Geometric Unity Explained in less than 10 minutes

In this audio I break down the basics and the main things you need to know about Eric Weinstien's Geometric Unity

[filmmakerdanielclements]

Nothing captivates like a blank screen explanation of the most complication theory in existence, accompanied by the nerve jangling, sporadic chirping of a smoke detector that jolts intermittently throughout...

[newpriester]

Some say his smoke detector still needs a new battery to this day….

[mikedanner]

I just wrote to my senator. It should be illegal to publish recordings with smoke detectors beeping in the background. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[Explainmerandom]

Sorry about there being no pictures xD (I got lazy)
I figured sharing it would be more helpful than nothing
In short what I say is the following
In the standard model you have nested circle groups called Lie groups at each point in spacetime. Since the most basic particles have no actual size, they are just forces of charge, color, spin, and mass, at that point.
In GR you are talking about how matter bends space, and how bends in space cause matter to move.

Geometric unity tries to create a universe that has these components from scratch, to try to imagine how it could evolve from "simpler" math ideas. So it uses two floppy spacetimes (spacetimes not defined by the metrics that are used in general relativity) and they can create these nested circle groups. Then to retrieve equations of motion, you take a slice of these floppy space times, and it gives you the rigid measures of the spacetime we observe.

The implication here, is that spacetime as Einstien described it, isn't the FOUNDATION of the universe, but rather it is a result of two protospacetimes interacting, and they create the properties of matter at each point in spacetime at the same time they create spacetime.

It kind of means that, matter is connected to "more spacetimes" outside of the one we observe. Or in essence we have a "blindspot" in observing other spacetime variants that are actually forming the properties of matter.

Think of it spacetime is actually more ten dimensional outside of our reference frame, because it has two floppy prospacetimes interacting. And this causes matter to be the way it is. But we only SEE the four dimensions we do because that is the plane we are on.

I personally like to think of it like "the first plane" is the one we observe, like a slide in a microscope. And "the second plane" is the one that acts on matter's properties (the quantum world), and it is ouside of the slide of the microscope. But one can imply from the properties of the quantum world that it might be built from a "simple" geometry of two protospacetimes interacting.

His theory is hard to explain because most people aren't aware of how the standard model works. Or how math is about transformations mostly, and charting numbers across different transformations. Basically, weinstien has juggled a ton of ideas at once, to try to draw a solid through line in the math, so that you can imply certain things about our universe.

I feel like people have trouble understanding it because he's really just talking common sense, but in a context virtually no one is familiar in. And it creates a juxtaposition where you think "wait this isn't common sense" but also "this isn't completely rigorous!". The "lack of rigor" is that he basically conjectures that a SIMPLE mathematical origin, if simple enough, is probably correct. So like occams razor. But at the same time he threw everything in the air and chucked away all assumptions (which is cool as hell), and this makes it not look simple from OUR perspective (but not from the math).
So he is kind of implying, there are a class of simple geometric combinations that can explain our best theories and cause them to evolve.

If you think about it scientifically you'd need to study all classes of these, but since he is overwhelmed by the theory enough as it is, he can't rigorously define all those class geometries that evolve into the major physics theories we have. So kind of just says "its probably this one with the two floppy space times cuz its just absurdly minimalist, and requires very little to get started".

I personally study social sciences and it works similarly (as you have two reference frames that change a lot internally, and they interact in ways that become more defined externally, while remaining highly subjective internally).
So for example, two people always have a difference in how they view a topic, and by viewing that topic differently, you can look at it from 3 points of view. If you favor the first person's perspective then the second person is exaggerating some factor in the context, if you favor the second person's perspective then the first person is exaggerating the inverse, and if you take the middle ground then each person has an opinion without exaggeration, but by the differences being additive then the reference frame causes the appearance of exaggeration when you favor one side.

That is the simplest way of showing external coherence in a situation that is highly subjectively juxtaposed. But in geometric unity, the juxtaposition is between spacetime and quantum physics (the properties of matter). The juxtaposition leads you to think that space is STRAIGHT and that quantum physics is all bend up. But the reality is that spacetime is actually more bent up than you think, and the quantum world is actually much more natural than you think.

Everything is then thusly more "grey" and not easy to define, and you have many classes for how these behaviours can be made coherent, but thats life. I think Weinstiens big point is that you need to anchor your investigation of reality here, so that you don't "favor a side". So it is his attempt to be objective, and I actually agree with it, not personally, but mathematically it seems pretty solid. I actually think of it a bit like Kepler's understanding of orbital mechanics. He had a simple idea that got us close to orbital mechanics but not there. Same thing here. I've learned quite a bit from unravelling his theory.

More recently I've been understanding the implications of spin on his theory, and well... Its quite elegant, because two interacting manifolds can certainly represent spin really well. So at first glance it checks out. There is a guy complaining about the shiab operator, but essentially that is like a math student looking at a theory they don't understand and saying "but teacher! I can't monkey this equation without the explicit rule here!".

