagnetism The weak force and the strong force are a different form of curvature, which might be called Erismanian curvature or fiber bundle curvature, which is not necessarily Riemannian intrinsic curvature.
01:33:24.000This object encodes the curvature, encodes electromagnetism as the components of curvature, to your point about nothing is a straight line.
01:34:09.000You can have space-time and something else put a circle at every point that is obscured from us.
01:34:15.000And that thing has a curvature even if space and time is flat.
01:34:21.000So we call the idealization of flat space-time Minkowski space.
01:34:25.000You can slap a curvature Tensor of a circle on top of it generate this and it wasn't until and this is mind-blowing Can we get the Aronoff-Bohm effect up here?
01:34:36.000See but that's where My biggest issue is why go through all of those steps to define curved space with flat plane Matrix when you have the definition of it right in front of you That's why when you get a chance,
01:34:54.000I'd love for you to lay these out so you can see it predicts every distribution, every waveform.
01:34:59.000There's nothing that this doesn't predict.
01:35:01.000I want you to think about, you ever play blackjack?
01:36:09.000And you want to know whether or not there's current flowing in this insulated thing that you can't see.
01:36:16.000Now you think that the insulation is going to keep you from being able to tell whether there's current flowing.
01:36:20.000It turns out that the interference pattern It changes whether there's current, even though there's no E and B fields outside of that insulated structure.
01:36:32.000And that proves that it cannot be the electromagnetic field strength that actually determines electromagnetic phenomena.
01:36:40.000What's really going on, can we call up the electromagnetic four potential?
01:36:47.000So one of the things is if you want to hang with the cool kids on any of this stuff, you don't try to map the electromagnetic fields because it's the electromagnetic four potential that's got it going on.
01:37:49.000So in other words, we fooled ourselves into thinking we understood electromagnetism until the late 1950s, which is one of the reasons that you listen to your heterodox colleagues as opposed to making fun of them mercilessly, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
01:38:03.000Now, most of the time, what Neil says is, oh yes, one in 10,000 heterodox people have a point, and Neil bets on the 9,999 who don't, and so he doesn't listen.
01:38:17.000This thing here Is a proof that you can find elementary omissions very late in the game that change everything.
01:38:29.000And everybody who pretends that peer review works and that we've known this since antiquity, all this stuff, they need to understand the exceptions we've already found.
01:38:38.000If Terence wants to do good, he would take that A with the new At the beginning.
01:38:45.000And he would say, okay, electromagnetism isn't about the electric and magnetic fields.
01:38:49.000It's about four of these suckers rather than six of those.
01:38:53.000On a simple level, how would you describe electricity?
01:38:58.000Well, I wouldn't know how to do it simply.
01:39:04.000Electromagnetism is really about rock, paper, scissors.
01:39:08.000In other words, is rock better than paper?
01:40:12.000So the key point is the Penrose staircase is not just an optical illusion.
01:40:16.000It's actually an effect called holonomy.
01:40:19.000And those things are called horizontal subspaces.
01:40:21.000And the electromagnetic potential, which gives rise to the photon, actually is a series of stairs that appears to be in some kind of a contradiction.
01:40:31.000The curvature that he keeps talking about is the thing that actually resolves that contradiction.
01:40:39.000And, in a weird way, the photon is a function, sorry, the photon is a derivative, and the electron is its function, and you use that derivative to differentiate the function.
01:40:50.000That's a crazy way of saying it, but at its deepest level, that's really what we are.
01:40:56.000We're in a geometry in which those flat planes say derivative equals zero.
01:41:00.000And you're trying to take the derivative of an electron based on this stuff.
01:41:04.000And geometrically, this only got worked out in Stony Brook, Massachusetts, in the mid-1970s, except for a guy named Robert Herman, who nobody listened to in Boston, who was off self-publishing.
01:41:19.000One of the things that this is talking about, again, this is where I have issues because we're talking about two-dimensional or three-dimensional space that does not exist.
01:41:30.000We're still talking about imaginary things instead of talking about real things like math's departure from reality.
01:41:38.000Where numbers started representing actual things.
01:41:42.000Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things.
01:41:47.000The numbers don't represent any true things.
01:41:50.000And so anything can happen inside the mathematics that they build from.
01:41:55.000But when you have the actual stuff, like what I wanted you to do, if you could lay these out just for...
01:42:03.000I'm so worried I'm going to break these.
01:42:49.000They overlap on each other to where any size, any crystalline configuration that somebody could hope for This is the supersymmetry that I'm talking about that defines the entire wave field.
01:43:14.000The problem that you're in right now is...
01:43:20.000Everything that you touch in this space made of spheres and platonic solids and whatever.
01:43:25.000You could spend your entire life, and I've seen people do it, staring into this and just finding cool thing after cool thing, thinking that you're seeing Jesus.
01:44:48.000I believe in spiritual, sacred geometry, they call this the Merkaba, which is like Hebrew for chariot.
01:44:57.000Everything connects to everything else in this unbelievably beautiful way.
01:45:01.000And the concern that I have, Terence, to be entirely honest, is...
01:45:07.000You have to get disciplined about this as a drug because otherwise you're going to see everything in everything all the time and you're going to have the same repetitive conversation where people don't take you seriously because you're going to keep hitting on 19. But if light passing through these show the same cymatics that we look at when we're looking at natural occurrences of individual frequencies,
01:45:35.000Doesn't that become its own secondary proof beyond the symmetry of what it does?
01:45:41.000You say geometry is a proof, and one of the things is you are at your weakest when you have an equal sign.
