Testing Eric Weinstein's and Stephen Wolfram's Theories of Everything | Ethan Siegel & Tim Nguyen

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel and mathematician and AI researcher Timothy Nguyen discuss theories of everything: what form they should have and how they are to be evaluated and tested in the real world. This is in part inspired from the recent proposals by Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, both of which Brian Keating has professed interest in experimentally testing at UC San Diego. Also discussed is the obligation that those proposing scientific theories have towards holding their work to the scrutiny of the scientific community. This sheds light on the controversy behind the Weinstein-Keating Geometric Unity research program over the pseudonymity of Theo Polya.

#theoryofeverything #physics #mathematics #ericweinstein #wolfram

00:00 : Introduction
00:27 : Brian Keating's testing of theories of everything
04:14 : Three challenges for any theory of everything
08:18 : Encouragement to pursue theories of everything
11:06 : Losing the Nobel Prize lessons, Geometric Unity, the Theo Polya controversy, Lex Fridman
13:33 : Are there any circumstances in which a scientist should ignore feedback?
19:25 : You need to do the hard work of trying to knock down your own theory
21:28 : Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology
22:48 : Kepler as a scientific role model
28:27 : Responsibly accepting feedback
29:45 : Brian Keating on the how the scientific process works and Ethan's thoughts

Background Material:

Brian Keating on experimental tests of Theories of Everything:

Brian Keating plans on re-enacting the Shelter Island Conference to study Geometric Unity (Lex Fridman):

Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity paper:

Stephen Wolfram's Theory of Everything:

Timothy Nguyen & Theo Polya. A Response to Geometric Unity:

Twitter:
@iamtimnguyen

Webpage:

[winstonsmith]

" I don't care how beautiful your theory is, or how many letters you have after your name. If it doesn't match with reality, it's wrong." Richard Feynman.

[mementomori]

Timothy, I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your voice on these topics. As a layman, it’d be hard for me to access these kinds of conversations anywhere else. Please keep doing these.

[robocop]

I do wonder of it is fair to put Weinstein and Wolfram in the same category. Weinsten has a youtube lecture, and a unpublished paper on his theory. He unvieled his theory on the Joe Rogen podcast for god sakes.

Wolfram on the other hand is actually producing work that other scientist can engange with. He has published work on his theory. The physicists that he collaberates with on his theory are actively publishing work in real journals.

Are wolframs claims overblown? Perhaps. But i dont think it is fair to group them together like this.

[GeekFurious]

Lex Fridman watched this and probably put Ethan on "never invite this guy" list because he wouldn't kowtow to Lex's disposition.

[soothingunboxing]

feels like im watching a cut scene from red alert yuri's revenge

[torlachrush]

Wow! The claim in the last two minutes of this piece does not bode well for Keating's reputation.

[xplorerF]

Your channel is brilliant, keep it up and may the algorithm be with you

[panstromek]

The gesture work is absolutely fascinating here

[lopezb]

Fascinating discussion. A very sensible and balanced point of view.

[ctr]

I would like to see an open discussion with the other people's work thats under critique.
Not confrontationally, just to see how they respond to the challenges that are posed. We don't see enough open discussions of conflicting scientific theories.

[evanbailey]

Would be amazing to see @TimothyNguyen talk with Jonathan Gorard regarding the Wolfram project - though that seems like it could get lost in the maths weeds very quickly

[snarkyboojum]

It’d be great to speak with someone knowledgeable about the theories in question. Siegel obviously isn’t and is very open about not knowing much (if anything) about either theory.. Siegel makes good general points about testability but his points are well understood by anyone with a high school education and would certainly be well understood by both Wolfram and Weinstein ;) The issue is Siegel doesn’t really say anything that isn’t obvious here. He’s arguing passionately for something everyone agrees with. It’d be great to hear a conversation with someone with some real insights into either theory.

[kvaka]

The question about "what is worthwhile to pursue" is not just a subjective issue of personal preference. It is also often ideological and political. But more importantly, pursuit of ideas requires funding. And in case of theoretical physics, lots of funding. This is a limited resource, and if someone convinces lots of other people to find their own pet project, then this takes away funding from other ideas. This is arguably what happened with string theory.

So this matters.

