Transcript: A Portal Special Presentation: Geometric Unity — A First Look with Eric Weinstein
The Portal podcast transcription series
- Peter Thiel
- What is The Portal?
- Werner Herzog
- Timur Kuran
- Rabbi David Wolpe
- Jocko Willink
- Bret Easton Ellis
- Andrew Yang
- Bryan Callen
- Julie Lindahl
- Sam Harris
- Vitalik Buterin
- Garry Kasparov
- London Tsai
- Garrett Lisi
- Tyler Cowen
- Anna Khachiyan
- Eric Weinstein – State of the Portal 2020
- Bret Weinstein
- Sir Roger Penrose
- Ashley Mathews (Riley Reid)
- Ben Greenfield
- Agnes Callard
- Kai Lenny
- The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
Geometric Unity – a First Look
- James O’Keefe
- Daniel Schmachtenberger
- Eric Lewis
- Jamie Metzl
- Ross Douthat
- Ryan Holiday
The following transcript was generated by a machine and not edited by any human – so it’s full of of errors. I’m posting the transcript because the podcast is excellent and a crappy transcript is better than no transcript. Questions/comments: get me on Twitter @mgmobrien.
Eric Weinstein 0:06
Hello, this is Eric with the briefest of housekeeping messages for this week’s episode. This episode comes in three parts. The first part is an introduction, the second part a lecture that was filmed years ago. And the third part, I’m walking through a PowerPoint presentation done yesterday on April Fool’s. Now, I would highly recommend that after you get through section one, which is not very visually dependent, switching to YouTube, where the symbols that are being discussed can be seen, it may not make sense to all of you, but I think it will be a richer experience as sections two and three are targeted at the professional community. I hope you enjoy it. And I hope that you can listen to it in the spirit that I don’t expect you to understand everything being said. But there’s enough going on thematically, but I think it makes for an interesting story. Be well. Hello, you found the portal. I’m your host, Eric Weinstein. And I think that today’s Must be the most unusual episode yet of a podcast that has been marked by almost regular, unusual episodes. Now, this is the first podcast that I’m recording at home, I don’t really have a home recording studio. So we’re really doing this from chicken wire and masking tape. But I am sheltering in place because of the worldwide COVID pandemic. And what we’ve been asked by the state of California and by the federal government is to shelter in place for an upcoming month because today is April 1. Now, during a pandemic, I can assure you that no one is interested in April Fool’s jokes. So the question is what to do with the April Fool’s tradition in a situation in which nobody wants a prank. I thought that this was probably the best time to launch an idea that I’ve been playing with for years. And that idea is that it is dangerous to have a world in which we are afraid to talk about what we think is true. When I think about what happened during the beginning of the COVID pandemic, I find that we were, in general intimidated from sharing our fears about the virus. We were told that if we wore masks that we were acting in a peculiar fashion if we refuse to shake hands, that we were behaving in a strange and unpleasant social way. We did not want to be alarmist, we did not want to be seen as Chicken Little. And in fact, it was extremely important that we not be seen as xenophobic given that the outbreak was originating in Wuhan, China. In fact, perhaps the most dangerous idea was that this outbreak might have been connected to some research being done in a lab, perhaps a bioweapons lab. We really don’t know where this epidemic began. What is the etiology of something that is causing the entire world economy to effectively shut down? What I believe is that that silence has been deadly. We have many people who have now lost their lives because we did not feel free to exchange ideas to think To talk, and in fact, many of the people who warned us first, were the freest members of society having been previously canceled by standard mainstream institutions and their associated media. So what I thought would be important for an April Fool’s Day that no one wants to actually participate in, was to deal with an idea that maybe one day a year, we should all be free to share crazy ideas that are going around between our ears and in our head. We’re having conversations with ourselves wondering, is anyone else seeing the same thing that I’m seeing? But we are too afraid because the social stigma for actually believing in thing that maybe things are possible or perhaps there’s a conspiracy somewhere, perhaps we are ill prepared. For example, I believe that our current pandemic is exacerbated because our government and our readiness as ours failed to stock adequate supplies, and that these supplies were called for in the academic literature for Yours there was absolutely no excuse not to have personal project protective equipment stocked for doctors and nurses and hospitals to say nothing of all of the people who are in the frontlines of treating patients sick with Cova.
Now, currently, I don’t believe that you can trust the World Health Organization. Absolutely not. I don’t think you can trust the Surgeon General of the United States. And I absolutely don’t think you can trust the CDC, because they are all covering for our inadequacy. This was a problem that we always knew was coming. And we at one point had stocks which apparently were depleted under a previous administration and not restocked under this administration. In fact, our fear of dealing with a pervasive institutional incompetence has blinded us to the degradation in our society across all major institutions. As I’ve discussed before on the program, I believe that this has a singular ideology that is that because of embedded growth obligations coming from the previous era, of unsustainable postwar growth from about 1945 to 1971 73, something like that we built in expectations to our system that cannot currently be met. We will not have technology that follows the same breakneck pace of innovation. As a result, we have a system whereby the heads of our organizations are forced to cover for their inadequacies, because growth is built into the system that cannot be sustained. Therefore, there is not the funding the manpower, there is not the wherewithal to continue many of our programs because we do not actually have the ability to continue to simply grow our way out, at least so far. So what’s today’s program about? Well, I thought that what I would do is to let go of something that I’ve been keeping pretty close for, I think about 37 years
when I was around
hard to talk about
when I was around 18 or 19, I was at the University of Pennsylvania. And I thought I saw a glimmer of hope, I thought I saw that some new equations that were being played with might actually provide a solution to some of the problems that had bedeviled Einstein and others for years in the quest for unified field theory. Now, it’s an embarrassing thing to say that one is a unified field theorist, it is effectively equivalent to saying I’m interested in perpetual motion machines, or that I have a private cure for cancer that I’m trying on rabbits in my backyard. However, I actually think that it’s important to fess up because that’s exactly what this is. Now, in my situation, I have an extremely unusual history and I really don’t want to get bogged down in all of the things happened while I was a student trying to develop this theory, because it is not a particularly happy story. I believe that this theory is an incredibly joyous one. Now, in this situation, I want to talk about what it means to have a theory of everything we’ve never seen. And in fact, not only we never seen a theory of everything we’ve never even seen, I believe a candidate for a theory of everything. And because of Theory of Everything would have to have different characteristics than I believe every theory that has gone before. We don’t think enough about what the difference is between what we would normally call in physics and effective theory
and a fundamental one.
Now, if you’re familiar with the MC Escher drawing called drawing hands, it is a lithograph of two hands apparently drawing each other into existence on some kind of a canvas or piece of paper. That is sometimes referred to as a strange loop. But it in fact is an attempt to answer the question, what is the fire that lights itself? This is the problem that bedevils us when we search for a unified theory that doesn’t bedevil us, in my opinion in any previous effective theory. Now, why is that? Well, many people confuse the theory of everything as if they imagined that it’s a theory in which you can compute every eventuality and it is absolutely not that because the computational power is very different than the question of whether or not the rules are effectively given. I’ve analogized it to a game of chess. And knowing all of the rules is equivalent to a theory of everything. Knowing how to play chess well is an entirely different quest. But in the case of a theory of everything, or a unified field theory, if you will, many people also take it to be an answer to the question, why is there something rather than nothing? And I don’t think that this is in fact what a theory of everything is meant to be either. Now, why is that? Well, because I believe at some level, it is impossible for most of us to imagine an airtight argument mathematically speaking, which coaxes out of an absolute void a something. However, there’s a different question, which I think might actually animate us and which is the right question to ask of a potential candidate. And that is, how does one get everything from almost nothing. In the MC Escher drawing or lithograph hands drawing hands or drawing hands, what we see is that the paper is presupposed. That is if you could imagine a theory of everything it would be like saying if I posit the paper, can the paper will the ink into being such that the ink gives rise to the pens and the pens draw the hands we can fact manipulate the pens To use the ink. That kind of a problem is one which is of a very different character than everything that has gone before. It is also, in my opinion an explanation of why the physics community has been stalled for nearly 50 years since around 1973 when the standard model was intellectually in place. Now consider this. We’ve never had in modern times a drought, where no person working in pure fundamental theory, has taken a trip to Stockholm just as a rough indicator for contributing to the standard model, no one in my opinion, since let’s say Frank wheelchair was born in 1951. No one born after that time has in fact contributed to the standard model in a clear and profound way. That is not to say that no work has been done. But for the most part, the current generation of physicists has for more than 40 years and almost 50 years remain stagnant within the standard paradigm of physics, which is positing theories that are then verified by experiment. Now my belief, which is relatively radical is that there is no way to get to our final destination using the tools that have gotten us to where we are now. In other words, what got you here cannot get you there. And in particular, one of the biggest problems we have is the Political Economy of science. We have effectively starved our scientific enterprise for resources, creating a dire and cutthroat competition, which is completely deranged the scientific tradition. And so one of the things that’s going to happen in this lecture is that I’m simply going to announce that I have broken and have broken for many years with just about every expectation of standard science. That is not to say that the equations or the style of presentation is going to be foreign quite the contrary. I have every intention of writing up some results in standard terminology wherever possible using popular mathematical typesetting programs. But it goes far deeper than this. My belief is that what we’ve created is a career structure a journal structure, and employment structure and access structure that cannot possibly complete the job. And why is that? Well, what if in the last leg, in fact, we had a situation by which
at the fundamental theory would result almost certainly in career suicide? Now, if you think of that as an explanation, you would realize that it has the power to synchronize failure across many seemingly independent experiments. And I believe that that’s exactly what’s been going on through the so called string theory, revolutions one, two, and perhaps three. Now, in that case, what happened was a theory became fixed in the minds of Really the baby boom generation of physicists because it allowed for infinite elaboration within a mathematical or more particularly a geometric context. And those suppose that physicists spent their time submitting papers to what’s called the high energy section of the so called preprint archive. But in fact, most of these papers have nothing to do with high energy physics whatsoever. And if you’re looking for the designation, it’s hep th high energy physics dash theory. Now, if you look through those papers, they don’t seem to have much to do with particles they don’t seem to have to do with forces in space time, they seem to have to do with very strange and obscure mathematical issues. And in the years since the string theory program got particularly reanimated, I guess that would be around 1984. With the anomaly cancellation of green and Schwartz, what you’ll find is, is that physics became very active and simultaneously ground to a halt. If it failed to remain a physical subject, it became something like a medieval quest for the number of angels to dance on the head of a pen. Now, in this circumstance, I think it’s very important to realize that this is not a paper and we are not submitting to the archive. In fact, the archive requires people who are not employed at universities to get permission from some member of the community, which is called an endorsement, which I find absolutely insulting and I refuse to go along with. Furthermore, we are expected to cite papers sometimes which are behind paywalls. And I think that it’s absolutely immoral to ask people to pay outside the system to read the papers to cite other people’s work. I could go on about the number of things that are currently wrong with the system. But instead what I would like to do is to simply joyously rejected. I have every intention of simply sharing this with you, and jealously guarding my right to share This through. Now what does that mean? In two previous episodes, we’ve had interactions with academicians, which I think are interesting and bear scrutiny. In the first case in a in an interview with the economists Tyler Cowen, I talked to Tyler about the fact that the Baskin commission was in fact committing economic malpractice. Now why was that was because they decided that they needed to transfer a trillion dollars over 10 years, and that they had found a devious way of doing it, which is to adjust the CPI. By backing out the amount of adjustment needed to get a trillion dollars, they decided that a 1.1% overstatement in the CPI would cause a reduction in entitlements that is Medicare and Medicaid payments together with Social Security, as well as an increase in taxes because tax brackets are also indexed. Now, to my mind, it is absolutely unconscionable to say that you have a right to To transfer wealth cryptically by adjusting a fundamental barometer that would be like saying, in order to meet our global warming targets, we have to recalibrate all the thermometers to show that in fact, things have cooled. One simply can’t do that in science. But Tyler’s response I found was very interesting. His perspective was that this was in fact, not a terrible thing, because it was quote directionally correct. And in general, he believed that because the CPI should be considered overstated, that this was not the world’s most terrible thing to do as an economist. I respect Tyler a great deal and I enjoy his company. But I have to say that I am absolutely of a different opinion, My belief is is that one has no rights and no ability as a scientist to fudge the data to meet social goals in this fashion.