01:45:48.000You're at your strongest geometrically.
01:45:50.000You're at your weakest when you have an equal sign.
01:45:53.000You say the dumbest stuff about equalities, and you say the coolest stuff about geometries.
01:45:59.000And I wonder whether you mean something.
01:46:03.000Like, it took me a long time to figure out what I think you mean when you do this riff on the square root of 2. Jamie, could I trouble you for that portal group slash TH? Okay.
01:46:18.000If you do the square root of 2 challenge, right?
01:46:34.000Now, first, I had no idea what the hell you were doing.
01:46:37.000So I came up with something to prove to you that I'm trying to understand you.
01:46:41.000And I said, take the number of Magi at Jesus's birth.
01:46:45.000He was born in the 25th day of the 12th month.
01:46:49.000If I raise the 12th root of three to the 25th power, And I take the fact that Jesus died in the ninth hour according to the Bible.
01:46:59.000I see the same Trinity rooted by the number of apostles.
01:47:04.000Now that seems to be like a profound statement.
01:47:08.000But the fact is, all I really did is I created an equation based on two numbers, X and Y. And your version of it, I put in 1 and square root of 2. And in mine, I used 12 and 3. And the reason I got 12,
01:47:25.00025 was that 25 is just 2 times 12 plus 1. So, in other words, the danger of this stuff...
01:47:33.000Is that when you start to see patterns and you start to see stuff that looks crazy, you don't realize what you're actually doing.
01:47:40.000What you're really saying is you're coming from a perspective that is philosophical before it's scientific or mathematical.
01:47:46.000And you have a statement which says, everything is in motion.
01:47:50.000And then you go into a riff about loops and you say, take out your calculator, turn it to the side, take the square root of 2, cube it, take that Divided by two.
01:48:01.000Then you do this thing where you happen to know the large decimal expansion up to a point, which increases people's confidence.
01:48:08.000You've got to be worried because that's like the confidence in con man too.
01:48:36.000You have a mapping, T for Terence, from the real numbers to the real numbers, given by x cubed divided by 2. If you take the polynomial y cubed minus 2y equals 0, that factors as y minus square root of 2 times y plus square root of 2 times y minus 0. You claim that there's only one number that satisfies a fixed point relationship according to that mapping,
01:50:21.000Okay, the hairy ball theorem says that you cannot comb the hair on a rambutan without creating a colic.
01:50:31.000So let's see if we have any cool images of it.
01:50:33.000In other words, if you have a map of the wind that is going along the surface of a sphere, there has to be some point which is perfectly still.
01:50:42.000If you have a map of a sphere to a sphere, there has to be some point that doesn't move.
01:50:47.000In other words, what you're saying about things can't be still is not only incorrect, it is impossible to avoid stillness.
01:50:58.000And this is in part what John Nash got his Nobel Award in economics for, because he took work of von Neumann and Morgenstern on two-person games, turned them into multi-person games with a higher dimensional fixed-point theorem,
01:51:13.000and said a multi-person game is more interesting because that's a market, therefore markets have equilibria.
01:51:19.000So you're saying real stuff in a way that fundamentally just doesn't We don't know how to talk your talk.
01:53:48.000Is your point that there's something special about the square root of 2?
01:53:52.000I'm saying that the square root of 2 is a manufactured number because of the identity principle.
01:53:58.000If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with 1 times 1 equaling 2. Why are you offended by 1 times 1 equaling Just because action and reaction.
01:54:12.000The universe, it's the separation of math from science when math was supposed to define physical things.
01:54:19.000So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense.
01:54:23.000The rest of the audience don't understand.
01:55:31.000And if there is no vacuum, then there is nothing at rest because the vacuum is going to be in constant quantum tumult.
01:55:41.000And then you get to the point which is something that is rest therefore is unphysical, therefore it is unnatural.
01:55:47.000It took me a long time to figure out what the hell...
01:55:50.000No, I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest because everything is moving and communicating through vibration and vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion.
01:56:06.000So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum, in a naive sense that the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people naively think,
01:56:24.000therefore any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or whatever is invalid.
01:56:40.000I don't know what to tell you about this because it's like if I say something about a sphere, you might say, hey, Eric, what is the thickness of your sphere, all the points unit distance away from the origin?
01:57:45.000Then you have this very weird thing, which is You know, Eugene Wigner famously talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences.
01:57:55.000But, you know, David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in the mathematical sciences.
01:58:02.000Many of us have had that for the last 50 years since Simons and Yang.
01:58:09.000And then there's also this thing which people associate with Max Tegmark, which is older, which is the mathematical universe that The math is the basis, that there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community.
01:58:24.000Now, I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you, but what you were doing when you were lecturing is terrible.
01:58:35.000It's really, really bad because you have points, and by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing, You are, in fact, causing people who don't trust Tony Fauci, let's say,
01:58:51.000because Tony Fauci shouldn't be trusted, to say, maybe we can't trust mathematics.
01:58:57.000Now, I have a lot of competitors, enemies, people I really don't like.
01:59:02.000I have stalkers who actually stalk my family and interfere in my personal life who have PhDs.
01:59:12.000My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe and the mathematical universe is essentially zero up to 1973. We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think, until the 1980s.
01:59:51.000Science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of relativity in abandoning the ether and now they've walked down this road and now they realize that it's a potential dead end but instead of turning around And saying,
02:00:07.000okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these equations were built off of.
02:00:12.000And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the etheric nature, the etheric substance.
02:03:07.000So in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers look one way or the rulers look another way, according to Einstein, you have to put more weight or less weight on a region of space.