[kiwanoish]

5:20 Does "The New Kind of Science" really explain or describe his theory at all though? I've also read it and it's beautiful but way more of an esoteric exploration of cellular automata than a theory. The book that, at least presumably (I haven't read it), describes the theory is: "A Project To Find The Fundamental Theory Of Physics" (2020).

[joshsimpson]

The horseshoe magnet beard (thats how I interpret it) gives your guest 50 more credibility points

[daltanionwaves]

Oh so Keating and Eric are both hacks... I'm a huge fan of them both, with all their quirks. But it's strange how someone like Penrose can explain complex theories, with difficult aspects of math, but Eric won't explain his theory at all. And yet he still talks about it, and acts like someone else should verify it.

[draziraphale]

Wait, did he state the 4 forces at the beginning and say gravity instead of electromagnetism?

[bobw]

This layperson enjoyed Cycles of Time by Penrose because it exposed me to many ideas. To be fair to Penrose, he repeatedly refers to CCC as highly speculative. Even if unproven CCC reflects an imaginative synthesis of foundational physics.

[charlesprabakar]

Interesting podcast testing Wolfram and Weinstein’s TOEs using 3 yardstick questions. Speaking of which, how about I throw our firm’s i-TOE into the mix for you both to comment on?

First if I may recap the 3 yardsticks

1. How does the your TOE reproduce both GR and SM plus more?

2. How does your TOE explain/solve an unsolved problem by other theories?

3. How does your TOE stack up against other theories from the standpoint of predictive powers?

Assuming I have gotten the gist of your 3 yardsticks — how about I start with an overview of our i-TOE first?


Our i-TOE is the only theory that has resolved the #1 unresolved question of SM I.e. relationship between perturbation results obtained in the continuum formulation of QED and non perturbation results obtained from the continuum limit of the lattice formulation of QCD, especially as the coupling constant is sent to zero?

what do I mean by that?


Under our theory, the quantum spectrum of our Universe (modeled by Riemann zeta function by imagining it as the Riemann sphere) gets renormalized with the value of α (n-> α or 137), in such a way that the zeros of zeta function(including their moments) end up following the eigenvalue statistical gaps of gaussian/hermitian random matrices. This eigen-valued gaussian path is what ends up branching into two independent Brownian motion paths with an exponential Gaussian distribution of FHK Conjecture (by converging with an universality/gaussian decay), before branching again like the Ramanujan graphs with knots of algebraic L-functions whose coefficients & roots, reflecting the periodicity of the GR-Eigen-valued actions of our TOE, using 10+ meta dualities as explained below


In other words, our causal lattice set is a discrete set of causal lattice events (of classical reality), that get birthed again and again using a deterministically ordered birthing/regulating process function(called as “golden ratio Φ dimension of our CPT(α, Φ) function” driven becoming), that is sourced from a continuous/symmetrical quantum reality, using a generating process function (called as FSC-α dimension of our CPT(α, Φ) function” driven being)


Turns out, our theory also happens to get realized using the very same CPT(α, Φ) function driven 5 step scaling process (with this in-built “spacetime lattice“ generating/regulating function called CPT(α, Φ) function aka our firm's Riemann hypothesis meta proof), , using the following 5 scaling steps — which we call as 5 Shakespearean play-scaling steps”. These 5 steps in a way provides a better overview as well.





Our i-TOE's 5 such Shakespearean play-scaling steps vis-a-vis 5 scaling steps of IAS


IAS High-bar 1:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an observation or nature based scale-correlation function, capable of both generating and measuring observables with a certain precision, by resolving the so-called measurement/scaling problem of both periodic fluctuations & early inflations, by re-scaling it automatically.

Our Shakespearean play-scaling Exposition 1:
The wave function (aka Hartle-Hawking wave function in steroids) of our i-TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used nature's one such inbuilt “symmetry generating scaling function called CPT(α, Φ) function" to model both fluctuations & inflations. More specifically, it has been developed by leveraging our UNIVERSALITY META-SCALING-PROOF of Riemann Hypothesis(including all $5MM+ unsolved problems of Clay Institute), in such a way to scale/rescale the periodicity of both fluctuations and inflations(aka fluctuations in steroids) by expositioning/birthing their equivalent symmetrical dipoles(manifesting as Higgs + 68 particle+ 68 anti-particle symmetrical particle pairs, as modeled further by 2 spinors of Dirac eqn). For example, this idea of modeling these symmetries using 2 spinors in the complex plane is what gives rise to symplectic hodge geometry lattices in 3 and 4 dimensional classical hyperbolic cylinders of the projected plane.