Another interesting interaction was the interaction with Professor Agnes Callard of the University of Chicago. Now, when she listened to Episode 19, about Brett Weinstein, she found that it was a very compelling episode. But strangely, even though the point of the episode was to surface Brett’s long forgotten theory, because Brett had not been acknowledged as having predicted that laboratory mice would in particular have radically elongated telomeres, where it was thought that all mice had long, radically elongated telomeres, which has incredible potential implications for drug testing and all of the work that is done on laboratory rodents as model organisms. This is an episode you should definitely listen to if you haven’t already. But Agnus his perspective was very different than mine. Her feeling was that because we were in a situation in which the work actually surfaced that the system worked even if it was the case that Brett’s name was erased from the history of the development and that his theory was Put in a situation in which it was not able to carry the day because, in fact, there was no record of the fact that a prediction had been made. Now I disagreed with Agnes on that program for separately, but what I found was is that it was very telling, in general, our academic population has given up on the previous and quaint idea of decency, propriety, truth, fairness, because there simply isn’t the resource forever. Now. I believe the current science is not necessarily unsalvageable, but it will be unsalvageable if we don’t get the very people that I rail against far more money. And I know that’s very confusing. But my belief is, is that the inadequate resources that we have put aside are very similar to the inadequate masks that we have put aside for our doctors. We’ve asked some of the world’s most gifted and smartest people to devote their lives to the study of science and technology. We’ve inadequately prepared them. We’ve put their lives and their family’s lives under incredible pressures. And what I wish to do is to, in fact point to the very people who I’ve been most angry at for years and say that part of the problem is that we need to take a hard look at how we’ve invested in science and technology, and give the very people that I’m most angry at
I will explain more about this later. But I do want to give you an introduction to this episode. What I will be doing is to screen a very unusual and somewhat awkward lecture at the University of Oxford. Now, why is it so awkward? Well, first of all, I had left standard research, perhaps 20 years earlier, almost further, I’m not a physicist and I have only taken one or two courses. In the physics major sequence. I think I’ve taken one semester of mechanics, and perhaps I took an advanced general relativity course in college, but in general, no One goes into a theoretical physics department and attempts to lecture physics physicists on physics. And why is that? Well, because physics is incredibly demanding. And this is almost certainly the world’s most interesting and most accomplished intellectual community. These are guys who don’t miss a trick. There are so many things to know. And it is such a difficult field that is effectively almost impossible to contribute from outside. chemists don’t do it. And once in a blue moon, mathematicians will attempt to talk about actual real physics. So one thing that you’re seeing is a very unusual circumstance where somebody is trying to figure out how to give their first lecture in a physics department. And it concerns the possibility of a theory which attempts to solve the problem of how does a fire light itself. Another thing that you’ll see is that it’s relatively difficult to read my handwriting. I’m not going to make any bones about it. I’ve been very vocal about having learning differences, too. Graphic dyslexia, all sorts of different issues, symbols come extremely difficult to me. I don’t want to spend this time making excuses. What I do want to say is the following. I will be attempting to record a short PowerPoint presentation for after the lecture, to say at least some of what some of the constructions are more clearly. This is not meant to be the actual presentation of the theory. What this is, is an introduction, a downpayment, and above all, a historical account of what happened seven years ago at the University of Oxford when I tried to present these ideas. I’ve talked before about the twin nuclei problem, and our need to get off of this planet. And if we have a hope of getting off of this planet, it really comes from fundamental physics. You see, 100 years ago, or perhaps 105, when Albert Einstein gave us general relativity, he effectively consigned us for life to the solar system. Why is that? Well, his model is geometric model. space and time effectively creates a speed limit known as C or the speed of light. Now, there are three rocks that are at least interesting for habitation by humans, although two of them are marginal, the Moon and Mars. One of them, of course, is unbelievable the earth. But I doubt that we’re going to be able to steward the earth through our new godlike powers, which I’ve called the twin nuclei problem of Sal and Adam, we’ve unlocked the power of both. And I don’t think we have the wisdom to stay all in one place. So the question that I had was, if there is any ability to escape to the cosmos that we can see in the night sky, where would it come from? We are almost positive that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity is in some weird way incomplete, the Schwarzschild singularities which give us black holes, and the initial singularities of the Robertson Walker Friedman universe, which are associated with the Big Bang, are some clue that there is some subtle flaw in Einstein’s theory. So how to go beyond Einstein. I mean, what Einstein did to Newton was to recover Newton as a special case of a more general theory that is more flexible. And in fact, this is the same problem that we have because Albert Einstein’s theory is so fundamental, we effectively begin every theoretical physics seminar with a statement about space time. In other words, Albert Einstein is locked in at the ground floor. So if we can’t get below the ground floor to the foundations, it’s very difficult to make progress. This is one of the things that just making it almost impossible for us to go beyond the initial revolutions of the 20th century. Do I know that this new theory, if it works, will allow us to escape? I do not.
There’s no one who can I can say that
and I don’t think I have the skills to develop the physical consequences of the theory even if the theory turns out to be mostly what I will say is that I think theory is the first of its kind that I’ve seen. I believe that in part, what you will see is that,
at a minimum,
it is like fool’s gold. It appears to explain why we think we see three, three generations. But it also says that perhaps they aren’t really three generations of matter. Perhaps there are only two even the physicists tell us that there are at least three or perhaps more. I believe that physics tells us that the universe is Cairo that is left right, a symmetric but the theory is itself not Cairo. Instead, it chooses to present a different idea, which is that perhaps virality is emergent much the way our hands are individually left, right, a symmetric as our pinky is not a reflection of our thumb, but the thumb on each hand is a parent to the other one as the pinky. Now what does that mean? It means that if perhaps there is matter, and there is force that is decoupled from our ordinary world, that that matter might restore the paradigm Or the virality. Rather, would break the virality. And restore parody between these two have the matter we see and the matter that is missing. There are a good number of other things that happen in theory, it replaces space time with what I’ve termed observers. Now an object versus an unusual gadget, in that it’s thought of as two separate places where physics takes place connected by a map. That means effectively that we are in something like a stadium where there is there are stands and there is a pitch in the playing field that we think we see may not in fact be where most of the action is taking place. In fact, not all of the fields live on the same space. So when we see waves and particles dancing around, they may have separate origins in each of the two components of the observers. What I hope to do after this is to gracefully and gradually develop the theory under my leadership. Now why do I say that? There is a belief in physics and in most fields that the field should behave in a communal fashion. And that people should put forward their ideas and other people should joyously build upon them, and that the community should be allowed to name the various accomplishments for whoever they say accomplish those things.
There’s not a way,
there’s not a way in hell that I’m letting that happen. My experience with this community is is that it simply can’t be trusted to behave equitably given the fact that it is so resource starved and constrained. People simply do not have the freedom to be generous, kind and accurate as to who did what. Furthermore, there is an incredible premium on cherry topping. That is who finished something off is considered bizarrely much more important than who found something to begin with. Imagine you located an island and you name the island after the first person who could plant the flag on the top. have the highest peak, this is patently offensive and ridiculous.
There’s a story
years ago about how Hilbert almost scooped Einstein, by giving the Hilbert action from which Einstein’s equations could be recovered, really not a chance. So if Hilbert came up with the Hilbert action and recovered Einstein’s equations, so what I mean the real theory actually takes place in Einstein and Grossman before Albert Einstein even works out a lot of the flaws in the original theory. It’s about the ideas. It’s not about the formulas, and it’s not about racing to the final form. Now, I know that the community won’t agree with that. But think about this. What I’m doing is taking an incredible risk. I’m addressing you here on April Fool’s Day. And I’m saying that if there is a fool it is certainly me because I have sat on this theory for almost 40 years. Now, I’ve never known Is it true? Is it false? It’s impossible to tell when you’re only talking to yourself, but in this situation, What I’ve done is I’ve taken a tremendous amount of risk. And now I’m trying to share it with you. Hopefully, I know that well, Newton did his greatest work when he was sheltering, sheltering from a great plague
and I would like to think that perhaps whether or not this is correct, simply the act of somebody trying earnestly to share hope and some path forward would be uplifting. Now, under the worst circumstances, if this doesn’t work, what do I think, is a question I’m
asked frequently. And there are two things that I’ll say,
many years ago, around 1987. I put forward some equations that I thought might become my thesis at the Harvard Department of Mathematics, and they were disallowed for a variety of reasons. those equations were later discovered in I believe, 1994, and I sat in a lecture, in which I saw these equations go up on a board at the very end of MIT I looked at those equations. And I said, huh, those are the exact equations I was told could never work. Why is the leading physicist in the world, placing them on the board and saying that these are the equations from which all of something called Donaldson theory can be derived.
What I’m giving you,
at least at a minimum, had the ability years earlier. To provide those equations from a different source. There’s something called cyber Witten theory, which I have no claim on. But the actual equations that are called the cyber quittin equations came originally as an outgrowth from investigations of this theory. So at a bare minimum, the cyber Winton revolution should have happened at Harvard rather than Princeton. And it should have been recognized that this theory was capable of at least at a minimum, giving birth to that as a side project. The other thing that I think is incredibly important is that we’ve never seen how a universe that looks like ours could possibly emerge from almost no assumptions whatsoever. And I believe that even if this theory were to turn out to be wrong, which I don’t think is likely, I believe that it would give us something to go on, we would at least have a first candidate of how a hopeful Theory of Everything would look and how it would go wrong. So under any circumstance, I think that I’m going to be fine. If the theory doesn’t work out, I will have at least taken my shot on goal. And I think that that’s probably more than almost anyone can ask from a life to attempt to make contact with the deepest question that we’ve ever had, which is what is this place?
And what brought it into being?
Lastly, I want to just talk about a personal aspect of this, which is, what does it mean to come to an end? Whether or not this theory in fact, does what I claim it? I think it does
I don’t know.
But I do know that sooner or later, in the era of intercontinental land exploration, someone found the last landmass. And that must have been a very strange moment when there was nothing left to do. I think whether or not this theory in fact accomplishes that is one question, but we all have to plan for what it is that we think will happen when man at last learns his own source code. In fact, this was the last edge question that I answered for Jon Brockman, which is the something unprecedented happened when man at last learns his own source code? I don’t know the answer to this. But I want to return to the same spirit that I started this when I was 18 or 19, which is that of joyous investigation of brave open hearted undertakings, and I also want to bring back a different style of scientific investigation. There has been far too much communalism In fact, There’s a belief that there are no loan researchers and that everything is produced by a community. And pardon my French, but this is absolute horseshit. I’ve been so long alone with these principles, equations and ideas, that I don’t even know what my adult life will look like once I discourage them. And I begin to talk about them with the community at large. I’ve talked to many theoretical physicists who have taken some interest in them, but I’ve never put out enough to absolutely ensure that people are seeing what it is that I’m seeing. So whether or not the April Fool’s joke is on me, I cannot tell you, but I can promise you that I’m not trying to play one on you. What I hope to show you is a lecture that was the first of three versions of this lecture that were delivered in Oxford over the course of a week. And one of the things that has held me back is that I have a great number of people who I have to thank for effectively being My underground railroad when my career got into serious trouble to make sure who made sure that I always had an opportunity to fight another day. And some of the most important of those people, one of whom occurs on this video is Marcus DeSoto. And Marcus, I just wanted to say thank you for your bravery, your courage, your friendship, and your encouragement. I know I’ve been absolutely impossible to you. I’ve made you wait for this. And I just want to say how much I love you. I also want to thank Isidore singer for effectively saving me from not getting a PhD, I think putting pressure on the Harvard department and for coming to my assistance, making sure that I got a postdoc at MIT. Despite not having any publications at all. I’d like to thank robot who’s no longer with us. Who I should have invited to my wedding. I was very angry at him, but I didn’t realize that he was saving me in a very difficult situation against a department that probably just wanted to see me gone. I’d like to thank Peter teal, one of my closest friends is like a brother to me, for allowing me the seven years since this lecture, to lick my wounds to get strong to have a 401k to buy a house. And to begin coming back to regular society after a very difficult and strained career. I’d like to thank Adil Abdul Ali and Michael Grossberg, the two greatest best friends from college that guy could have. I’d like to thank my grandfather, Harry Rubin, who believed in things that couldn’t possibly be true and made some of them happen. I’d like to thank my parents, Karen and les Weinstein, for all the good things that they did. I’d like to thank my brother Brett Weinstein and his family Heather and the kids for sticking by me and I’d like to thank my in laws and Bombay, India. I hope you guys are well. And lastly, I would very much like like to thank my wife and my two kids for putting up with a lot of last weekend’s a lot of last vacations, and believing that just maybe there was something to this, and sticking by me all these years, so I hope everybody really enjoys this, it may not be comprehensible. And after this video finishes, I’ll do a short presentation of some of the constructions that took place not all of the equations and things which I think some of them were sort of botched on the board because they became disoriented the night before and rearrange things in a way that probably wasn’t optimal.