02:03:25.000That's what's called the scalar curvature.
02:03:28.000So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was like Einstein scaling the sheer face of halftone.
02:03:37.000Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later.
02:03:40.000And said, you know, you can derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the world, which is the scalar curvature.
02:03:47.000So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of Einstein's pseudo-Romanian metric.
02:03:56.000That's what we were just riffing on before?
02:03:59.000That's saying, we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff, so we're going to do the stupidest thing possible, and we're going to figure out how big it is and square that, and we're going to shove that into this thing...
02:04:09.000To be minimized, which means make this as small as possible, so give me the configuration that gives me the least electromagnetic size.
02:04:19.000Then, because of 1954, a guy named C.N. Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't do nearly as much afterwards, said, you know what, the strong and the weak force Are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism and we didn't know that.
02:04:36.000So nature in that first line from the R to the W It takes curvature four times, and three of those are doubled, like FFGGWW, but one of them is singly in there, and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility,
02:04:53.000not what Ed Witton says about you can't quantize gravity.
02:05:00.000We've been lied to for a long time, in my opinion.
02:05:03.000What it is, is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and electromagnetism, occurs differently.
02:05:15.000The line below that, Dirac, in that term, psi bar d psi, is telling us the kinetics and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's in the line above.
02:05:32.000And then the last three terms are the fudge factor due to Peter Higgs because we found out in the late 50s A gal named Madame Wu, the dragon lady of physics, told us that if you put cobalt-60 and let it beta decay in a strong magnetic field,
02:05:49.000all the particles come out spun one way.
02:05:52.000And that left-right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a standard way for the matter which is showing up as psi.
02:05:59.000So instead what we do is we have this thing which is a field called the Higgs boson.
02:07:01.000And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those FFGGWWs, which is pure potential.
02:07:09.000That last thing, which is not commented upon here, is called the Yukawa coupling.
02:07:13.000And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass To the matter which was prohibited from having a naked mass because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Li, which is the same Yang of Yang and Mills.
02:07:30.000That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level.
02:07:39.000This thing right here, which might be called the partition function, Is a Feynman path integral of this, and if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't in what you're seeing.
02:07:56.000Now, this is the difference between having, you know, they've been working on this for damn near 60, 70 years, but they don't have any physical models.
02:08:12.000And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects that we see, then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through...
02:09:25.000Three, you say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic because you associate the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic.
02:09:37.000You say, you go back to Walter Russell who has this whole thing about exhaling and inhaling, expanding and contraction.
02:09:43.000You know, it's a lot like Ecclesiastes.
02:09:46.000There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven.
02:09:48.000And then you say, because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak force because there's no net voodoo on it.
02:14:52.000I would say this was a secondary structure in protein.
02:14:55.000So my claim is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't actually get to the double helix is that she was a really good scientist, and Watson and Crick were not good scientists.
02:15:08.000She said, look, I can see right through you.
02:15:11.000You just found out that Linus Pauling I figured out the alpha helix in protein.
02:15:16.000And you wannabes who don't know jack shit about biochemistry want an alpha helix.
02:15:22.000And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the X-ray crystallography of the Maltese cross.
02:15:29.000You're going to try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling all over again.
02:15:43.000So in other words, Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix.
02:15:47.000What happened is, is that a very common structure that's going to come up over and over again, it's going to come up in viruses, where you have helical viruses, you have it in protein, you have it in nucleic acid.
02:15:58.000That structure is because there's a platonic form, which you're finding here.
02:16:05.000You're going to find helices over and over and over again because you can't really have nature stop finding the structure.
02:16:12.000It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system.
02:17:20.000Okay, what I'm trying to tell you is...
02:17:22.000You're taking all the good stuff that you're doing and you get into 19 and you're saying, hit me.
02:17:28.000And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say, don't do that.
02:17:33.000Because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find Some structures like the ones you're talking about in wave fronts, right?
02:17:42.000I think what you're doing is totally canonical, and it's very, very natural.
02:17:46.000And I think you're building models, and you don't know how to do the algebra, probably, and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all that.
02:18:01.000I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these pieces and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or postulates to be made from it.
02:18:13.000That's what I wanted to do with Dr. Tyson.
02:18:17.000Okay, but part of what you're doing is you're coming into another community.
02:18:21.000Like what you said about David Tong is so unfair to David Tong.
02:18:46.000He's an amazing treasure because that guy has a gift for explanation in our community and in a world where a lot of people in string theory have lost complete touch with reality, right?
02:18:59.000This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with razor-sharp clarity.
02:19:06.000So he's an absolute – he's a national treasure of the UK. And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16 fields?
02:19:18.000I said, I have the models for your 16 fields.
02:21:06.000I know you're interested in wanting to have further conversations, so go on.
02:21:10.000Okay, standard thing what we would do is we'd say, okay, wait a second.
02:21:12.000I don't really buy your claim that 1 times 1 equals 2, but let's try to evaluate what you're saying.
02:21:18.000Then I'd create something called the Terence times binary operation star sub t.
02:21:24.000And I'd say that provisionally, I define a star sub t times b to be equal to a times 1 plus b because your rule says that you should add a to itself b number of times.
02:21:40.000So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times.
02:21:47.000Then I come up with the Terence root of c, equaling d if d Terence producted with itself equals c.
02:22:01.000So now I have Terence binary operation, Terence root, and the Terence square operation.
02:22:08.000And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object.
02:22:13.000Until you try to blow away times or multiplication in the normal sense, Now what I've got is I've got a new operation and I want to know its properties.