IAS High-bar 2:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must be able to discretize spacetime by renormalizing the RG flow with an action formula for all particles (especially asymmetrical/anti commuting fermions) with a time-like holographic interpretation.

Our Shakespearean play-scaling Rising Action 2.
Again, our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same CPT(α, Φ) function as the “symmetry breaking CPT(α, Φ) function scaler”, by limiting the ∞-raised pole of Riemann sphere to a compact P-region, while simultaneously renormalizing the ∞ values of e with α, so that its position can be rotated as e^i137nπ Spin-Frequency (S-F) matched cycles unitarily. In other words, this S-F matching phenomena is what breaks the symmetry by shifting the center of mass of each particle by their respective “radius scaled α” so that their symmetry can be broken to create both classical mass and motion for every 1 out of 137(n) cycles in time dimension (and yet by preserving the conservation of CPT theorem).



IAS High-bar 3:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have a scaling/rescaling/limiting parameter for periodic action for lattice geometry, using a Fourier transformed action for both dS and AdS spaces with the opposite signs [I-ds(g) = - I-Ads(g)].

Our Shakespearean play-scaling Climax 3.
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high- bar as well, as we've used the very same Fourier transformed CPT(α, Φ) function scaler, to sustain the action with an “α fine-tuned e and π driven action”(thanks to our additional framing of α as HV/Maxwell daemon/AoC), so that the coefficients & roots of their equivalent algebraic modular forming L-functions can model the periodicity of their GR-Eigen-valued actions via 10+ meta dualities.


IAS High-bar 4:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have measurement algorithms by modeling the curvature of spacetime in proportion to both fluctuations & inflations i.e. ψ ~ e^- δN with an exponent of 10^120 or 10^10) in such a way that gravity can emerge from it

Our Shakespearean play-scaling Falling Action 4.
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE has exceeded this high-bar using its “Dice-rolling CPT(α, Φ) function scaler”, by slicing/squeezing the infinite slices (ψ ~ e^- δN) of quantum sphere in the form of one or four ellipsoid slices (as per the Descartes kissing circle geometry and α=r/R logic) into an exact radiused symplectic/asymmetric taurusized hodge geometry lattices of classical hyperbolic cylinder of the projected plane(aka Hilbert’s countable infinity hotel as per Banach-Tarski & Russell's paradox) so that they can orbit smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion with a curvature proportional to both fluctuations & inflations. This is where we have also additionally hypothesized/predicted that this gravitational motion can be modeled both by semi classical Einstein field equations and/or by our Hodge conjecture meta proof logic.



IAS High-bar 5:
For any quantum gravity theory to be a TOE caliber theory, it must have an inbuilt statistical QM measurement system (for various scales) whose Hilbert space dimension must be able to model geometric dualities as per the static patch holographic principle, so that we can the measures accordingly.

Our Shakespearean play-scaling Resolution 5 :
Our wave function of our LQFT/TOE again has exceeded this high-bar, as we've used the very same “classical reality generating CPT(α, Φ) function scaler”, to resolve the dualities of the static patch holographic principle by projecting the Riemannian sphere as a Lie-grouped classical sphere with 10+ meta dualities as visually depicted in the attached exhibit.



That said, this precisely is why, we have also scaled 5 AITGE origins of our TOE (i.e. RH sourced the Action generator of the Lie group as Action, Inertia, Time. Gravity and Entropy) with these 5 ingredients of CPT(α, Φ) function scaler in such a way to answer the top 3 paradigm shifting questions you had alluded (plus few more as well)

That said, let us start with these 3 questions with a hope they will also answer all the other paradigm shifting unsolved problems like the Riemann hypothesis (including 5+ Clay institute problems), as our TOE’s new paradigm is anchored on our CPT meta proof of Riemann hypothesis including $5+MM CI problems) only!

[mkaeterna]

5 minutes in and this guy is saying he knows Wolframs theory because he read "A New Kind of Science"... A book that came out 20 years before Wolfram's current theory of fundamental physics. Absurd.