I think the rules will need to be defined, and thusly the shiab. Because there are a couple of things that need to match up for this particular geometry to work without any contradictions. But its not a huge problem in the big scheme of things (even tho it could torpedo this geometry, another can take its place, or be altered to fit). I think also it is a mistake to oversimplify a theory in order to refine it to be more palatable. Dirac did that, and it turned out he was INITIALLY more correct than anyone knew.

So yeah, I hope this helps explain it, but its actually seemingly pretty hard to describe even when you understand it pretty well xD

[felcat]

I just walked around my whole house looking for the faulty smoke detector

[PiEndsWith]

This is the best 10, 000ft explanation on YouTube! Great work man

[cbcandoit]

Very cool explanations. I grasped much more about things I barely understand. This was was well worth the listen! More please!

[jammasound]

Awesome explanation, I finally understood it just enough. Very ambitious.

[superlumina]

This definitely would benefit from some visuals but I appreciate it nonetheless.

[HooniCoonCustoms]

I could have said all of this in a matter of a few sentences..

"So Forgetting the current results of our standard space and time equations, imagine that there are two general relativity equations. Now imagine there are two space-time equations. Now imagine that the results of these equations expand and contract between each other in equal and opposite ways forming an imaginary infinite symbolic geometry of results in our current 3 dimensions, and linear time, adding the complexity or dual times giving time the ability to occupy a 3rd dimension or direction. With this in mind, an example of geometric unity would be that our existence can now occupy 3 dimensions of time with only linear space, or you can now have it as simple as only linear space and time or an infiitesimal number of complexities. So, if our current universe as we know it wasn't complex enough, now imagine that it is identical in every way, except that, time is now a cube with an occupancy of not only start and finish, but also depth within time's linear view from all angles.


Or if ya wanna go even simpler so it's even more difficult to comprehend than we both have now made it..

Imagine that general relativity and space time equations have an evile identical twin. And in this existence the answers given by these equations are no longer constant and predictable, but offer any and all answers all the time. Now picture time as a line starting at one point and ending in another, and at any point along that line, you decide to get perspective and realize that that line has depth at any point along it's linear existence from every angle.. TooooDaaaahhh!!! We have now imagined Geometric Unity, or as I like to call it. Unfathomable Universe.. or Double You.. Pahahaha

[tinytim]

Thanks for sharing! It stands to reason that the subject I gave the least amount of attention will unlock the mysteries of the Universe. “Back to the ‘ol drawing board”.

[Palau_Legend]

I get out of the shower and my gf says… turn everything off. I say, “why?” She responds, “there’s a chirping noise that keeps going off and I want to know if it’s that (points with her fingers) fire alarm 😂

[vovasensei]

Thanks for the audio. Is it a basketball player screeching the floors in the background?

[PicturesJester]

For those unpleasently surprised or unsatisfied with this explanation - this theory of Eric's is non-explanatory. Notice that there is never a word given to what these space times represent in the world. All Eric does is match those spacetime with Einstein's spacetime as being in the same category of mathematical structure, but, unlike Einstein, he never explains why that mathematical structure exists in our universe instead of other ones. All he can do is pick out a structure that computes the same predictions as the standard model and spacetime physics, and even that is to be seen.

So it's normal you don't understand the theory if you think it's a theory of physics and expect it to let you understand something about the world you didn't already.

[flikitisideways]

it took me a while to find this video cuz all youtube showed me was drama, thanks for explaining it without pictures btw your laziness payed out id say cuz im a dummy, you throw some colors on this carnival and im higher than a mouse on an elephant level douse of LSD

[BboyKeny]

How I kind of visualise this theory is an attempt to follow the trend of Newton into Einstein. Which was to introduce the idea of curvature.

Since the underlying geometry of the Standard Model and General Relativity are different. This might be due to curvature of the bigger structure that produce these different geometries.

He then wants to use these 2 points on the structure to find out the shape of the underlying structure of the universe.

Which would I'm guessing unlock our understanding of finding new theories, maybe? I'm thinking of how to create stable version of certain heavier element and new elements.

If his theory is proven to be correct then it would mean you could arrive at all proven theories with this one. It would just be a matter of plotting it into the shape.

I get why he describes it as a way to discover the source code of reality.

[SOJACjac]

based on the chirp, hes invited to the cook out

[KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology

Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second.
Compactification CREATES limits.
They don't have to exist. And yet we seem stuck with lambda and event horizon.
As per limit theorem there is closure and the closure is at the limits. The limits connect.
This is renormalization.
And at the macro scale this is the flow of gravity.
From minima to maxima.
Void to event horizon and then
Neutron hits surface, takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest energy density point of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate.
Neutron out in deep void
Decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup, Dark matter.
The decay from neutron 0.6fm3 to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵.
Expansion
Dark energy

Then it stabilizes and falls towards an event horizon.

Loop.

Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable

[FractalGearFieldTheory]

Nested topologies? That sounds fractal, as in fractal gear field theory and not multidimensional at all

[StudioSquires]

Nope. If you can’t change the batteries in your smoke detector I can’t take you seriously. I’m out.