02:22:31.000So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy-ass shit that you say when you go to Oxford, and this is how I would start to understand it.
02:22:41.000I would say, Terence, do we get anything new out of Terence times Terence root Terence square?
02:22:47.000And I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring.
02:22:52.000The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our effing asses off.
02:22:57.000And you come in and you say, I've developed – imagine if I got on this program and I said, is John Jones out there?
02:23:26.000But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that there's something very wrong with the math because math should not be done.
02:24:39.000And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an action and a reaction.
02:24:43.000The non-linear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the non-linearity.
02:24:48.000So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you could on Walter Russell, You would not try to deny the linear.
02:24:56.000You would say that the nonlinear is part and parcel with the linear and that creating the nonlinear requires creating the linear.
02:25:05.000The differential operators at a point on a nonlinear structure form a linear space.
02:25:13.000And that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside of something else, because you hear that the universe is expanding.
02:25:20.000You say, well, what's it expanding into?
02:25:21.000Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around it, no ambient space, by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear.
02:25:34.000So we've got an entire language that you don't know about.
02:25:42.000Something to be linear, something to be straight.
02:25:45.000That means that it is no longer having to deal with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything.
02:25:54.000Because the greater the action, the greater the reaction.
02:25:58.000Greater the reaction, greater the resistance, greater the resistance, greater the curvature.
02:26:02.000Everything in this universe has the resistance and that's where the curvature come from.
02:26:07.000So when they talk about I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line.
02:26:13.000But the curvature of the universe is literally that phi at 1.618, that expansion aspect of it, that's the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe.
02:26:28.000If you take the concept of why is the cosmological constant almost zero?
02:27:43.000Is what's called the cosmological constant.
02:27:45.000And there's a raging controversy as to whether that thing is a number or whether that thing is like the temperature, which might vary subtly.
02:27:55.000And this was this thing where Einstein supposedly said his greatest blunder was to put this in.
02:28:02.000He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the universe is expanding and then very recently in the end of the millennium they said not only is it expanding but it's expanding at an accelerating rate and that's when this whole dark energy thing really took shape.
02:28:17.000That thing, and where was I going with this?
02:28:22.000Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African-American physicist we have, brilliant, brilliant guy at the University of Maryland College Park.
02:28:32.000He's a strengthier, so he and I are naturally like Montagues and Capulets, but he's a lovely guy and very, very brilliant.
02:28:39.000He says, look, we need supersymmetry because that thing should blow up.
02:28:53.000So imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door.
02:28:57.000And they're of exactly equal strength.
02:29:01.000The door doesn't move practically at all, not because they're not powerful, but because they're perfectly balanced, like unnaturally balanced.
02:29:08.000And so what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object?
02:29:11.000Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and creating the immovable object between them, to carry through the analogy.
02:29:18.000So that thing has to do with a balancing Between two incredibly powerful but opposite structures.
02:29:31.000And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have perfectly balanced things through fine-tuning issues.
02:29:40.000Now, one of the fine-tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk about them in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is before we had DNA, there was a guy named Erwin Chargaff who And he gave Watson and Crick the worst peer review in human history.
02:29:56.000He said that these are two idiots, that they were pitch men in search of a helix.
02:29:59.000They didn't know anything about chemistry.
02:30:05.000He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C and the amount of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true...
02:30:14.000It's because of hydrogen bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side.
02:30:46.000We're trying to figure out why lambda...
02:30:48.000We would understand better if it were zero, or we would understand better if it was enormous.
02:30:54.000The fact that it is almost zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff, to your point, this is one of the greatest reasons for...
02:32:30.000You want to know what the DMT of this stuff is?
02:32:33.000I'll hand you the stuff that'll blow your mind.
02:32:36.000Right now, where this is, is something called the double copy...
02:32:41.000The double copy is a relation that was totally unexpected between the amplitudes associated with gravity and the amplitudes associated with the Yang-Mills stuff.
02:32:52.000And I just met with a guy, Zvi Byrne, at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought us this double copy.
02:33:01.000It's like looking directly into the equimolar relations before you have the double helix.
02:33:07.000So there is a relationship that is much deeper than the superficial relationship between, you know, can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation?
02:33:18.000Yeah, and then let's do a bathroom break.
02:35:41.000Okay, so fix that in your mind, and imagine that I turn the q1 and the q2 into masses, and the r is the distance between them, and that k becomes a different constant.
02:35:53.000So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.
02:37:25.000The octahedron with the strong force, he associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron, all curved linear, on opposite faces with the photon, i.e.
02:37:42.000Then he says, weirdly, that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't have gravity, so he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity.
02:38:26.000Let me just give an advertisement for the establishment.
02:38:30.000The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying this further, Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic fields meet up into where there's almost a balance.
02:38:50.000When most people hear Lagrangian, that's what they're thinking is Lagrangian, but I'm sure you're thinking about something else.
02:38:56.000No, I'm thinking about an objective function.
02:38:58.000I'm thinking about something to be minimized.
02:39:01.000In effect, Normal human beings think about physics in equations, like Einstein's equation, or the Schrodinger equation, or all this kind of stuff.
02:40:49.000The Higgs field has to do with the fact like none of us are zipping off at the speed of light, yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the weak force.
02:40:59.000If the weak force was not around, We would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs field, rather, the Higgs field to generate an as-if mass.
02:41:09.000But because of the asymmetry built into the weak force, which is the only thing that has this left-right asymmetry, We can't have normal mass.
