Difference between revisions of "A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look"

A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look (view source)

Revision as of 22:31, 7 April 2020

68 bytes added , 22:31, 7 April 2020

no edit summary

Argyris

55

edits

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 <p>[00:23:24] Perhaps there are only two. Even though physicists tell us that there are at least three or perhaps more. I believe that physics tells us that the universe is [[chiral]] that is left, right asymmetric, but the theory is itself not chiral. Instead, it chooses to present a different idea, which is that perhaps chirality is emergent much the way our hands are individually left, right asymmetric as our pinky is not a reflection of our thumb, but the thumb on each hand is a pairing to the other one. As is 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 parity or the chirality.
-<p>[00:24:06] Um, rather it would break the chirality and restore parity between these two halves the matter we see and the matter that is missing. There are a good number of other things that happened in the theory. It replaces space time with what I've termed an observerse. Now an observerse is an unusual gadget in that it's thought of as two separate places where physics takes place connected by a map.
+<p>[00:24:06] Um, rather it would break the chirality and restore parity between these two halves the matter we see and the matter that is missing. There are a good number of other things that happened in the theory. It replaces space time with what I've termed an [[observerse]]. Now an observerse is an unusual gadget in that it's thought of as two separate places where physics takes place connected by a map.
 <p>[00:24:32] That means effectively that we are in something like a stadium where there is, there are stands and there is a pitch and 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 observerse.
@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 <p>[00:28:06] And 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, um, to provide those equations from a different source.
-<p>[00:28:33] There's something called Seiberg–Witten theory, which I have no claim on it. But the actual equations that are called Seiberg–Witten equations came originally as an outgrowth from investigations of this theory. So at a bare minimum, the Seiberg–Witten 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.
+<p>[00:28:33] There's something called [[Seiberg–Witten theory]], which I have no claim on it. But the actual equations that are called Seiberg–Witten equations came originally as an outgrowth from investigations of this theory. So at a bare minimum, the Seiberg–Witten 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.
 <p>[00:29:01] 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.
@@ Line 169: / Line 169: @@
 <p>[00:31:49] What I hope to show you is a lecture that was the first of three versions of this lecture that were delivered in Oxford, uh, 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, um, an opportunity to fight another day.
-<p>[00:32:15] And some of the most important of those people, one of whom occurs on this video, um, is Marcus du Sautoy. 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.
+<p>[00:32:15] And some of the most important of those people, one of whom occurs on this video, um, is [[Marcus du Sautoy]]. 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.
-<p>[00:32:34] I also want to thank Isadore Singer for effectively saving me from not getting a PhD, by I think putting pressure on the Harvard department and, um, for coming to my assistance, making sure that I got a postdoc at MIT. Uh, despite not having any publications at all, I'd like to think Raoul Bott, who's no longer with us.
+<p>[00:32:34] I also want to thank [[Isadore Singer]] for effectively saving me from not getting a PhD, by I think putting pressure on the Harvard department and, um, for coming to my assistance, making sure that I got a postdoc at MIT. Uh, despite not having any publications at all, I'd like to think Raoul Bott, who's no longer with us.
 <p>[00:32:56] 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 the department that probably just wanted to see me gone. I'd like to thank Peter Thiel. Uh, one of my closest friends is like a brother to me for allowing me these seven years since this lecture, to lick my wounds, to get strong, to have a 401k, to buy a house.
@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 <p>[00:35:09] Be well.
-<p>[00:35:23] <span style="color:#fa8a3b;">'''Marcus du Sautoy: '''</span>[00:35:23] Well, welcome to this special Simonyi lecture and my name Marcus du Sautoy. I'm a professor of mathematics here and the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. And Charles Simonyi prepared a manifesto when he endowed this chair to guide the holder of the professorship in their mission.
+<p>[00:35:23] <span style="color:#fa8a3b;">'''Marcus du Sautoy: '''</span>[00:35:23] Well, welcome to this special [[Simonyi lecture]] and my name Marcus du Sautoy. I'm a professor of mathematics here and the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. And [[Charles Simonyi]] prepared a manifesto when he endowed this chair to guide the holder of the professorship in their mission.
 <p>[00:35:40] 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 the Simonyi professor that I would like to introduce today's Simonyi 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 at a bar in New York.
@@ Line 197: / Line 197: @@
 <p>[00:37:51] <span style="color:#de2898;">'''Eric Weinstein: '''</span>[00:37:51] So it's, well, uh, it's a great pleasure to be here in Oxford, uh, for those of you who are not aware. Mmm. It is possible that no other university in the world has kept so tightly. Uh, and kept the faith for so long with, uh, 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.
-<p>[00:38:16] And the names that are associated with Oxford that, uh, weigh heavy on me are Atiyah, Penrose, Segal, Woodhouse, Hitchin. It's a very long list of people who. Uh, even when fashion, uh, did not hold those ideas in favor, uh, always kept the faith that there was much to be learned from the geometric perspective on physics.
+<p>[00:38:16] And the names that are associated with Oxford that, uh, weigh heavy on me are [[Atiyah]], [[Penrose]], [[Segal]], [[Woodhouse]], [[Hitchin]]. It's a very long list of people who. Uh, even when fashion, uh, did not hold those ideas in favor, uh, always kept the faith that there was much to be learned from the geometric perspective on physics.
 <p>[00:38:38] Of course, unified field theory in some sense, acquired a stigma with Einstein's failure to find it in the sense that even someone like Einstein, uh, being tempted by the siren song of geometry, uh, 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 quest to quantize general relativity and gravity.
@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 <p>[00:41:41] So in that spirit, let us begin.
-<p>[00:41:47] What is physics to physicists today? How do they see it different from the way in which we might imagine the lay person 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.
+<p>[00:41:47] What is physics to physicists today? How do they see it different from the way in which we might imagine the lay person 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.
-<p>[00:42:13] 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-Riemannian 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 head room. The equation most associated with this is the Einstein field equation.
+<p>[00:42:13] 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-Riemannian]] [[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 head room. The equation most associated with this is the [[Einstein field equation]].
 <p>[00:43:12] And of course I'm running into the margin. Okay.
-<p>[00:43:18] So it says that a piece of the Riemann curvature tensor or the Ricci tensor minus an even smaller piece, the scalar curvature multiplied by the metric is equal plus the cosmological constant is equal to some amount of matter and energy, the stress energy tensor. So it's intrinsically a curvature equation.
+<p>[00:43:18] So it says that a piece of the [[Riemann curvature tensor]] or the Ricci tensor minus an even smaller piece, the scalar curvature multiplied by the metric is equal plus the cosmological constant is equal to some amount of matter and energy, the stress energy tensor. So it's intrinsically a curvature equation.
 <p>[00:43:47] The second fundamental insight, I'm going to begin to start drawing pictures here as well.