But I attempt to
clarify these things going forward and to begin to present the theory as I see whether or not I can bring myself to once again work on it somewhat close to full time as a 54 year old father of two. So sit back, relax and coming up next is the first of my three lectures at Oxford University on geometric unity be well. At this point, we would highly recommend switching over to the YouTube version of this week’s episode to get the full visual experience for sections two and three.
Marcus du Sautoy 36:26
Well, welcome to this special summary lecture. My name is Marcus a toy. I’m a professor of mathematics here, and the simony professor for the public understanding of science. And Charles somebody prepared a manifesto when he endowed this chair to guide the holder of the professorship in their mission and I’d like to read one part of that manifesto to you. It said scientific speculation, when so labeled, and when the concept of speculation and its place in the scientific method has been made clear to the audience can be very exciting. It is a very effective communication tool, and it is by no means discouraged. And it is in the spirit of this part of my mission as a ceremony professor, that I would like to introduce today’s ceremony, special lecture. I first met Eric Weinstein when we were both postdocs at the Hebrew University just over 20 years ago, and I had the feeling then that he was working on something big. But it wasn’t until two years ago that Eric met me in a bar in New York. And we began he began to explain the mathematics of keeping working on in private for the last 20 years. As he took me through the equations he had been formulating, I began to see emerging before my eyes potential answers to many of the major problems in physics. It was an extremely exciting, daring proposal, and also mathematically so natural that it started to work its magic on me. Over the last two years, I have had the privilege of being taken through the twists and turns of Eric’s ideas. offer our postdocs In Israel, when I went the academic route, getting my professorship here in Oxford, Eric went to a more independent route working in economics, government and finance. So he comes here today as something of an insider and an outsider, a difficult place from which to propose bold ideas. But having spent time seeing how powerful these ideas appear to be, I felt it was time that Eric shared his ideas more widely, as I believe his perspective could give the scientific community a new story to explain some of the big questions on the scientific books, and therefore very happy to provide a platform here in Oxford for Eric to share his ideas on a new theory he calls geometric unity. The lecture will be approximately 70 minutes after which we will have a period to ask questions, Eric.
Eric Weinstein 38:54
So it’s, it’s a great pleasure to be here in Oxford. For those of you who are not Where it is possible that no other university in the world has kept so tightly and kept the faith for so long with Einstein’s great vision of a final theory for physics as a theory of pure geometry, sort of elegance and simplicity of the highest order and the names that are associated with Oxford. That weigh heavy on me are a Tia Penrose Segal Woodhouse Hitchin. It’s a very long list of people who, even when fashion, did not hold those ideas in favor, always kept the faith that there was much to be learned from the geometric perspective on physics. Of course, unified field theory, in some sense, acquired a stigma with Einstein’s failure to find it. And the sense that even someone like Einstein, being tempted by the siren song of geometry, might lose their footing and go astray. And in the years since we’ve had a replacement theory which is that what is really calling our generations is the the quest to quantize general relativity and gravity. And I’d like to go back to the sort of earlier perspective that there is no evidence to date in my mind that we are being called to quantize general relativity directly. In fact, there’s been more effort spent on that quest, without very tangible results, then Einstein spent as one man searching for years for unified field theory. So we have to, in some sense, begin to undo some of what we think we know in order to truly reconsider and allow me to put some of these ideas before you today.
Marcus asked me to begin presenting
these ideas here and hopefully this is the first opportunity but if the ideas are not good Then lighting on the aisles will lead you to safety and your exits may be behind you. But in the event of a good flight, hopefully this will begin a conversation rather than anyone. I feel in some sense that I’m presenting the works of another man, a younger man, someone who came of age right in the middle of the great string theory, boom, with the anomaly cancellation in 1984. And I look at this work. And I see a young person struggling with the idea, why can’t I see that string theory is going to answer all of these questions over the next 10 years, as we were told at the time, and making a very dangerous decision, which was, I think, I’m not going to follow that particular path and I’m going to follow another. And it’s not clear where this path is going to lead us. But we’re going to explore it today and see, as best we can. So in some sense, I’ve been able to polish some of that young man’s work, but I’m also Struggling to reconstruct it because someone spending full time on that theory, he knew a lot of things that I no longer know. So, with that, as a beginning, I’m just going to say one disclaimer, which is that this is not a usual talk. And whatever contract a speaker usually has with the audience, right now we’re going to break that contract. This is a, this is a talk about ideas. And some of these ideas are bold. Some of them may offend some people because there’s a sense that you don’t have a right to be considering those ideas. But I go back to the admonition of Jim Watson said if you’re going to try to make progress, big progress, you are by definition, unqualified to be doing whatever it is that you’re doing. So in that spirit, let us begin. What is physics to physicists today? How do they see it different from the way in which we might imagine the layperson sees physics Ed Witten was asked this question in a talk he gave on physics and geometry many years ago. And he pointed us to three fundamental insights, which were his big three insights in physics. And they correspond to the three great equations. So the first one is, is that somehow physics takes place in an arena. And that arena is a manifold x together with some kind of semi Romanian metric structure, something that allows us to take length and angle so that we can perform measurements at every point in this space time, or higher dimensional structure, leaving us a little bit of headroom. The equation most associated with this
is the Einstein field equation.
And of course I’ve run in the morning.
So it says
that a piece of the Riemann curvature tensor, the Ricci tensor minus an even smaller piece, the scalar curvature multiplied by the metric is equal or plus the cosmological constant is equal to some amount of matter and energy, the stress energy tensor.
So it’s intrinsically a curvature equation.
The second fundamental insight
I’m going to begin to start drawing pictures here as well.
So if this is the space manifold the arena.
The second one concern symmetry groups,
which cannot necessarily be deduced from any structure inside of the arena, they are additional data that come to us out of the blue without explanation.
These symmetries form a non abelian group
which is currently
su three color cross su two week I suspend cross you one week hypercharged, which breaks down to su three cross you one where the broken new one is the electromagnetic symmetry. This equation is also a curvature equation The corresponding equation and it says that this time the curvature of an auxiliary structure known as a gauge potential, when differentiated in a particular way, is equal again
to the amount of stuff in the system that is not directly involved in the left hand side of the equation. So, it has many similarities to the above equation both involve curvature one involves a projection or a series of projections. The other involves a differential operator
The third point
surrounds the matter in the system.
we have a Dirac equation, again coupled to a connection.
But one of the great insights is, is that the reason for the lightness of matter and the natural mass scale of physics has to do with the fact that this side really should have two components. And the differential operator should map to one component on the other side of the equation, but the mass operator should map to another. And so if one of the components is missing, if the equation is intrinsically lopsided, Cairo a symmetric then the mass term and the differential term have difficulty interacting, which is sort of overcompensating for the mass scale the university you get to a point where you actually have to define a massless equation, but then just like overshooting a putt and see to knock it back by putting in a Higgs field in order to generate an as if fundamental mass through the Akala couplings
so, matter is asymmetric
and therefore light.
And then interestingly, he went on to say one more thing he said of course, these three central observations must be supplemented with the idea that this all takes place
treated in a quantum mechanical fashion, or quantum field theoretic
So it’s a bit of an aftermarket modification, rather than in his opinion at the time one of the core insights. I actually think that that’s in some sense about right now. One of my differences with with the community in some sense is that I question whether the quantum isn’t in good enough shape that we don’t know whether we have a serious quantum mechanical problem or not, we know that we have a quantum mechanical problem, a quantum field theoretic problem relative to the current formulations of these theories. But we know that in some other cases, the quantum becomes incredibly natural, sometimes sort of almost magically natural. And we don’t know whether the truth theories that we will need to be generalizing, in some sense, have beautiful quantum mechanical treatments, whereas the effective theories that we’re dealing with now, may not survive the quantization. So what I want to do is I want to imagine a different sort of incompatibilities. So let’s take our great three theories and just visually treat them as the vertices of a triangle.
So I’m going to put general relativity
and Einstein’s formulation.
And I’m going to put the probably won’t write this again Yang Mills Maxwell Anderson Higgs
Unknown Speaker 50:31
Eric Weinstein 50:34
over here, and I’m going to write the darracq theory.
What I want to explore is the incompatibilities not at the quantum level. But the geometric input all three of these are geometric theories. And the question is, what are the compatibilities or incompatibilities at the level of geometry before theory is treated quantum mechanically. Well, in the case of Einstein’s general relativity, we can rewrite the Einstein theory by saying that there’s a projection map, dude, Einstein have a curvature tensor, where I’m going to write that curvature tensor as I would in the Yang Mills theory. That should be an LC for leverage of EDA. So the Einstein projection of the curvature tensor of the levy Chavita connection of the metric on this side and on this side, I’m going to write down this differential operator the ad joint of the exterior derivative coupled to a connection.
And you begin to see
that we’re missing an opportunity potentially What if the FAA says we’re the same in both contexts, Then you’re applying two separate operators, one zero with order and destructive in the sense that it doesn’t see the entire curvature tensor, the other inclusive, but a first order. And so the question is, is there any opportunity to do anything that combines these two. But the problem is, is that the hallmark of the Yang Mills theory is the freedom to choose the data, the internal quantum numbers that give all the particles, their personalities beyond the mass and the spin. addition to all of that freedom is some means of taking away some of the redundancy that comes with that freedom, which is the action of the gauge group. Now we can allow the gauge group of symmetries to act on both sides of the equation, but the key problem
If I act on connections on the right and then take the Einstein projection, this is not equal
to first taking the projection
and then conjugating with the gauge action.
So, the problem is is that the projection is based on the fact that you have a relationship between the intrinsic geometry if this is an add value to form the to form portion of this and the joint portion of this are both associated to the structure group of the tangent bundle, but the gauge rotation is only acting on one of the two factors at the purchase is making use of both of them. So there’s a fundamental incompatibility. And the claim that Einstein’s theory is a gauge theory relies more on analogy than an exact mapping between the two theories. What about the incompatibilities between the Einstein theory of general relativity and the darracq theory of matter? I was very struck that if we’re going to try to quantize gravity and we associate gravity with the spin to field g mu nu, we actually have a pretty serious problem. Which is, if you think about spinners, electrons corks as being waves in a medium. And you think about photons as being waves in a different medium. photons medium does not depend on the existence of a metric One forms are defined whether or not a metric is present yet spinners or not. So if we are going to take the spin to g mu nu field to be quantum mechanical, if it blinks out and does whatever the quantum does between observations. In the case of the photon, it’s saying that the waves may blank out. But the ocean need not blank out. In the case of the darracq theory, it is the ocean the medium in which the waves live, that becomes uncertain itself. So even if you’re comfortable with the quantum, to me, this becomes a bridge too far. So the question is, how do we liberate the definition?
How do we get the metric out from its responsibilities, it’s been assigned far too many responsibilities. It’s responsible for a volume form for differential operators. It’s responsible for measurement. It’s responsible for being a dynamical field part of the field content of the system. Lastly, we have the compatibilities linked between Yang mills and in the Yurok theory, these may be the most mild of the various incompatibilities, but it is a incompatibilities of natural reality. Where the direct field, Einstein’s field and the connection fields are all geometrically well motivated. We push a lot of the artificiality that we do not understand into the potential for the scalar field that gives everything its mass. So we tend to treat it as something of a mysterious fudge factor. So the question is if we have a Higgs field
Why is it here? And why is it geometric? It has long been the most artificial sector of our models.
The proposal that I want to put to you today is that one of the reasons that we may be having trouble with unification is that the duty our duty may be to generalize all three vertices before we can make progress.