02:41:17.000There's a place to put a normal mass in the equation that's forbidden if the universe is left-right asymmetric.
02:41:23.000This has to do with this thing called the tau-theta puzzle from the 1950s.
02:41:50.000Now, let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric, right?
02:41:56.000And the asymmetry has to do with a mold that she didn't remove from her face.
02:42:01.000So we can tell when you have an image of her, like if she wasn't holding a can of Pepsi, and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell but for the mole whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her.
02:42:20.000So Marilyn Monroe, Sydney Crawford have this left-right asymmetry to them.
02:42:28.000It's the only thing that can detect this difference between left and right.
02:42:33.000And the weak force is the thing that prohibits a normal mass that forces us into a Higgs mass through something called a Yukawa coupling.
02:42:39.000So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing, is it's a crazy Hail Mary to save all of physics, because normally if the world were left-right asymmetric due to beta decay, the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and emit an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process,
02:42:58.000That process is the thing that denies us mass.
02:43:01.000And we would be at the speed of light, and we would all zip off in opposite directions, but for the Higgs field.
02:43:06.000And that process is the radiative process.
02:43:09.000That's the process I call magnetism that tears apart, that rarefies that which was concentrically drawn together through electricity.
02:43:22.000That weak force is an equal force to electricity.
02:43:55.000You do not know when you're gonna get your ass kicked.
02:43:58.000And it's a big problem that you're gonna keep courting because I watch you.
02:44:02.000You keep finding the space where we could come together and you insist on teaching into it.
02:44:09.000And it's like I'm trying to be nice as pie because I'm inspired by what you're trying to do.
02:44:17.000But you have no idea like When you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last name in a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't recognize, you just, you gotta stop.
02:44:34.000Can I ask you, before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is incorrect, and there's something else that accounts for all of the effects that we call gravity.
02:44:53.000I feel that gravity is the draft left behind from the electric force.
02:44:59.000As the electricity moves through, there's a draft that's generated because it creates whirlpools.
02:45:06.000Each of those whirlpools is the gravity, or the cosmic foam, or I forgot, there's another term that they were using for this foam, but it's a flowing.
02:45:19.000In the same way that thermals are effective by magnetism, Or radiation creates these thermals that you're able to fly on.
02:45:31.000The opposite of those thermals, I believe that gravity is the opposite of those thermals in the electric force.
02:45:38.000It's the pulling down the same way the thermals push up.
02:46:31.000By the way, this isn't peculiar to you.
02:46:34.000So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's theory of the universe, Garrett Lisi's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's theory of the universe, your theory of the universe.
02:47:32.000There's also something called gripe and swipe, where they try to find any flaw in what you do so that they can throw you aside and then they can take every right thing that you did and put it under their own name.
02:47:42.000That's why I patented everything before doing it, because I thought that might be the case.
02:47:49.000Because I went to somebody at MIT, and I showed him the wave conjugations.
02:48:18.000But the community also sees you as a 17-year-old blonde girl from Minnesota getting off the bus in the Sunset Strip having no idea where she is.
02:48:28.000Even though I've got the 97 patents and all of that stuff, it doesn't matter.
02:48:31.000First of all, you cannot patent science.
02:48:33.000They took away our ability to earn a living from doing science, right?
02:48:39.000You can do technology and patent it, but you cannot patent fundamental mathematics and physics.
02:48:55.000It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something than you fooled some patent examiner who has no idea what the hell's going on and can't actually earn a living the way he dreamed of being an engineer.
02:49:57.000The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter, either seen or unseen.
02:50:02.000The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus...
02:50:05.000The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter.
02:50:08.000It is the true currency of the universal flow because it is the common factor of all things.
02:50:13.000It is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quanta, the smallest reflection, ultimately in collective potential of all things, which equals the multiverse, blah, blah, blah.
02:50:23.000Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green do the same thing.
02:50:28.000It's a great expression on Brian's face.
02:50:31.000String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is something else.
02:50:37.000So if I take a little cork and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's nothing inside, but string theory says I'll find a little tiny filament, a little filament of energy, a little string-like filament.
02:50:50.000And just like the string on a violin, I pluck it and it vibrates, creates a little musical note that I can hear.
02:50:58.000The little strings in string theory When they vibrate, they don't produce musical notes, they produce the particles themselves.
02:51:06.000So a quark is nothing but a string vibrating in one pattern.
02:51:10.000An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern.
02:51:19.000Nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still.
02:51:23.000So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right, deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter is nothing but a dancing, vibrating cosmic symphony of strings.
02:51:56.000And just the way a violin can vibrate in different modes.
02:51:59.000All of the particles come from this excitation of the string.
02:52:02.000That's exactly how you sound with the linchpin.
02:52:06.000Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially.
02:52:10.000It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else has happened for 40 years and they've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues.
02:52:25.000And so, in part, you're going to incur an emotional penalty from me with the linchpin, which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool.
02:52:34.000So the same basic pattern, which is one thing explains it all, has a terrible kind of...
02:53:31.000So what's going on is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly, I've got these vectors that point out towards the vertices, and between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six edges.
02:56:58.000Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts is that we couldn't figure out how to get three to be perfect, because what you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of.
02:57:10.000By the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on the show.
02:57:12.000We call it the Percostrian fifth, because even like when I put these together.
02:58:12.000So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you figured out something that is analogous to even temperament, which is, if you shove a pentagon, which should have three radians distributed around five angles,
02:58:31.000In degree terms, that's 108. But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is 109.47 and change.
02:58:43.000And so effectively, the same game that we played, and people like Bach started playing with even temperament, is where do you pay for even temperament?
