Eric Weinstein and Sean Carroll battle it out on Piers Morgan

[Carl-Richard]

The only word I can use to describe this is "Kuhnian theater" :

 

Edited May 25 by Carl-Richard

[kavaris]

yeaa, i did see it. its kindve an awkward thing to watch, they on two different pages, and no one else is professional math+physics expertise ppl, but if there is, they are likely much more intrigued by it nd can confirm those chiral this that nd SU2 × SU2 × U1

p.s. theres a new lecture out w eric goin over geometric unity.

but, i get the sense sean carol is more about beautfuly reciting his quantum physics lessons, nd eric is horrible at explainin this new generation of whatever the fk that it is to be the new way of thinking about math and physics, but again, you gotta b up on that stuff to follow it anyway.

Edited May 25 by kavaris

[kavaris]

heres the new lecture, but again, you gtta have a strong backround in tlkin bout those like... gauge invariance and tensors as they are used in physics nd, u know, all that stuff-since hes drawing parallels between like, "heres wat it was, but heres wat it is".

p.s. the furthest in math i got was S(2) tlkin bout a 2-sphere (which is like a ball—but unit quaternions are themselves in 4 dimensions, so they are describing the exact points on a 3-sphere S(3) which youll have to look up ...) but SU(2) to illustrate something is tlkin bout special unitary group of degree 2

SU(2) is a Lie group, isomorphic to the group of unit quaternions, so you are working with quaternions nd the realm of physics, and topological space that have specific parameters... stuff like that

Edited May 25 by kavaris

[kavaris]

Okay im learning more about the geometry of this thing... alas, theres alot going on with the simple idea of a fiber bundle w/ the structure (S(1) —> S(3) —> S(2)) ), ... And, im skipping over everything to ask what we mean by saying: each point on S(2) corresponding to a "circle" (S(1)) in —> S(3) in the Hopf fibration ((S(3) —> S(2))

note: im also not looking at any of the math/physics areas, as i only know about a very small part of the traditional math story part of it u might say...

1. Pick any point (p) on the 2 sphere (S(2))
2. Look at ALL the points in S(3) that the Hopf-map sends to that particular point (p)

Those points form a complete circle (S(1)) sitting inside (S(3))

This means S(3)) is "foliated" by circles - it's completely filled up by non-intersecting circles, and each circle corresponds to exactly one point on S(2)...
"Foliated" means that a space is partitioned into disjoint subspaces (called "leaves") of the same dimension, and this partition has a smooth, regular structure.
--------------
So we have to talk about something very math theoretic, where a foliation of dimension k on an n-dimensional manifold M is a partition of M into k-dimensional submanifolds (the leaves) such that:

Each point has a neighborhood that looks like a "product" of a k-dimensional piece (the leaf direction) and an (n-k)-dimensional piece (the "transverse" direction) -Transverse direction refers to directions that are perpendicular or complementary to the foliation leaves.

The partition varies smoothly from place to place

So when we say S(3) is "foliated by circles," we mean: (1) Every point in S(3) belongs to exactly one circle. These circles are the 1-dimensional leaves. Locally, the structure looks like S(1) × R(2) (or, circle × 2D transverse space, or a subspace that intersects the foliation leaves transversally (perpendicularly))

The Hopf map π: S(3) → S(2) essentially "projects out" the circular direction, leaving just the transverse S(2) base.

You know what it makes me think of is like, those like "growing circles" of equal shape and size, i wanna say its a scene in the matrix or something... but i also wonder if we are suppose to imagine that, these things are all moving, so the instance ((S(3) —> S(2)) is growing equally, and moving equally.

Talking to ClaudeAI, it adds, "Yes. And this dynamic view is closer to how the Hopf fibration appears in physics (like in quantum mechanics with spin states) - as its not standing still, but is flowing geometry where the bundle structure evolves coherently through time"...

Edited May 25 by kavaris

[kavaris]

... is math discovered or invented....

For Plato, the physical world is just an imperfect "shadow" of this mathematical reality. A circle drawn in sand is a flawed copy of the perfect Form of Circle. Mathematicians don't create mathematical truths - they uncover pre-existing relationships in this realm of Forms.

Aristotle took a more empirical view - mathematics is abstracted from physical experience, but he's less clear on whether it's purely invented or discovered. He believed mathematical concepts arise when we notice patterns and relationships in the physical world, then strip away the material aspects to focus on pure form and quantity.

For Aristotle, there's no separate realm of mathematical Forms. Instead mathematical objects are abstractions from sensible objects. When we see many triangular things and abstract the concept of triangle, we're doing something that's part discovery (the patterns exist in nature) and part invention (the pure abstraction is our mental construction - conceptual space)

To me, they are both speaking on two different things, one is about the nature of the circular form (the nature of reality at that) or the perfect circle becoming this flawed copy, and the other is speaking on the process of abstraction, and how to navigate the space of thinking about these things, which is where we get more rigorous and inventive ideas coming out of... But you need to be asking those Plato questions too, because that is sometimes where you get a different understanding of the fundamentals, if you can straddle that line of assessing reality and math at the same time.

Edited May 26 by kavaris

[kavaris]

The relationship between SU(2) and SO(4) is captured by the double cover....

^so i found some really weird sht goin on with this idea starting w.. S(3) —> S(2), and then you begin asking questions, nd find out that there are like, perfect configuration spaces for what im calling, perfect relationships, and perfect identity, where S(2) is itself representative of the viewer (a single dot is the point on the sphere which is closest to the viewer—granted the sphere could have multiple circles at every point if it wanted, but ignore that for now) viewing the space of all possible  S(2)'s (multiple 3D things)

... you can take the questions further thereafter.

[Leo Gura]

Weinstein has this narcissistic victim complex. Cringe to watch.

His theory is half-baked. That's why academics don't take it seriously.

You don't use Peirs Morgan and Joe Rogan to prove your theory to a bunch of YT fools. You write better papers. But Weinstein craves that YT attention juice.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

His theory is half-baked. That's why academics don't take it seriously.

I don't claim to know either way.

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't claim to know either way.

Weinstein has published 1 half-baked paper in his entire academic career, yet he wants to be taken seriously by academia. That is delusion.

He has not bothered to put in the effort to properly explain, develop, and test his own theory. Then he whines how academics are corrupt and don't take him seriously.

Academics are corrupt but Weinstein is more corrupt.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Weinstein has published 1 half-baked paper in his entire academic career, yet he wants to be taken seriously by academia. That is delusion.

He has not bothered to put in the effort to properly explain, develop, and test his own theory. Then he whines how academics are corrupt and don't take him seriously.

Academics are corrupt but Weinstein is more corrupt.

I get that feeling as well sometimes, but irrespective of the soundness of his theory, his observations on the sociology of physics and string theory and all that could be sound. It's not just him who has proposals for a ToE outside string theory.