That’s daunting, because in each case, it would appear that we can make an argument that this, that and the other vertex or the simplest possible theories that could live at that vertex, we know for example, the Dirac operator is the most fundamental of all the elliptic operators and Euclidean signature generating all of the Tia singer theory. We know that Einstein’s theory is in some sense a unique spin to massless field capable of communicating gravity which can be arrived at from field theoretic rather than geometric considerations. In the Yang Mills case, it can be argued that the Yang Mills theory is the simplest theory that can possibly result where we’re taking the simplest Lagrangian in the Einstein case, looking only at the scalar curvature. In the Yang Mills case, we have no substructure and so we’re doing the most simple minded thing we can do by taking the norm square of the curvature and saying whatever the field strength is, let’s measure that size. So if each one of these as simple as possible doesn’t Auckland’s razor tell us that if we wish to remain in geometric field theory that we’ve already reached bottom and we’re being asked to do is to abandon this is merely an effective theory that’s possible. And I would say that that in some sense represents a lot of conventional wisdom. But there are other possibilities. There are other possibilities that while each of these may be simplest in its category, they are not simplest in their interaction.
For example, we know
The Dirac famously took the square root of the Klein Gordon equation.
To achieve the Dirac equation, you actually took two square roots one of the differential operator and another of the algebra on which it acts, but could not could we not do the same thing by reinterpreting what we saw in Donaldson theory. In turn Simon’s theory, and finding that there are first order equations that imply second order equations that are nonlinear in in the curvature. So let’s imagine the following we replace the standard model
with a true second order theory.
We imagine the general relativity is replaced by a true first order theory. And then we find that the true second orders theory admits of a square root and can be linked with the true first order theory. This would be a program for some kind of unification of Iraq’s type but in The fourth sector. The question is, does this really make any sense? Are there any possibilities to do any such thing?
So what I’d like to do is I’d like to talk a little bit about what the geometric unity proposal is.
So we have a division into intrinsic theories and auxiliary theories
and mathematics, more specifically geometry, and intrinsic physical theory would be general relativity.
And auxiliary physical theory would be the Yang Mills theory with the freedom to choose internal quantum numbers
at the mathematical level and intrinsic theory would be
a little mysterious.
The older semi Romani in geometry
study of manifolds with length and angle. But auxiliary geometry is really what’s taken off of late since the revolution partially began at Oxford when is singer brought insights from Stony Brook to the UK. And so we’re gonna call this fiber bundle theory
or modern gauge theory.
Geometric unity is the search for some way to break down the walls between these four boxes. What’s natural to One theory is unnatural to me. Other
semi Romani and geometry is dominated by these projection operators, as well as the ability to use the leverage via connection. Now some aspects of this are less explored torsion tensors are definable in semi Romani and geometry, but they are not used to the extent that you might imagine. In the case of fiber bundle theory, the discovery of physicists that the gauge group was fantastically important came as something of a shock to the mathematicians who had missed that structure. And haven’t since exploited it to great effect. So what we’d like to do is we’d like to come up with some theory that is intrinsic, but allows us to play some of the games that exist in other boxes, how can we, how can we try to have our cake and eat it and use all the full suite of techniques that are available to us? So our perspective is that it is the quantum That may be the comparatively easy part. And that the unification of the geometry, which is not occurred, maybe what we’re being asked to do. So let’s try to figure out what would a final theory even look like?
When I was a bit younger,
I remember reading this question of Einstein, which he said, I’m not really interested in some of the details of physics. What really concerns me is whether the creator had any choice in how the world was constructed. And some people may have read that as a philosophical statement, but I took that as an actual call for a research program. So I’d like to describe that research program and try to unpack what I think he was saying.
We talked a lot about unification, but we hardly ever actually imagine if we had a unified theory, what would it look like? Let us imagine that we cannot figure out the puzzle of why is there something rather than nothing. But if we do have something that that’s something has this little structure as possible, but it still invites us to work mathematically. So to me, the two great theories that we have mathematically and in physics are calculus and linear algebra. If we have calculus and linear algebra, I mean, imagine that we have some manifold, at least one of dimension four, but it’s not a spacetime. It doesn’t have a metric. It’s not broken down into two different kinds of coordinates, which then have some bleed into each other but still maintains a distinction. It’s just some sort of flabby proto space time.
And in the end, it’s got to fill up with stuff
and give us some kind of an equation.
So let me write an equation
So, I have in mind, differential operators parameterised by some fields omega, which when composed are not a second order if these are first order operators but zeroeth order and some sort of further differential operator
saying that whatever those two operators are in composition is in some sense harmonic
is such a program even possible
So, if the universe is in fact capable of being the fire that lights itself is it capable of managing its own flame as well and closing up What I’d like to do is to set ourselves an almost impossible task, which is to begin with this little data in a sandbox, to use the computer science concept. So here’s physical reality.
is over here. We’re going to start with the sandbox.
And all we’re going to put in it is x four.
And we’re going to set ourselves a straitjacket a task of seeing how close we can come to dragging out a model that looks like the natural world that follows this projector. While it may have Hear that that is not a particularly smart thing to do. I would like to think that we could agree that it is quite possible that if that were to be the case, we might say that this is what Einstein meant by a creator, which was his anthropomorphic concept for necessity and elegance and design, having no choice in the making of the world. So with that, let us begin to think about what we mean today by geometric unity. geo comes in four flavors, but I’m only getting one shot to do this. So I’m going to do the most exciting of them to me. There’s a completely exoticness flavor. What I’m going to do is I’m going to take the concept of observation, and I’m going to break the world into two pieces. A place where we do our observation in a place where most of the activity takes place and I’m gonna Try to do this without loss of generality. So in this case, we have x four, and it can map into some other space. And we’re going to call this an observers.
The idea of an object versus a bit like a stadium, you have a playing field and you have stands. They aren’t distinct entities, they’re coupled. And so fundamentally, we’re going to replace one space with two. exhorting, this model simply means that you is unrestricted, although larger than x four, so any manifold of four dimension higher that is capable of admitting x four as an immersion.
The next model we have is the bundle theoretic
in which case you sits over x
as a fiber bundle
The most exciting which is the one we’ll deal with today is the endogenous model
where x four actually grows the space you where the activity takes place. So we talked about extra dimensions, but these are in some sense not extra dimensions, they’re implicit dimensions within x four and last to precipitate without loss of generality, we have the tautological model. In that case, x four equals u and the immersion is the identity. without loss of generality, we simply play our games on one space, okay.
Now we need rules. The rules are sorry.
no choice of fundamental metric.
So we imagined that Einstein was presented with a fork in the road and it’s always disturbing not to follow Einsteins path But we’re in fact going to turn Einstein’s game on its head and see if we can get anywhere with that, right. It’s also a possibility that because Einstein’s theory is so perfect, that if there’s anything wrong with it, it’s very hard to unsink it because everything is built on top of it. So let’s make no choice of fundamental metric. And in fact, let’s go more ambitious. And let’s say we’re going to reverse the logic of Einstein Einstein the metric is fundamental, but the levy Chavita connection from which we deduce the curvature is emergent. Right? So the fundamental theorem of Romani and geometry is is that every connection causes every metric causes a connection to emerge. And then the curvature is built on the connection. We turn this around, we imagine we’re looking for a connection, and we wish it to build a metric because connections are amenable to quantization in a way that metrics are not. The next point is that we always want to have a plan to return to finite dimensions, without losing sight of the quantum and life We want to liberate matter from its dependence
on the metric for its very existence.
So we now need to build fermions onto our four dimensional manifold in some way, without ever choosing a metric. If we’re even to have any hope of playing a game involving matter, starting from this perspective of no information other than the most bare information, let’s get started. We take x for need metrics, we have none, we’re not allowed to choose one. So we do the standard trick is we choose them all. So we allow you 14 to equal the space of metrics on x four point wise, therefore, if we propagate on top of this, we call this the projection operator. we propagate on you 14 we are in some sense following a Fineman like idea of propagating over the space of all metrics. But not at a field level at a point wise territorial level. Is there a metric on you 14? Well, we both want one and don’t want one. If we had a metric from the space of all metrics, we could define fermions. But we would also lock out any ability to do dynamics. We want some choice over what this metric is, but we don’t want full choice because we want enough to be able to define the matter fields to begin with. It turns out
that if this is x four
and this is this particular endogenous choice of you 14, we have a 10 dimensional metric along the fibers.
So we have a G 10 mu nu.
Further, for every point in the fibers, we get a metric downstairs on the base face. So if we pull back the cotangent bundle
We get a metric g for mu nu on pi star of the cotangent bundle of x.
We now define the kemetic bundle.
Right, and the chi Merrick bundle is this direct sum of the vertical tangent bundle along the fibers with the pullback, which we’re going to call the horizontal bundle from the base space. So the dimeric bundle is going to be the vertical tangent space
of 10 dimensions to you direct some
four dimensional cotangent space, which we’re going to call horizontal to you. And the great thing about the numeric bundle is is that it has an a priori metric. It’s kind of metrics on the for metric on the 10. We can He’s decided that the two of them are naturally perpendicular to each other. Furthermore, it is almost canonically isomorphic to the tangent bundle of the cotangent bundle, because we either have four out of 14 or 10 out of 14 dimensions on the nose. So the question is, what are we missing? And the answer is that we’re missing exactly the data have a connection. So this Mundell Chi Merrick, see, we have C is equal to the tangent bundle of you
up to a choice of a connection theta.
And this is exactly what we wanted. We have a situation where we have some field on the manifold x in the form of a connection which is amenable, more friendly to quantization, which is now determining a metric turning around the levy trivia game. And the only problem is is that we’ve had to buy ourselves into a different space than the one we thought we wanted to work on. But now as safe As changes, the fermions are defined on the Homeric bundle. And it’s the isomorphism from the chimeric bundle to the tangent bundle of the space u, which is very, which means that the fermions no longer depend on the metric. They no longer depend on the theta connection. They are there if things go quantum mechanical, and we’ve achieved our objective of putting the matter field and the spin one fields on something of the same footing.
I want to emphasize this.
One thing, most of us, we think a lot about final theories and about unification, but until you actually start daring to try to do it, you don’t realize what the process of it feels like. And try to imagine conducting your life where you have no children, let’s say and no philanthropic urges. What you want to do is you want to use all of your money for yourself and die penniless. Right like a perfect finish. Assuming that that’s what you wanted to do, it would be pretty nerve racking at the end. Right? How many days left Do I have how many dollars left? I have. This is the process of unification in physics, you start giving away all of your most valuable possessions. And you don’t know whether you’ve given them away too early, whether you’ve husband them too long. And so in this process, what we’ve just done is we’ve started to paint ourselves into a corner. We got something we wanted, but we’ve given away freedom, we’re now dealing with a 14 dimensional world.
Let me just sum this up, by saying
between fundamental and emergent
Standard Model in gr,
gr, fundamental is the metric.
emergent is the connection.
Here, g u
is the connection that’s fundamental. And the metric that’s emerging
the next unit of GPU. So this is sort of the first unit of GPU. there any quick questions having to do with confusion, or may I proceed to the next year? Okay. The next unit of geo is unified field content. What does it mean for our fields to become unified, there are in fact,
only at this moment to fields that know about x playdough, which is the connection that we’ve just talked about, and a section sigma,
that takes us back.
So that we can communicate back and forth between u and x.
We now need feel content that only knows about you, which now has a metric depending on theta.
A particular member of the audience is a hedge fund manager who taught me that there is something of a universal trade. And the universal trade has four components. You have to have a view, you have to have a trade expression, you have to be able to calculate your cost of carry and you need a catalyst. Our view is going to be that somebody doesn’t understand what trade is possible, and we’re going to make a trade that looks like one of the worst trades of all time. And hopefully if we if we have enough conviction, we’re gonna have a catalyst to show that we actually got the better part of the deal. What is that trade? What is it that we think has been blocking progress
Romani and geometry.
As we’ve said, we have the projection operators and we also have the levy Chavita connection
and the auxiliary theory
we have freedom
to choose our field content, and we have the ability to get rid of much excess
through the symmetries of the gauge group.
We are going to take particle theory we’re going to make a bad trade or what appears to be a bad trade Which is that we are going to give away the freedom to choose our field content, which is already extremely as I think I said in the abstract Baroque with all of the different particle properties and we’re going to lose the ability to use the gauge group because we’re going to trade it all
the family cow
and you have some magic beans.
So it’s now time to trade the family cow for the magic beans and bring them home and see whether or not we got the better of the deal. Okay,
what is it that we get for the leverage via connection?
Well, not much. One thing we get is it normally the space of connections is an offline space, not a vector space. But an offline space almost a vector space vector space up to a choice of origin. But with the leverage immediate connection, rather than having an infinite plane with an ability to take differences, but no real ability to have a group structure, you pick out one point which then becomes the origin. That means that any connection a has a torsion tensor A, which is equal to the connection minus the leverage of EDA connection.