02:58:54.000Well, you end up paying for it in the expansion of the song.
02:58:58.000It does not follow a natural extension.
03:02:36.000You can put one of these things up, and with three degrees of freedom, I can spin it, right, like a full-on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that nothing else can move.
03:02:46.000Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four motors.
03:07:26.000But what I'm trying to say is the fact that they keep, and these four will keep, this is just the magnetic, what I consider the magnetic field.
03:07:35.000I consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding at the center and magnetism, in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater.
03:07:47.000And you know when you just said, in my language?
03:10:15.000So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your drone units, your linchpins, that come together to form capsids.
03:10:26.000So can you hold up one that encases a dodecahedron?
03:11:09.000Basically what these are are little nature's version of linchpins.
03:11:18.000The triangular platonic solids are valued because the triangle is a stable structure.
03:11:23.000If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily.
03:11:30.000Engineers will use triangles over squares.
03:11:34.000What you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out...
03:11:38.000The Eternal One's understanding of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability that actually use the imperfections just the way you were using the imperfections.
03:11:51.000And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because 108 wasn't equal to 109.47.
03:13:04.000People have been saying that Terence Howard is making up this thing about the periodic table and the sound of the elements.
03:13:10.000And I want you to hear what he calls sonification.
03:13:13.000The ionization energies of the elements as represented here in a periodic table.
03:13:18.000And we are going to produce tones representing those energies.
03:13:23.000The way that this app works is each one of these elements in the table is actually a push button and I can play tones with these push buttons.
03:13:34.000The settings in this control panel here will determine how those energies will be converted into tones that we can hear.
03:13:42.000First of all, we're just going to look at a few of the controls for now.
03:15:06.000And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago, and what he was going to do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the elements and also go beyond that for molecules.
03:15:21.000See, I tried to do the same thing, and I asked, I called...
03:16:51.000But if you want it to fit, we can enable this So when you say key of E. And I'm talking about 432 when I'm talking about the key of E on it.
03:17:55.000440 is concert A in a time when we've decided that that is concert A. If you were to use the Hindustani system, let's say, instead of do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do...
03:18:53.000So, in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter, because you can tune it to whatever you want to tune it.
03:19:00.000You're not trying to come up with an orchestra.
03:19:01.000It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament that forces us all to listen to the concertmaster as to what A440 is, right?
03:19:12.000Joseph Goebbels pushed that around the world.
03:19:19.000What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the periodic table, except for a tiny number of people.
03:19:28.000Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go back below that.
03:19:38.000The Sound of Hydrogen from WSU. So this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure out how to play these things, and this is the sonification.
03:19:52.000Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think, but you need to know about a guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University, which is trying to do some wild radical stuff.
03:20:06.000They are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on frequency of the valence electrons.
03:20:14.000And that particles that vibrate the same way smell the same, even if the shapes are different.
03:20:21.000And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations are very different, they don't smell the same.
03:20:27.000So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Scent about the academic, like all the people who try to push you down.
03:20:34.000They're trying to push Luca Turin down as if he doesn't know what's going on.
03:20:42.000He understands the vibratory quality of scent.
03:20:46.000And so trying to sort of synesthese these things by saying that everything that has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms It's a small, freak community of very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing.
03:21:32.000The problem is, I had to analogize when I said, when people asked me what I thought of you, let's click on that thing.
03:21:39.000That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables that's much more in favor with people who are mathematically minded, like you are, Rather than the Walter Russell periodic table.
03:21:53.000Because what this does is it uses the quantum mechanics to stop with those exceptions.
03:22:00.000Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the rule.
03:22:08.000This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical harmonics Where you're looking at complex valued functions on the two-dimensional sphere.
03:22:25.000And this sort of Aufbau principle, imagine that there was only a Coulomb potential centered at the origin in the hydrogen situation.
03:22:33.000You would go along and say, hydrogen first, helium, then lithium, then beryllium, then boron, carbon, nitrogen, etc.
03:22:40.000And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the electrons in which the You have this principal quantum number, which is basically the energy level, but then the L quantum number is what we would call a highest weight for a highest weight representation of SU2 or spin 3,
03:22:59.000which is the double cover of SO3. That first one is one-dimensional, but it's spin up and spin down, so you get two elements.
03:23:08.000The next one is going to be three-dimensional, but you're going to get six elements.
03:23:13.000And then you're going to get five-dimensional, because it's SO3 that determines the representation theory.
03:23:21.000This thing is what I wish you had given us, rather than the Walter Russell thing, which is sort of a historical artifact.
03:23:30.000Now, no offense, but the big problem is that if you are trying to talk about hydrogen, And then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is what you said.
03:24:18.000Terence, you're talking about a periodic table from like 1926, something like that.
03:24:24.000And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly.
03:24:31.000Now look at all this shit that you're doing.
03:24:33.000And look at the fact that he's locked in 1926. Dirac is not going to come up with the Dirac equation to supersede the Schrodinger equation for another two years.
03:24:42.000Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born.
03:24:45.000The neutron isn't going to be discovered until the early 30s.
03:27:17.000Let's just click on that and see what happens.
03:27:21.000I spent a lot of time on it, and I thought, out of respect for him, what I should do...
03:27:28.000It's given my most informed critical analysis that I can.
03:27:33.000In my field, we call that a peer review.
03:27:35.000You come up with an idea, you present it either at a conference or you first write it up, and you send it to your colleagues.
03:27:43.000It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided or wrong, or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out, or the logic doesn't comport.
03:28:20.000Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false?
03:28:23.000All of this It goes on, on the frontier of science.
03:28:27.000Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe.
03:28:37.000It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier.
03:28:41.000What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's call it, it's possible to know enough about that subject To think you're right, but not enough about that subject to know that you're wrong.
03:28:58.000And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence.
03:29:03.000This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
03:29:08.000It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge, you over assess how much of that subject you actually know.
03:29:16.000And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
03:29:19.000So then there's a sort of a lull there.
03:29:21.000And then when you learn even more, you come back up.
03:29:24.000Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong.
03:29:27.000To become an expert means you spend all this time.
03:29:40.000of study, especially looking through journals where new ideas are published and contested.
03:29:47.000That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that which is objectively true or determining that which is objectively false.
03:29:58.000Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the universe.
03:30:03.000I'm going to read you just my opening line here.
03:30:19.000Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which, by the way, was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
03:30:44.000It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end of the day offers no higher respect For your energy and intellect than by declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or worthy of publication or not.
03:31:06.000I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with his treatise.
03:31:29.000This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, just so you don't feel bad about yourself, talking about me and my theories based on a question in an Ask Me Anything.
03:31:45.000Will you be able to talk to Eric Weinstein about the new theory of geometric unity?
03:31:48.000This is from 2013. We are all wondering about that.
03:31:52.000Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary.
03:31:55.000In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science documentaries that came afterwards.
03:33:15.000Let him finish because this is a sustained thought.
03:33:19.000Let's go below where we just were, Jamie.
03:33:22.000I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review.
03:33:27.000This is Google Ngrams and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus of English language books published in the world.
03:33:37.000Peer review basically begins in the mid-1960s.
03:33:44.000Now, there were various forms of review.
03:33:46.000Editors, in particular, were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to not peer review things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who should be not.
03:34:13.000He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune by blowing out the number of journals and forcing every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to publish, because to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission that you had an incomplete library.
03:34:35.000So he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals.
03:34:41.000This was a group, a very informal, high-quality enterprise.
03:34:45.000Now, most of the destruction of science, in terms of how high-quality it used to be, has taken place relatively recently, post-Robert Maxwell.
03:34:56.000Because now we have an enormous number of journals staffed by people who can't spot publication cartels where we agree to cite each other's work and we agree to publish stuff, pay for play.
03:35:08.000All of the nonsense that you see with irreproducible research comes...
03:35:34.000Neil is giving you a very cursory back-of-the-hand brush-off.
03:35:47.000And this is a higher quality environment.
03:35:49.000We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci and the origin of COVID. I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything that you were saying.
03:36:06.000Joe has established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose.
03:36:11.000He can call on all sorts of amazing people.
03:37:12.000So what Joe and I were just talking about...
03:37:13.000Yeah, we're back from the bathroom break.
03:37:15.000...is what is peer review actually and why is it controversial?
03:37:18.000So imagine that you have four types of people.
03:37:22.000You've got two establishment figures, one of whom is screwing up the field, who's in a very powerful position and should be removed from being the impediment to progress that they are.
03:37:37.000Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it.
03:37:40.000They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment.
03:37:43.000The establishment has recognized how valuable that person is.
03:37:47.000You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of the universe and anybody who doesn't understand them is a horrible person.
03:37:58.000Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about and can overturn the established order, which is where you get a revolution.
03:38:09.000Peer review just sees establishment versus non-establishment.
03:38:15.000It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years.
03:38:20.000And it will stop somebody coming from outside.
03:38:26.000So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I said about gripe and swipe.
03:38:31.000We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've produced away from you and we publish it under our own name.
03:38:39.000I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues, particularly younger colleagues.
03:38:53.000And to simply say peer review, it works, bitches?
03:40:58.000It's something called peer injunction, where your peers can stop you without shorting you.
03:41:04.000I'm happy to bet against you in all sorts of things that you're doing.
03:41:07.000And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience.
03:41:11.000But if I block you and I won't short you, That's saying that I think you're dangerous because it's too dangerous to go short.
03:41:22.000And the idea that we're handing old people and established people and very politically savvy people the ability to block you without shorting you is unforgivable.
03:41:34.000So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer, I'm like, I'm not pretending to be your peer.
03:41:41.000I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome.
03:41:44.000And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that supposedly got handed to you does.
03:41:50.000So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is, in my field that I care about, for 40 years we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory people are doing real work and everybody else isn't.
03:42:08.000And it's total hogwash, and there's no way we can get out from under these people.
03:42:11.000In the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya, I was just with Jay Bhattacharya in Italy, you have this guy who has a PhD in economics, and he's a doctor, and he's a professor, and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some bureaucrat who is probably in control of the bioweapons portfolio Because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s,
03:42:38.000the Geneva Convention and the Bioweapons Convention.
03:42:43.000He and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe epidemiologist.
03:42:51.000It's like, no, we're going to have a mutiny.
03:42:55.000And the mutiny is going to be based here, because this is a place that you'd invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya.
03:43:24.000Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is, but random mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins because stability is too difficult?
03:43:35.000The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility.
03:43:40.000And even though you think of it as, I just like having conversations with people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have any other place.
03:43:47.000We can't go to the National Academy of Sciences.
03:43:56.000And podcasts, as dippy and shitty and as variable in quality as they are, Jerry very much included, is this is all that's left.
03:44:07.000And my claim is that I'll challenge Neil.
03:44:10.000I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the hook.
03:44:14.000And by the way, some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong.
03:44:18.000The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind what I'm talking about.