So we get a tensor that we don’t usually have.
gauge potentials are not usually well done. Fire only defined up to a choice of gauge. So that’s one of the things we get for our levy Chavita connection, but because the gauge group is going to go missing, this has terrible properties from with respect to the gauge group, it almost looks like a representation. But in fact, if we let the gauge group act there’s going to be an offline shift.
Furthermore, as we’ve said before, the ability to use projection operators together with the gauge group is frustrated by virtue of the fact that these two things do not commute with each other. So now the question is, how are we going to prove that we’re actually making a good trade? Okay. First thing we need to do is we still have the right to choose intrinsic field content, we have an intrinsic field theory. So if you consider
The structure bundle
of the spinners. Right We built the Homeric bundle. So we can define darracq spinners on the Homeric Bible for in Euclidean signature. A 14 dimensional manifold has Dirac spinners of dimension to to the dimension of the space divided by two. Right so two to the 14 over two, two to the seventh is 128. So we have a map
into a structure group of you 128.
At least in Euclidean signature, we can get to mix signatures later.
From that we can form the associated bundle
and sections of this bylaw
depending upon how you want to think about it, the gauge group h
orc see a space of sigma fields
There’s no reason that we can’t choose this is feel content again. We’re being led by the nose like a ball. If we want to make use of the symmetries of the theory, we have to promote some symmetry to being part of the theory and we have to let it be subjected to dynamical laws. We’re going to lose control over it. But we’re not dead yet, right? We’re fighting for our life to make sure that this trade has some hope. So potentially, by including symmetries as field content, we will have some opportunity To make use of the projection, so for those of you who
so when I was thinking about this, I used to be amazed by ships in bottles, I must confess that I never figured out what the trick was for ships and bottles. But once I saw it, I remember thinking, that’s really clever. So, if you’ve never seen it, you have a ship, which is like a curvature tensor and imagine that the mass is is the Ricci curvature. If you just try to shove it into the bottle, you’re undoubtedly going to snap the mast. So you imagine that you’ve transformed your gauge fields, you’ve kept track of where the Ricci curvature was, you try to push it from one space, like, add value to forms into another space, like add valued one forms where connections live. That’s not a good idea. Instead, what we do is the following Imagine that you’re carrying around group theoretic information, what you do is you do a transformation based on the group theory. So you lower the mast, you push it through the neck, having some string attached to the mast, and then you undo the transformation on the other side. This is exactly what we’re going to hope is going to save us in this bad trade that we’ve made, because we’re going to add fields content that has the ability to lower the mass and bring the mass back up. We’re going to hope to have a theory which is going to create a commutative situation. But then once we’ve had this idea, we start to get a little bolder.
Let’s take about unified content.
We know that we want a space of connections a
for our field theory, but we know because we have a Via connection that this is going to be equal on the nose to add valued one forms as a vector space. The gauge group represents on Add valued one forums. So we also have the gauge group, but we think of that instead as a space of sigma fields. What if we take the semi direct product at a group theoretic level between the two and call this our group of interest? Well, by analogy, we’ve always had a problem with the pawn Caray group being too intrinsically tied to rigid flat Minkowski space. What if we wanted to do quantum field theory in some situation which was more amenable to a curved space situation, it’s possible that we should be basing it around something more akin to the gauge group. And in this case we’re mimicking the construction work see here would be analogous to the Lorentz group fixing a point in Minkowski space and add valued one forms would be analogous to the form momentum. We take in the semi direct product to create the inhomogeneous Lorentz group otherwise known as the Pong Caray group, or rather it’s double cover to allow spin. So we’re going to call this the inhomogeneous gauge group
And this is going to be a really interesting space because it has a couple of properties. One is it has a very interesting subgroup. Now, of course, ah, includes
into g by just including onto the first factor. But in fact, there’s a more interesting homomorphism
brought to you by the levy Chavita connection. So this magic being trade is going to start to enter more and more into our consciousness. If I take an element hmm I map that in the obvious way into the first factor. But I map it
onto the moral Cartoon for I think that’s what I wish I remembered more of the stuff into the second factor. It turns out that this is actually a group homomorphism.
And so we have a non trivial embedding, which is in some sense diagonal between the two factors.
That subgroup we’re going to refer to as the tilted gage group. And now, our field content at least in the bosonic sector is going to be a group manifold an infinite dimensional function spacely group, but a group nonetheless. And we can now look at GE mod, the tilted gauge group And if we have any interesting representation of H, we can form homogeneous vector bundles and work with induced representations and that’s what the fermions are going to be. So the fermions in our theories are going to be h modules. And the idea is that we’re going to work with vector bundles currently of the form
in homogeneous gauge group
producted over the tilted gauge group,
just as in the finite dimensional case, we have a linear and a nonlinear component. right because it topological level this is just a carton party. product. So if we wish to take products of fermions of spin oil fields, we have a place to accept that we can’t figure out necessarily how to map them into the nonlinear sector. But we don’t want to. So just the way when we look at supersymmetry, we can take products of the spin one half fields and map them into the linear sector, we can do the same thing here. So what we’re talking about is something like a super symmetric extension of the inhomogeneous gauge group analogous to Super symmetric extensions of the double cover of the inhomogeneous Lorenz or Pong kreger. Further, because this construction is at the level of groups, we’ve left a slot on the left hand side on which to act. So for example, if we want to take regular representations on the group, we can act by the group G, on the left hand side because we’re allowing the tilt gauge group to act on the right hand side so So it’s perfectly built for representation theory. And if you think back to Wagner’s classification and the concept that a particle should correspond to an irreducible representation of the inhomogeneous gauge group in homogeneous Lorentz group, we may be able to play the same games here up to the issue of infinite dimensionality. So right now our field content is looking pretty good.
It’s looking unified in the sense
that it has an algebraic structure that is not usually enjoyed by field content and the field content from different sectors can interact and know about each other. provided we can drag something of this out of this with meaning.
what would it mean?
To be able to use a gauge group in an intrinsic theory like this? We would be talking about something like an action, let’s say a first order action and it would take the group g
Let’s say to the real numbers
not under the full group, but under the tilted gauge subgroup.
And now the question is, do we have any such actions that are particularly nice? And could we recognize them the way Einstein did by trying to write down not the action, and Hilbert was the first one to write that down, but I, you know, I always feel defensive. Because I think Einstein and Grossman did so much more to begin the theory in that the Lagrangian that got written down was really just an inevitability. So just humor me for this talk and let me call it the Einstein Grossman. Lagrangian. Hilbert certainly done fantastic things and has a lot of credit elsewhere. And he did do it first. But here what we we had was that Einstein thought In terms of the differential of the action, not the action itself. So what we’re looking for is equations of motion, or some field alpha, where alpha belongs to the one forms on the group.
Now in this section of GCU
unified field content is only one part of it, but what we really want
is unified field content plus a toolkit. So we’ve restricted ourselves to one gauge group. This big unitary group on the spinners using whatever sort of inner product naturally exists on the spinners and not spinners value in an auxiliary structure but intrinsic spinners
The toolkit that we have
is that the airdroid bundle
looks like the Clifford algebra
at the level of vector spaces,
which is just looking like the exterior algebra on the primary one.
That means that it’s graded by degrees. Comerica bundle has dimension 14. So there’s a zero part one part a two part all the way up to 14. Plus, we have forms in the manifold. And so the question is, if I want to look at omega i
valued in the Android bundle.
There’s going to be some element
Unknown Speaker 1:36:03
Eric Weinstein 1:36:08
which is pure trace.
Right, because it’s the same representations appearing, where in the usually auxiliary directions as well as the geometric directions. So we get an entire suite of invariants, together with trivially associated invariants that come from using the Hodge star operator on the forum. So I’m just going to call them for completeness. I’m not going to deal with them. Now, this is a tremendous amount of freedom that we’ve just gained. Normally, we keep losing freedom, but this is the first time we actually begin to see that we have a lot of freedom and we’re gonna actually retain some of this freedom through the to the end of the talk. But the idea being that I can now see To define operators,
which correspond to the ship in the bottle problem, I can take field content
epsilon and pi, where epsilon
where these are elements of the inhomogeneous gauge group. In other words, epsilon is a gauge transformation and pi is an is a gauge potential and I can start to define operators
m use. So, in this case
if I have a phi which is one of these invariants in the form piece I can either take a contraction or I can take a wedge product. In the Li algebra piece, I can either take a leap product, or because I’m looking at the unitary group there’s a second possibility which is I can multiply everything by I and go from skew Hermitian to here mission and take a Jordan product using anticodon mutators rather than common data so I actually have a fair amount of freedom. And I’m going to use a magic bracket notation which in whatever situation I’m looking for knows what it wants to be is doesn’t want to do a contraction does wanting to wedge product, lead product, Jordan product, but the point is, I now have a suite of ways of moving forms around. So for example, I can define the share of operator that takes by forms valued in the address bundle.
to much higher degree forms valued in the joint bundle. So, for this in this case, for example, would take a to form to a D minus three plus two or a D minus one form. So, curvature is an add value to form.
And if I had such a shear operator,
it would take add value to forms to add value d minus one forms, which is exactly the right space to be an alpha coming from the derivative of an action. This is exactly what Einstein was doing. He took the curvature which was large, and he bent it back and he sheared off the viol curvature. And they took that part and he pushed it back along the space of metrics to give us something which we nowadays call Ricci flow, an ability for the curvature to direct us To the next structure, what we’re doing the same thing here. We’re taking the curvature and we can now push it back onto the space of connections.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:31
Can you just clarify what the index of the shadow is? So you can take
Eric Weinstein 1:40:41
three plus i.
So in this case, the idea is that we’ve actually got something for our magic beans. We have an ability now to get equations of motion. Which go along the group? In some sense, it’s as if it was a gradient vector field except we’re using forms rather than vectors. But now what are the transformation properties?
Well, because the curvature
So, you have she
because the curvature of the connection hit by a gauge transformation is equal on the nose
to the ad joint action on the Li algebra of the curvature. We know that if we have two possible actions of conjugation under a bracket and the bracket respects the action of the gauge group, we know that this is going to be well preserved. In other words, we’re going to get a form that is gauge invariant relative to the tilted gauge group. And so as a result, we now have the possibility for equations of motion, which are well defined, even though they involve projection operators because we built the symmetries into the theory, and we’re working on a group manifold to begin with. What about the torsion? Can we rescue the torsion? Here again, we have good news. The torsion is problematic. But if I look at a different field, which I’m going to call the augmented torsion, and I define it to be the regular torsion, which would be pi minus
This turns out to be beautifully invariant Yeah.
So neither this term nor this term is gauge invariant, but there they fail to be gauge invariant in exactly the same way. So, an important principle of life, which I took too long to realize is that if you have one disease, you’re in real trouble. But if you have two diseases, you always have the possibility of having one disease kill the other disease. This is true in renormalization theory. It’s true in black shoals theory. It’s true all over the place. So what we have here is we’ve gotten more diseases into the theory, but an even number of diseases allow us to have no disease at all. So now we have two great tensors. We’ve got one tensor coming from the curvature and the operator. We have another tensor coming from the torsion and it’s augmentation.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:56
Nope, we’re doing okay.
Eric Weinstein 1:44:10
Okay, we’re not doing physics yet. We’re just building tools. We’ve built ourselves a little bit of freedom. We have some reprieves, we’ve still got some very big debts to pay back for this magic beans trade, we’re in the wrong dimension. We don’t have good field content. We’re stuck on this one spinner. We built ourselves some projection operators, we picked up some symmetric, nonlinear sigma field. What can we write down in terms of equations of motion?
Let’s start with Einstein’s concept.
If we do she have the curvature tensor
of a gauge potential hit with an operator
defined by the epsilon sigma field.
the star operator acting on the augmented torsion of the pair. This contains all of the information when pi is zero in Einstein’s tensor In other words, there is a spin normal analog of the viol curvature spin normal analog of the traceless Ricci curvature, and it’s the normal analog of the scalar curvature. This operator should shear off the analog of the viol curvature just the way Einstein’s projection shears off the viol curvature when you’re looking at the tangent bundle. And this term, which is now gauge invariant, may be considered as containing a piece that looks like lambda times g mu nu or a cosmological constant and this piece here
can be made to contain a piece
that looks like Einstein’s tensor. And so this looks very much like the vacuum field equations.