03:44:25.000When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasmic field, I've got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be reviewed.
03:45:30.000And this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector.
03:45:34.000In other words, You believe what you're saying, and you're obviously very, very smart, and you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to.
03:45:42.000Like, how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and Geometric Algebra and Clifford Algebra?
03:45:48.000I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do that, right?
03:45:51.000When I saw you mention Clifford Algebra, I was like, okay, there's a commonality.
03:46:45.000Well, the bride goes up to the top of these stairs.
03:46:49.000And Pai Mei asks her, what do you know?
03:46:53.000And she says something like, I am acquainted with such and such so and so and I am more than proficient in the fine art of Japanese whatever.
03:47:03.000And Pai Mei completely kicks her ass because she doesn't understand where she is.
03:47:14.000And my claim is, is that you need your ass kicked.
03:47:18.000And you need to apprentice to some of us who know more than you.
03:47:24.000And believe me, let me just tell you this.
03:47:26.000I've had my ass kicked, and I will get my ass kicked more because you need some kind of humility.
03:50:03.000And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like this, right?
03:50:09.000There's a creative spark and a spirit in you that I really see and appreciate.
03:50:12.000It comes from an older era, and we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere.
03:50:17.000We used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields.
03:50:20.000And right now, what we've got is a specialization epidemic.
03:50:25.000And as far as I can tell, what you need is some discipline.
03:50:29.000And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot more than you, who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those things.
03:50:41.000And the epidemic we have is assassins.
03:50:46.000We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system All they do is see things in terms of like Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger.
03:50:56.000The funny part about it is that that's the midwits endpoint, is that they see heterodox thinkers.
03:51:03.000And they can't figure out how to place them.
03:51:05.000And so they just say, if I can find one error, I can reject everything.
03:51:10.000And you keep triggering that, and that's why you are where you are.
03:51:12.000With the one times one, but that's why I keep saying the one times one is more of a metaphor.
03:52:24.000And I developed a way in which to grow diamonds larger than the two-carat diamonds.
03:52:29.000I went over to South Carolina University and I talked to them about introducing the diamond process into their university.
03:52:39.000They were going to give me an honorary degree.
03:52:42.000Now, I'm thinking they're giving me an honorary degree in chemical engineering because of what I'm doing.
03:52:49.000And it's just an honorary degree in humanities that they gave me.
03:52:54.000And so I went on the show and I was like, yeah, well, I got an honorary degree from them.
03:52:59.000But that ended up coming across as if I got an honorary degree in chemical engineering, which I don't have an honorary degree in chemical engineering.
03:54:05.000Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill.
03:54:13.000Enough with the anti-Semitism, enough with the woke, enough with the DEI. Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics.
03:54:22.000You're getting absolutely Treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've done.
03:54:28.000You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff.
03:54:32.000That thing about the PhD, it's basically fraud.
03:54:36.000What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit.
03:55:15.000And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines everything because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six dimensions in the semi-direct product of SO3 with R3, whatever.
03:55:50.000It's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done.
03:55:53.000The experimentalists who toil on papers with a thousand people.
03:55:57.000And this community of all of these people Have come together to produce something which is something close to the source code of the universe.
03:56:06.000And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help.
03:57:44.000What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and mathematical community so that they can advance past the platonic solids.
03:57:57.000The platonic solids I still see in a two- or three-dimensional position.
03:58:04.000And since we are living in hyperspace and hyperbolic reality, then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space so we don't have to go through Loren's transformations and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space.
03:58:26.000I think that the real story, Terrence, is going to be whether you can stop teaching long enough to accept some help.
03:58:35.000And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something, the linchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know, and to the extent that I did know it, I threw it away, and I think it's a great idea, and I think that the art, and I think that some of the higher dimensional stuff,
03:58:50.000and I think that a lot of this stuff, Has a kind of beauty that if John Horton Conway were still alive and hadn't been killed by COVID, I'd know where to send you.
03:59:02.000There's a guy, you know, there are sphere-packing people, there are combinatorists, there are all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm.
03:59:10.000But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is that when you get on a program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion.
03:59:53.000And then before you know it, it's Xenu and Volcanoes, right?
03:59:57.000So what's going on is that people are not aware Of how kayfabe works, right?
04:00:04.000Wrestling is one of the most dangerous, demanding sports of a certain kind.
04:00:11.000Now, it happens to be theatrical and pre-programmed.
04:00:14.000But if you've ever dealt with anybody, like, the wrestling community suffers a death rate unlike any other sport in the world.
04:00:23.000What you have to understand is that kayfabe, and I highly recommend you look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality intermingle.
04:00:33.000And that's what you did on the last time that you were here.
04:00:36.000And I can talk to you about the fantasy, I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies, but I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius, and the insight.
04:00:43.000And what I want the world to learn is you're getting sucked into mass delusions that you're not properly imagining.
04:00:50.000There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't acknowledge.
04:00:55.000And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in because, in some sense, the mainstream is our official cult.
04:01:05.000And then all of the rest of us produce these other cults.
04:01:07.000In my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep conversation about GU, Geometric Unity, with my own community.
04:01:17.000Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you has dwindling to fewer than 10. It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you.
04:02:17.000I've been on this program maybe six times before.
04:02:21.000I am often astounded that I can reach all of planet Earth, and there isn't a single soul who can hear me.
04:02:27.000And I think that one of the things you're going to have to reckon with is you're saying certain things And you may get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of responses, and there won't be a single meaningful response among them.
04:02:39.000And I don't know what to do about that.