We have to add in something else
be a little bit vague because I’m still giving myself some freedom as we write this up.
But we’re going to define whatever tensor we need for this term, these terms here, this is gauge invariant.
This is gauge invariant.
And this is gauge invariant with respect to the tilted gauge group.
These two tensors together should be exact. And this tensor on its own should be exact.
We’re going to call the exact tensor the switcher
So the particular Chev operator we call the swerve, so that’s swerve curvature plus the adjustment needed for exactness. And another gauge invariant term, which is not usually gauge invariant.
So that’s pretty cool.
If that works,
we’ve now taken the Einstein equation. We’ve put it not on the space of metrics, but we’ve put a generalization and an analogue on the space of gauge potentials much more amenable to quantization, with much more algebraic structure and symmetry in the form of the inhomogeneous gauge group. And it’s homogeneous vector bundles, some of which may be super symmetric. Now the question is, we’ve we’ve integrated so tightly with the matter fields, we have to ask ourselves the question can we see unification here?
Let’s define matter content in the form of omega zero tensor in the spinners, which is a fancy way of saying spinners together
with a copy of the one forms tensors in the spinners
let me come up with two other copies
of the same data.
So omega omega d minus one just by duality. So imagine that there’s a Hodge star operator and here’s a little kid I had the so McHugh, I don’t know if you ever played with one of these things are fantastic. And I later found out that this guy who invented the soma cue, which you had to put together pieces, there was one piece that Look like this this object and he was like this amazing guy in the resistance during World War Two. So I would like to name this the somatic complex after I guess his name is Pierre Hein, I think. So this this complex. I’m going to choose to start filling in some operators, the exterior derivative couple to a connection, but on the case of spinners, we’re going to put a slash through it. Let’s make this the identity. We’d now like to come up with a second operator here. And this second operator here should have the property that the complex should be exact and the obstruction to it being a true complex to know potency should be exactly the generalization of the Einstein equations, thus unifying the
spin oreal matter with the intrinsic replacement for the curvature equations,
we know that da composed with itself is going to be the curvature.
We know that we want that to be hit by a shear operator.
And if she does a derivation,
you can start to see that that’s gonna be curvature. So you want something like FA followed by cm over here to cancel, then you think okay, well how am I going to get at getting this augmented torsion and then you realize that the information in the inhomogeneous gauge group you actually have information not for one connection, but for two connections. So in one case,
I can do
plus star to pick up the ace of pi But I’m also going to have a derivative operator if I just do a star operation. So I need another derivative operator to kill it off here. So I’m going to take minus the derivative with respect to the connection H inverse da, not H, which defines a connection one form as well as having the same derivative cup coming from the leverage via connection on you. So in other words, I have two derivative operators here, I have to add valued one forms, the difference between them is going to be of zero with order and it’s going to be precisely the augmented torsion. That’s the same game I’m going to repeat here.
So I’m going to do the same thing here. I’m going to define a bunch of terms Were in the numerator, I’m going to pick up the pie as well as the derivative in the denominator because I have no derivative here, I’m going to pick up this H inverse da, not an H.
I’m going to do that again on the other side.
There are going to be plus and minus signs, but it’s a magic bracket that knows whether or not should be a plus sign or a minus sign. I apologize for that, but I’m not able to keep that straight.
And then there’s going to be one extra term
where all these T’s have the epsilon and pi. Okay, so some crazy series of differential operators on the northern route. So if you take The highroad or you take the low road, when you take the composition of the two, the differential operators fall out, you’re left with an obstruction term that looks like the Einstein field equation.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:24
That’s pretty good. If true.
Eric Weinstein 1:53:29
Can you go farther? Well, look it up close this field content is to the picture from deformation theory that we learned about in low dimensions.
The low dimensional world works by saying that symmetries map to field content,
map to equations, usually in the curvature
and when you linearize that If you’re in low enough dimensions, you have omega zero,
omega one, sometimes omega zero again, and then something that comes from omega two. And if you can get that sequence determinate by looking at something like a half signature theorem or a bent back, DRAM complex, in the case of dimension three, you ever want to singer theory and remember, we need some way to get out of infinite dimensional trouble. Right, you have to have someone to call when things go wrong overseas, and you have to be able to get your way home. And in some sense, we call it a tn singer and say we’re in some infinite dimensional space. Can’t you cut out some finite dimensional problem that we can solve even though we start getting ourselves into serious trouble?
So we’re going to do the same thing down here.
We’re going to have omega zero ad.
Omega one ad,
direct some omega zero ad.
Omega d minus one ad. And it’s almost the same operators.
And this is now not just a great guess. It’s actually the information for the deformation theory of the linearized. replacement of the Einstein field equations. So this is computing the Dirac Zaretsky tangent space, just as if you were doing self dual theory, or chern. Simons theory. You’ve got two symmetric complexes, right? One of them is Bose.
One of them is firming.
The obstruction to both of them is a common generalization of the Einstein field equations. What’s more, is if you if you start to think about this. This is some version of HUDs theory with funky operators. So you can ask yourself What are the harmonic forms in a fractional spin context?
Well, there are different depending upon whether you take the degree zero piece together with the degree two piece or you take the degree one piece, let’s just take the degree one piece,
you get some kind of equation. So I’m gonna decide that I have a zeta field, which is an omega one tensor
spinners and a field new
always strikes me as a Yiddish field.
New is omega zero tensor as, okay.
What equation would they solve if we were doing Hodge theory relative to this complex equation would look something like this.
There’d be one equation that was very simple.
And then there’d be one equation that would be like really hard to guess.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:47
Gosh, no, I hope not screwing this up, but
Eric Weinstein 1:57:59
look All these boards, I still feel like I’m managing to run out of room.
Now if you have something like that, that would be a hell of a Dirac equation. Right? You got differential operators over here. You’ve got differential operators,
I guess I didn’t write them in.
But you would have two differential operators over here. And you’d have this differential operator coming from this more cartoon form. So I apologize, I’m being a little loose here. But the idea is you have two of these terms are zero authority, three of these terms would be first order. And on this side, one term would be first order.
And that’s not there. So that was a mistake.
Oh, no, sorry.
That was a mistake, calling it a mistake. These are two separate equations. Right. So you have two separate fields, nu and zeta. And you have a couple set of differential equations that are playing the role of the direct theory, coming from the Hodge theory of a complex obstruction to being cosmology theory would be the replacement to the Einstein field equations, which would be rendered gauge invariant on a group relative to a tilted subgroup.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:12
Eric Weinstein 2:00:14
What would so now we’ve dealt with two of the three sectors, is there any generalization of the angles equation?
Well, if we were to take the Einstein field equation generalization and take the norm square of it, oh, there’s some point I should make here, just one second. I’ve been treating this as if everything is first order. But what really happens here
is that you’ve got symmetries. You’ve got symmetric field content.
You’ve got ordinary connections.
And we’re neglecting to draw the fact that there have to be equations here to these equations are first order.
So why do we get to call this a first order theory? If there are equations here, which are a second order?
Well, it’s not a pure first order theory. But when I say a first order theory in this context, what I really mean is that the second order equations are completely redundant on the first order equations by virtue of the symmetry principle, that is, any solution of the first order equation should automatically a plot imply a solution of the second order equations. So from that perspective, I can pretend that this isn’t here, because it is sufficient to solve the first order equations.
So I can now look
let’s call that entire replacement.
Which we previously called alpha, I’m gonna set alpha equal to epsilon because I’ve actually been using epsilon. The portion of that is just the first order equations and take the norm square of that, that gives me a new Lagrangian. And if I solve that new Lagrangian, it leads to equations of motion. That look like exactly what we said before.
And it ends up defining an operator that looks something like this. Da star
the Android of the ship operator
So in other words, this piece gives you some portion that looks like right from the servitor tensor, there’s going to be some component that’s playing the role of Einstein’s field equations, directly the Ricci tensor, but generalized and then you’re gonna have some differential operator here. So that the replacement for the Yang Mills term instead of da star of fa, you’ve got these two she have an F she had been an Agilent she had together in the center, generalizing the Yang Mills theory. Then you say, Well, how come we don’t just see the angles theory? Why don’t we see general relativity as well. But in the full expansion, there’s also a term that zero authority that’s effectively acting like the identity, which hits this as well. So you have one piece that looks like the Yang Mills theory. And in the second order equations, you also have a piece that looks like the Einstein theory
and this is in the vacuum. equations.
So then the question is, how do you see the Iraq theory coming out of this? And so what we’re just trying to put together now before we come out with the manuscript for this is putting these two elliptic complexes together, the direct terms go between the two complexes. Right. So the idea is that the stress energy tensor should be the up and back term. And the darracq equations should come out of the term that goes up and over versus the term that goes over and up. And you need some cancellations to make sure that everything is at zero with order properly invariant, etc. And that’s taking a little time because frankly, I’m not good keeping track of indices minus signs left, right. It’s a it’s a learning disabled nightmare.
We’ve got one more unit to go. I mean, there’s a 50 unit that has to do with mathematical applications. But this is sort of a physics talk for today. Is there any questions before we go into the last unit? And then really handle questions for real?
All right, let me show you the next little bit.
We’ve got problems. We’re not in four dimensions, we’re in 14. We don’t have great field content because we’ve just got these unadorned spinners. And we’re doing gauge transformations effectively on the intrinsic geometric quantities, not on some safe auxiliary data. That’s tensor product ID with with what are our spinners are, how is it that we’re going to find anything realistic, and then we have to remember everything we’ve been doing recently has been done on you.
We’ve forgotten about x
How does all of this look to x? So X is sitting down here, and all the action is happening up here on you 14. There’s a projection operator. I’ve used pi twice it’s not here the field contents just projection and I’ve got a sigma which is a section.
What does zeta
pulled back look like annex four right
Okay, let’s try to think about how we would come up with this field content starting from first principles.
Let’s imagine that there’s nothing to begin with.
Then you have one copy of matter, whatever it is that we see in our world, the first generation.
In order for that to become interesting,
it has to have an equation.
So it has to get mapped somewhere.
Then we see the muon and all the rest of the matter that comes with it, we have a second generation. Then in the mid 1970s, Pearl finds the tau particle. And we start to get panicked that we don’t understand what’s going on. One thing we can do is we could move these equations around a little bit and move the equation for the first generation back. And then we could start adding particles. Let’s imagine that we could guess what particles we’d add. We’d add a pseudo generation of 16 particles, spin three halves never before seen, not necessarily super partners, but read a swinger matter with familiar internal quantum numbers that potentially so that their flips, so that matter looks like anti matter to this generation. Then we add, just for the heck of it. 144 spin one half fermions which contain a bunch of particles with familiar quantum numbers, but also some very exotic looking particles that nobody’s ever seen before.
Now we start doing something different.
We make an accusation. One of our generations isn’t a regular generation, it’s an imposter at low energy In a cooled state, potentially It looks just the same as these other generations. But where are we somehow able to turn up the energy? Imagine that it would unify differently with this new matter that we’ve posited rather than simply unifying onto itself. So two of the generations would unify unto themselves, but this third generation would fuse with the new particles that we’ve already added. we consolidate geometrically, we can add some zeroeth order terms. And we imagine that there is an elliptic complex that would govern the state of affairs. We then choose to add some stuff that we can’t see at all it’s dark. In this matter, would be governed by forces that were dark too. There might be dark electromagnetism and dark, strong and dark, weak. It might be that things break in that sector completely differently, and it doesn’t break down to an SU three crisis YouTube You want because these are different su threes, Su twos and new ones. And it may be that there would be like a high energy su five
or some petty Salaam model.
Imagine then the chi reality was not fundamental, but it was emergent that you had some complex. And as long as they were cross terms, these two halves would talk to each other. But if they cross terms went away, the two terms would become decoupled. And just the way we have a left hand and we have a right hand, and you asked me, right, imagine you have a neurological condition, and then all of a sex sort of an idiom. If somebody’s only aware of one side of their body, and they say, Oh, my God, I’m deformed. I’m a symmetric,
right? But we actually have a symmetry between the two things that can’t see each other.
Then we would still have a Cairo world, but the virality wouldn’t be fundamental. There’d be something else keeping the fermions light and that would be the absence of the cross terms. Now if you look at what happens in our replacement for the Einstein field, The equations, the term that would counterbalance the scalar curvature. If you put these equations on a sphere, they wouldn’t be satisfied if the T term had zero expectation value, because there would be non trivial scalar curvature in the current in the servitor terms, but there’d be nothing to counterbalance. So it’s fundamentally the scalar curvature that would coax the valve on the augmented torsion out of the vacuum to have a nonzero level, and if you pumped up that sphere, and it’s smeared out the curvature which you can’t get rid of, because of topological considerations, let’s say from turn a theory, you would have a very diffuse, very small term, and that term would be the term that was playing the role of the cosmological constant. So in a large universe, you’d have a curvature that was spread out, and things would be very light, and things would get very dark due to the absence of curvature linking the sector’s
And that turns out to be exactly our complex.
So in other words, just to recap, starting with nothing other than a four manifold, we built a bundle you
the bundle, you had no metric, but it almost had a metric and had a metric up to a connection. There was another bundle on top of that bundle called the dimeric bundle, the kemetic bundle had an intrinsic metric, we built our spinners on that. We restricted ourselves to those spinners. We moved most of our attention to the emergent metric on you 14, which gave gave us a map between the numeric bundle and the tangent bundle of you 14. We built a tool kit
allowing us to choose symmetric feel content,
to define equations of motion on the cotangent space of that Feel content to form a homogeneous vector bundle with the fermions. To come up with unifications of the Einstein field equations, Yang Mills equations and Dirac equations, we then broke those things apart under decomposition, pulling things back from you 14. And we found a three generation model where nothing has been put in by hand. And we have a 10 dimensional normal component,
which looks like the spin 10 theory.
I can tell you where there are problems in this story. I can tell you that when we move from Euclidean metric to Minkowski metric, we seem to be off by a sign somewhere or I could be mistaken. I could tell you that the propagation in 14 dimensions has to be worked out so that we would be fooled into thinking we were in a four dimensional world. There are lots of things to ask about this theory. But I find it remarkable that tying our hands we find ourselves with new equations unifications in three generations in a way that seems surprisingly rich, certainly unexpected.
And I think I’ll stop there. Thank you very much for your time.
So, thanks for watching that video. But I thought I would do since that was the first time I’d really presented the theory at all in public. And I’d gotten somewhat turned around on my trip to England and trying, probably stupidly to do last minute corrections got me a bit confused in a few places. And I wrote some things on the board I probably shouldn’t have. I thought I would try a partial explainer for technically oriented people so that they’re not mystified by the video and any errors here My own. I’m known to make many. So hopefully they won’t be too serious, but we’ll find out. So this is a supplementary explainer for the geometric unity talk at Oxford that you just saw. First of all, I think the most important thing to begin with is to ask what new hard problems arise when you’re trying to think about a fundamental theory that aren’t found in any earlier theory. Now, every time you have an effective theory, which is a partial theory, there is always the idea that you can have recourse to a lower level strata. So you don’t have to explain in some sense, everything coming from very little or nothing. I think that the really difficult issue that people don’t talk enough about is the problem of the fire that lights itself and I think this was beautifully demonstrated by MC Escher in his famous lithograph drawing hands where he takes the idea Have the canvas or the paper as a given. But somehow, he imagines that the canvas could will into existence, the ink needed to draw the hands that move the pen to draw the hands. That concept is actually the super tricky part, in my opinion about going from effective theories to any attempt at a fundamental theory. So, with that said, what I want to think about is, what antecedents does this concept have in physics and I find that there really aren’t any candidate. Theories of everything are unified field theories that I can find that plausibly give us an idea of how a canvas would will, an entire universe into being. And so, that really, to me is the conceptual problem that I think bedevils this and makes the step quite a bit more difficult than some of the previous technical steps. If you ask for antecedents, however, there is one that at least within physics is relatively famous, and that is by john Archibald Wheeler. And it is a picture in some sense of the universe contemplating itself. And so this idea that somehow the universe would contemplate itself into existence. Maybe the letter U is, in some sense, analogous to the paper, and somehow the eye, rather than the hand, is drawn across to look at a different part of the of the U. and whether or not that has meaning is intrinsically always a question. People are animated by it, but I don’t know that people have actually worked on it. The quote of Einstein’s I think that really speaks to me often the most and maybe even was my thesis problem was, he asked whether the creator had any choice in how the universe was constructed. And so I think if you believe that the canvas is itself the That which generates all of the content and all of the action, you’re you’re left with a puzzle as to how would you move forward from this, it might be easier in a mathematical sense to temporarily put the shoe on its back to put it more in line with a standard picture that many mathematicians and physicists will be familiar with. In sector one of the geometric unity theory, space time is replaced and recovered by the observers contemplating itself. And so there are several sectors of GPU and I wanted to go through at least four of them.
In Einstein space time, we have not only four degrees of freedom, but also a space time metric representing rulers and protractors. If we’re going to replace that it’s very tricky because it’s almost impossible to think about what would be underneath Einstein’s theory. Now, there’s a huge problem in the spin oriel sector, which I don’t know why more people don’t worry about, which is that spinners aren’t defined for representations of the double cover of GL four are the general linear groups, effective spin analog. And as such, if we imagine that we will one day quantize gravity, we will lose our definition not of the electrons, but let’s say of the medium in which the electrons operate. That is, there will be no spin oriel bundle until we have an observation of a metric. So one thing we can do is to take a manifold x d as the starting point and see if we can create an entire universe from no other data and not even with a metric. So since we don’t choose a metric, what we instead do is to work over the space of all possible point wise metrics. So not quite in The Fineman sense, but in the sense that we will work over a bundle that is a quite larger, quite a bit larger dimension. So for example, if x was four dimensional, therefore d equals four, then y in this case would be d squared, which would be 16 plus three d, which would be 12, making 28 divided by two which would be 14. So, in other words, a four dimensional universe or sorry a four dimensional space time not a space time, but a proto space time with no metric would give rise to a 14 dimensional observers portion called why now, I believe that in the lecture in Oxford, I called that you so I’m sorry for the confusion but of course, this shifts around every time I take it out of the garage. And that’s one of the problems with working on a theory in solitude for many years. So we have to seven It spaces and we have fields on the two spaces. Now what I’m going to do is I’m going to refer to fields on the x D space by Hebrew letters. So instead of g mu nu for a metric I just wrote gimel meme noon. And the idea being that I want to separate Latin and Greek fields on the whitespace from the rather rarer field that actually lived directly on x. So this is a little bit confusing. One way of thinking about it is to think of the obser verse as the stands plus the pitch in a stadium. I think I may have said that in the in the lecture, but this is what replaces the questions of where and when, in the newspaper story that is a fundamental theory, where and when correspond to space and time who and what correspond to bosons and fermions. And how and why correspond to equations and the legroom. And that generates them. So if you think about those six quantities, you’ll realize that that’s really what the content of a fundamental theory is assuming that it can be quantized properly. Most fields, and in this case, we’re going to call the collection of two tuples omega. So inside of omega, that will be the first tuple. We’ll have epsilon and pi written in sort of a non traditional variation of how we write this symbol for pi. In the second tuple, we’ll have the letters, nu and zeta, and I would like them not to move because they honor particular people who are important. So most fields, in this case, omega are dancing on y, which was called you in the lecture, unfortunately, but they’re observed via pullback as if they lived on X. In other words, if you’re sitting in the stands, you might feel that you’re actually literally on the pitch, even though that’s not true. So what we’ve done is we’ve taken the U of Wheeler, we’ve put it on its back and created a W structure. And the W structure is meant to say that there’s a bundle on top of a bundle. Again, geometric unity is more flexible than this. But I wanted to make the most concrete approach to this possible for at least this introduction.
In sometimes we don’t, we don’t need to state that y would in fact be a bundle. You could be an immersion of x into any old manifold, but I’d like to go with the most ambitious version of G u first. So the two projection maps are pi two and pi one. And what we’re going to say up top is that we’re going to have a symbol z, and an action of a group row on z standing in for any bundle associated to the principle bundle, which is generated as the unitary bundle of the spin of the spinners on the chi Merrick tangent bundle to y. That’s a bit of a mouthful, but the key issue was that on the manifold why they’re happening tends to be a bundle which is isomorphic non canonically to the tangent bundle of y, which has a definite and canonical metric. And in fact, there that carries the spinners. So this is the way in which we get spinners without ever having to choose a metric. But we pick up some technical debt to use the computer science concept by actually having to now work on two different spaces x and y. And we’re not really working on x anymore. This leads to the Mark of Zorro. That is, we know that whenever we have a metric by the fundamental theorem of Romani and geometry, we always get a connection. It happens, however, that what is missing to turn the canonical bundle on y into the tangent bundle of y is in fact a connection on the Space X. So there is one way in which we’ve reversed the fundamental theorem of Romani and geometry where connection on x leads to a metric On y. So if we do the full transmission mechanism out gimbal on x leads to alpha sub gimbal for the levy Chavita connection on X, alpha sub gimbal live leads to g sub alpha, which is or sorry, g sub alpha. I’m not used to using Hebrew in math. So g sub Aleph then is a metric on y and that creates a levee Chavita connection of the metric on the space y as well, which then be induces one on the spin Nouriel bundles. In sector two, the inhomogeneous gauge group on y replaces the ponk array group and the internal symmetries that are found on x. And in fact, you use a thermionic extension of the inhomogeneous gauge group to replace the super symmetric punker a group and that would be with field content. Zero forms tensors and spinner tensors with spinners direct sum one forms tensor, two spinners all up on y as the thermionic field content. So that gets rid of the biggest problem, because the internal symmetry group is what causes the failure I think of supersymmetric particles to be seen in nature, which is we have two different two different origin stories, which is a little bit like Lilith and Genesis. We can’t easily say we have a unified theory if space time and the SU three causes you to cross you one group that lives on spacetime have different origins and cannot be related. in this situation. We tie our hands and we have no choice over the the group content. So just to fix bundle notation, we let h be the structure group of a bundle piece of h over a base base b, we use PI for the people projection map we’ve reserved the variation in the PI orthography for the field content, and we try to use right principal actions I’m terrible with left and right but we do our best we use h here not g because we want to reserve g for the inhomogeneous extension of H once we move to function spaces. So, with function spaces, we can take the bundle of groups using the address action of H on itself and form the associated bundle and then move to C infinity sections to get the so called gauge group of autumn morphisms. We have a space of connections typically denoted by a and we’re going to promote omega one tensor in the Agilent bundle two notation of script n as the fine group which acts directly On the space of connections.
Now, the inhomogeneous gauge group is formed as the semi direct product of the gauge group of autumn morphisms together with the fine group of translations of the space of connections. And you can see here is a version of an explicit group multiplication rule. I hope I got that one right. And then we have an action of g that is the inhomogeneous gauge group on the space of connections because we have two different ways to act. On connections we can either act by gauge trance transformations or we can act by fine translations. So putting them together gives us something for the inhomogeneous gauge group to do. We then get a bi connection. In other words, because we have two different ways of pushing a connection around. If we have a choice of a base connection, we can push the base connection around in two different According to the portion of it that is coming from the gauge transformations, curly H or the fine translations coming from curly n. We can call this map the by connection which gives us two separate connections for any point in the inhomogeneous gauge group. And we can notice that it can be viewed as a, a section of a bundle over the base space to come when we find an interesting embedding of the gauge group that is not the standard one in the inhomogeneous gauge group. So, our summary diagram looks something like this. Take a look at the tau sub a knot we will find a homomorphism of the gauge group into its inhomogeneous extension that isn’t simply inclusion onto the first factor. We And I’m realizing that I have the wrong pie prediction just be as simple pie projecting down, we have a map from the gate inhomogeneous gauge group via the by connection to a cross a connections cross connections, and that that behaves well according to the difference operator Delta that takes the difference of two connections and gives an honest and valued one Okay, the infinitesimal action of the gauge transformation of a gauge transformation or at least an infinitesimal one on a point inside of the group is given by a somewhat almost familiar expression, which should remind us of how the first term in the gauge deformation complex for self duel Yang Mills actually get started. And so, by acting via this interesting embedding of the inhomogeneous gauge group on sorry, the embedding The gauge group inside it’s inhomogeneous extension but the non trivial one, we get something very close to the original first step of the two step deformation complex. Now, in Sector three, there are payoffs to the magic beans trade. The big issue here is is that we’ve forgotten the privilege of being able to choose and dial in our own field content. And we’ve decided to remain restricted to anything we can generate only from x d, in this case x four. So we generated y 14 from x four, and then we generated Comerica tangent bundles on top of that we built spinners off of the kemetic tangent bundle, and we have not made any other choices. So we’re dealing with I think it’s u 128.
u u two to the seventh.
That is our structure group. And we it’s fixed by the choice of X for not anything else. So what do we get? Well, as promised, there is a tilted homomorphism, which takes the gauge group into its inhomogeneous extension. It acts as inclusion on the first factor, but it uses the leverage of EDA connection to create a second sort of more tan form. I hope I remember the terminology right? It’s been a long time. The map is injective, because it’s injective under the first factor, but it actually gives us a non trivial embedding of the gauge group in its inhomogeneous extension, which makes the whole theory work. We then get to she have operators now a ship operator is a map from the group cross the Add valued I forms. In this case, the particular ship operators were interested in is mapping I form this to d minus three plus II forms. So for example, you would map a to form to D Minus three plus i. So if d for example, were
and I were equal to two, then 14 minus three is equal to 11 plus two is equal to 13. So that would be an add valued 14 minus one form, which is exactly the right place for something to form a current. That is the differential of a Lagrangian on the space. Now, the augmented torsion, the torsion is a very strange object. It’s introduced sort of right at the beginning of learning, differential geometry, but it really doesn’t get used very much. One of the reasons it doesn’t get used engaged theory is that it’s not gauge invariant. It has a gauge invariant piece to it, but then a piece that spoils the gauge invariance, but we because we have two connections, one of the ideas Is was to introduce two diseases and then to take a difference and as long as the disease is the same in both the difference will not have the disease because both diseases are included, but with a minus sign between them. So the augmented torsion is relatively well behaved relative to this particular slanted or tilted embedding of the gauge group and it’s in homogeneous extension. Which This is very nice, because now we actually have a use for the torsion we have an understanding of why it may never have figured particularly into geometry is that you need to have two connections rather than one to see the advantages of torsion at all. So here’s an example of one ship in a bottle operator. I think this would be sort of analogous, if I’m not mistaken, to trying to take the Ricci curvature from the entire Riemann curvature. But if you think about what Einstein did, Einstein had To go further and reduce the Ricci curvature to the scalar curvature, and then sort of dial the components of the traceless Ricci and the scalar curvature to get the right proportions. So there are many ship operators and you have to be very careful about which one you want. And once you know exactly what it is you’re trying to hit, you can choose the shear operator to be bespoke and get the contractions that you need. Now, I’ve I’ve made you guys sit through a lot so I wanted to give you sort of humorously a feeling of positivity for the exhaustion. So the years of anxious searching in the dark with their intense longing, their intense alternations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light only those who have experienced it can understand it. I’ve just always thought this was like the most sensitive and beautiful quote and I wish it were one of their has better now. quotes, but I think it’s so singular that it’s hard to it’s hard to feel what it was that he was talking about, because in fact, he sort of explains this in the last line. So given that you’ve been on a long journey, here is something of what geometric unity equations might look like. So in the first place, you have the swerved curvature that she had applied to the curvature tensor, that in general does not work out to be exact. So you can’t have it as the differential of a Lagrangian. And in fact, when we talk about swirls, swerves, twirls Eddie’s, there has to be a quadratic Eddy tensor that I occasionally forget when I pull this thing out of mothballs. And the two of those together make up what I call the total swerve Archer. And on the other side of the equation, you have the displaced torsion, which I’ve called the dysplasia and to get rid of the pesky sort of minus sign and Hodge star operator This would be the replacement for the Einstein equation not on x where we would perceive it, but on y before being pulled back onto the manifold x. So a condensation of that would be very simple. In simplest terms, we would be saying that the curvature is equal to the, to the dysplasia, at least in this sector of the four main equations of theoretical physics, this would be the replacement for the Einstein equations again on y before being pulled back to x. Next is the sketch of the thermionic field content. Not sure whether that should have been sector four, sector three, but it’s going to be very brief. I showed some pictures during the lecture. And I’m not going to go back through them. But I wanted to just give you an idea of where this mysterious third generation I think comes from.
So if we review the three identities here, we see that if we have a space V thought of like as a tangent bundle, and then you have spinners built on the tangent bundle, when you product tensor product, the tangent bundle with its own spinners, it breaks up into two pieces. One piece is the so called Cartesian product, sort of the sum of the highest weights. And the other is a second copy of the spinners gotten through the Clifford contraction. So that’s well known. But now what I think fewer people know many people know that the spinners have a sort of an exponential property that is the spinners of a direct sum, or the tensor product of the spinners of the two summons of the direct sum. So that’s a very nice sort of version of an exponential and exponential would take a sum and turn it into a product. What happens when you’re trying to think about a tangent space in y being broken up into a tangent space along and immersed x, together with its normal bundle. So imagine that x and y are the tangent space to x and a normal bundle. So the reader swinger piece, that is the spin three halves piece has a funny kind of an almost exponential property. That is the redish swinger content of a direct sum of vector spaces is equal to the redish swinger of the first tensor product ID with the ordinary spinners and the second direct sum with the ordinary spinners in the first tensor product ID with the Ricci with the sorry, the Rita swinger content of the second summon. But then there’s this extra interesting term, which is the spinners on the first summoned tensor product ID with the spinners on the second summit. Now recalling that when I started my career, we did not know that neutrinos were missing. And I figured that they probably had to be massive, because I desperately wanted a 16 dimensional space of internal quantum numbers not 15 because my, my ideas only work if the space of internal quantum numbers is a dimension two to the N, and one of my favorite equations at the time was 15 equals two to the fourth. Not literally true, but almost true. And thankfully in the late 1990s, the case for 16 particles in a generation was strengthened when neutrinos were found to have mass, but that remaining term in the south east corner, the spinners annex tensor spinners and why looks like the term above it in line 2.15 and that, in fact, is the third generation of matter in my opinion, that is, it is not a true generation. It is broken off and would unify very differently if we were able to heat the universe to the proper temperature. So, starting to sum up, this is not the full theory, I’m just presenting this in part to dip my toe back into the water. It’s a daunting task to try to address people about something you’ve been thinking about for a long time and have no idea whether it’s even remotely correct. This is the Einstein replacement, and it must be pulled back to x. That’s the first thing the Yang Mills Maxwell piece comes from a direct square of the Einstein replacement. That is, I don’t believe that we’re really looking for a unifying equation, I think we’re looking for a unifying direct square direct famously took the square root of the client Gordon equation, and he gave us the Dirac equation. And in fact, I believe that the Dirac equation and the Einstein equation are to be augmented and fit into the square root part of a direct square. And I believe that the Yang Mills content and Higgs version of the Klein Gordon equation would go in the square part of the direct square. So two of these equations unified differently than two others, and the two pairs are unified in the content of a direct square.
The direct piece will be done separately elsewhere when I get around to it, and contains the redish swinger field content, which is fundamental and new. There are only two generations in this model. I think people have accepted that there are three but I don’t believe that there are three I think that there are two and that the third unifies with other matter at higher energies. The quartic Higgs piece comes from the direct squaring of a quadratic remember there’s a an eddy tensor, which is quadratic in the augmented torsion. The metric does multiple duties. Here is it’s the main field in this version of GPU with the sort of strongest assumptions as field content on that is originally on x, where as most of the rest of the field content is on y but it also acts as the observer pulling back the full content of y on to x to be interpreted as if it came from x all along generating the internal the the sort of illusion of internal quantum numbers. And I should say that the putty Salaam theory which is usually advertised as think su for cross su two cross su two is really much more naturally spin six cross spin for when the trace portion of the space of metrics is put in with the proper sign. If you’re trying to generate the sector that begins as x one comma three, remember x d, where x where d equals four is the generic situation, but you have all these different sectors. I believe that these sectors probably exist if this model is correct, but we are trapped In the one three sectors, so you have to figure out what the implications are for pushing that indefinite signature up into an indefinite signature on the Y manifold. And there are signatures that make it look like the party Salaam rather than directly in the spin 10 su five line of thinking. So we will attempt to present the full theory shortly. And shortly Keep in mind, this took seven years to just bring me to want to come back to this, but it must be reassembled from decades of notes. And that’s part of the problem when you’re working alone and you’re not really expecting to talk to anybody. So I want to thank you for your patience and your time. And I just want to read a bunch of names that people who matter to me and if I’ve done anything wrong, this is not no reflection on them. Marcus DeSoto Peter teal, Isidore singer robot, Michael Grossberg, Adil Abdul Ali Heron, Sophie Rubin, Brett Weinstein and family, Heather hiding and Zach and Toby. Fried Scott Axelrod, Nima Our Connie Ahmed Luis Alvarez, Gumby Edward Frankel. drawer barn Aton. Shlomo Sternberg, David Carr, JD on Daniel barkay Karen and les Weinstein, Haynes Miller, Ralph Comrie, john Tate, Sidney Coleman, Graham Siegel, Robert Herman inherent Esther Malani. errors and omissions because I’ve too many people to think are are all my own as for the claims that should reflect badly on no one else other than myself. And most especially, I just want to say that I’ve asked a tremendous amount from my family to stick with me on this quixotic quest. I want to thank Pete Kalani, nyla Weinstein and Zeb Weinstein. I love you all very much and thank you for making this possible. I do want to leave you with one thought. I really think that we’ve gotten completely bent out of shape about trying to Fort formalize and routinized science and it doesn’t work. You cannot mandate sciences, social engineering, you can’t decide that science is always in the Zeitgeist and done by committee. In fact, it is essential to understand that science will not conform to what you want. One of the things that I, I’m very proud of, I think is quite true. Is the saying that great science has the scientific method as its Radio Edit. I don’t think that great science is actually done the way we say it’s done. And I think the direct 1963 Scientific American article should be read by absolutely, absolutely everyone. Every time major theories have come out, they’ve almost always been wrong. But they’re not wrong in an important way. And I think that we have to fix the Political Economy of people racing to correct theories or point out that there is no agreement with the experiment. We are killing many of our best ideas by creating a terrible combative environment, which already attempts to apportion credit for work and more importantly risk
undertaken by individuals. And I just think that I want people to understand that I’ve always wanted to share this. But I, I detest the culture that I saw that cropped up around what is now become known as the cyber Whitney equations. When they were put forward, there was a period of time where I watched people as if it a feeding trough, trying to stay up around the clock to use a new machine tool that had been given to them to claim credit, and it profoundly pushed me away from the community. We have to become more ethical, and we have to honor the people who are trying to speak and act imaginatively. Now, if this doesn’t work, if it’s silly, I’ll have egg on my face and I’ll go on I’ll be fine. But I’m very worried. That maybe that some of the best ideas are between the ears of people without the confidence and the hutzpah and just the sort of almost psychotic drive, to push things across the finishing line. We’ve got to be kinder and nicer and more decent and stop stealing people’s lives, their credit their future, and their ability to have families and make a living. And that’s absolutely essential to me. And I look forward to finding out whether this theory has merit to it or is without merit. But I guarantee that if I’m going to go down with the ship, I’m also not going to be knocked off the ship as I was many years ago, completely unfairly, and I won’t dwell on it. But the amount of power you professors have is absolutely almost without parallel because nobody really understands enough to adjudicate disputes that happen in academics. I’m going to insist that we fund you better and that you are nicer. To the people who depend upon you in this beautiful chain that we call science, scientific method, and most particularly American science, which I think is still the envy of the world. So you’ve been through the portal. I know it was a long slog. I hope you found it interesting and enjoyable. And we’ll see you again soon. Be well, everybody, stay safe.
The Portal podcast transcription series
- Peter Thiel
- What is The Portal?
- Werner Herzog
- Timur Kuran
- Rabbi David Wolpe
- Jocko Willink
- Bret Easton Ellis
- Andrew Yang
- Bryan Callen
- Julie Lindahl
- Sam Harris
- Vitalik Buterin
- Garry Kasparov
- London Tsai
- Garrett Lisi
- Tyler Cowen
- Anna Khachiyan
- Eric Weinstein – State of the Portal 2020
- Bret Weinstein
- Sir Roger Penrose
- Ashley Mathews (Riley Reid)
- Ben Greenfield
- Agnes Callard
- Kai Lenny
- The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
Geometric Unity – a First Look
- James O’Keefe
- Daniel Schmachtenberger
- Eric Lewis
- Jamie Metzl
- Ross Douthat
- Ryan Holiday