Terrence Howard and Eric Weinstein clash over radical physics theories on The Joe Rogan Experience, with Howard proposing geometric models—like the Tetritarian and Huntean shapes—to unify electromagnetism, gravity, and dark matter, claiming they resolve inconsistencies (e.g., "1×1=2" as a metaphor for wave conjugation). Weinstein counters with rigorous critiques: Howard’s musical sonification of elements relies on outdated data (e.g., 40.5 Hz vs. mercury’s 40.5 MHz), his linchpin geometry mirrors flawed string theory analogies, and peer review is dismissed despite systemic biases. Both agree academia’s specialization stifles innovation but debate whether Howard’s self-taught patents or Rogan’s platform can bridge gaps—ultimately, Weinstein warns against unchecked claims without expert collaboration. [Automatically generated summary]
So I'm a PhD in mathematics, specifically in mathematical physics.
I've had positions in economics, mathematics, and physics departments at places like MIT, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard, after my doctorate, Oxford.
Terrence, I think, I heard him on TMZ. I was not looking for a debate.
I wanted to make sure that Terrence had his position steel-manned so that anything that he didn't know how to do within mathematics that was legit gave a chance to put his best foot forward before he got, like, reviewed.
And I didn't ask to come on.
You asked to have me on.
I'm happy to do it because I'm a friend of the show.
Well, you reached out about the episode specifically, and I felt like if anybody could talk to Terrence and actually understand what they're talking about...
Yeah, and after I watched the interview with you and Brian Keating, I realized that you weren't trying to eviscerate me or anything like that.
You actually wanted to hear a well-put-together argument concerning these things.
So I appreciated you taking the time to come and examine these things and love to hear your stuff.
stuff, but I wanted to say thank you to you, Joe, and for putting me on the show initially and for your audience, for how they responded and, you know, the support and the people that were against it, because it raises the idea of critical thinking, because that's what we're supposed to be doing at this crucial time is the critical because that's what we're supposed to be doing at this crucial So I thank all the haters and I thank all the supporters and I thank the people that's on the fence.
And I'm hoping that today we can move people over to one side or the other.
Well, what I thought is, I have to be honest, I've been listening, I was not so happy with certain things that happened in the podcast, and then I started hearing the response to it.
And I was much more infuriated by the response than anything I heard in the podcast because I thought that a lot of people just used their position of greater formal education in some of these areas to be jerks and to be really dismissive and pretend that they couldn't understand things that you were saying.
And it's always with a pretend smile on the face, so it's the worst.
And what I thought...
I would do is I can't critique a man if I haven't built a model of what he's actually saying in my own mind that he agrees with.
In other words, if I start coming after Terence and saying, I think this stuff here is bullshit, and he's like, I didn't say that, that's what you inferred from what I wrote, then I've just basically insulted a person incorrectly.
And if I praise something, I don't know whether I built that in my mind or he built it.
The first thing I thought we would do Is I would try to recapitulate what I understand of Terence's sort of grand arc and see whether or not I can steel man it and then Terence can say yes and then I can evaluate it but until we do that I don't know whether I'm actually reacting to the real man.
I think that's really important and what you said about the viciousness of academics.
I think that's just a human thing that exists at the highest levels where people are doing something very difficult and there's a lot of stress and anxiety involved.
And you attack even your peers because your biggest fear is your peers attacking you.
And usually generally it happens with people that are getting more recognition than someone who someone who thinks they should be getting more Think deserve like someone thinks they should be getting more recognition.
They see someone getting recognition Especially for something that perhaps could be controversial and then they start attacking them viciously But it's generally people that wish they got more attention.
It's part of the thing sure it If you think about the number of people in podcasting who sort of have tried to lift each other up, It's pretty good, right?
Like you, Lex, Sam Harris, all sorts of people have been good to each other.
And one of the reasons that is is that there's enough money in it.
What happened in academics is that it went into a contractive state in which you killed or you died, right?
And so basically the ethics of academics plummeted after the early 70s.
It was always very competitive.
But really what it is is it's the Hunger Games.
And in acting, for example, if there's money among the elite set, people have trouble with each other.
Same thing in tech.
They kind of fight each other, but they all get rich together, and then they bury hatchets and things like that.
You don't see that as much in academics because it's kill or be killed.
And so we've had an implosion ethically.
And so one of the things that I wanted to do...
Was to try to just begin by steel manning because I've been really disappointed in a lot of the critique that Terence has experienced.
The funny thing is the scientists that attacked, most of them was upset that I got into their lane and climbed into their lane talking about science, but here they're not inside a lab somewhere.
They're not in Cambridge or Oxford somewhere.
They're on Social media.
They're on the entertainment world, and I've never sat up and said, oh, you're full of this because you have no business doing this.
But they got upset that I'm talking about the foundational problems associated with mathematics that's held us back.
But I think if people really care about these ideas though, what they should do is talk about the ideas.
It's the personal attacks that are attached to the ideas by people that want to be taken seriously.
It fucks the whole thing up.
Because like either you're correct or you're incorrect.
Tell me what you think is right and then you tell me what you think is right.
Let's work this out.
But this personal attack shit If you're talking about something as complex as the things that you discussed on this podcast, there's no room for bullshit.
I want to offer to you, I want to be able to show you the things that I tried to show Neil deGrasse Tyson that he would not even really take a look at.
And I believe that, but if you've got 97, 98 patents and four supersymmetrical systems that you're claiming you have, and all you need is someone to review them.
Because Neil's a complicated guy, and part of what's going on is that there's a problem in general, which we scientists do not behave honestly with respect to certain things.
We'll make these claims, but...
Science is about communication and challenging ideas and all these things, and everybody can be a scientist, and all these sorts of things that we say.
Science is interesting.
Science is fun.
Well, very often it's not interesting.
Very often it's not fun.
Very often you can't really say that everybody can do science because it's super demanding.
We don't welcome people.
You know, you're a mathematician, too.
We'll say that to kids, and then the kid will say something, and then we'll say, be quiet.
And so what...
This is not peculiar to Neil.
It's like science in general has portrayed itself as a place where everyone's welcome.
We debate out the ideas.
We have the scientific method to tell us what's true and what isn't.
And that's disingenuous.
It's not really how the game works.
And this is going to involve peer review.
It's going to involve people who are It's a dual in terms of both doing research and being public figures.
People who are public figures who we think of as researchers who aren't really doing much research.
People who are pushing crazy agendas in public without a recognition that their colleagues don't think much of what they're doing.
I mean, this is a very complicated story that Terence has walked into.
And I have to think about my colleagues, and I have to think about how they hear things, what they will say.
And so I am in part speaking to your audience, but I'm also partially speaking to a thousand people who are seeing this at a different level.
But just for the record, like I said, I grew up watching Neil and having someone that was light-skinned, that looked like me, up there making these grand steps towards helping people to understand.
I admire him.
And I still would like the opportunity to sit down and show him these things and have that beer because I think that he will be pleased once he sees the supersymmetry associated with it and understand where all of the passion came from.
And I hope that other scientists will take a look at it, but that's the whole point of us doing this.
No, and what he forgot is when I say 1 times 1 equals 2, that's a metaphor for challenging the status quo.
Despite the fact that the square root of 2 has all of its issues, when you cube it or you multiply it by 2, which creates a contradiction, despite the fact that the square root of 2 has a problem with the prime numbers,
the fact that they call number 2 a prime number, When it's clearly a composite number, any other prime number, and I'll jump into this, any prime number that you subtract from another prime number, you always get a composite number, except with the situation of the number two.
And there's so many people that, and that's why the prime numbers are unpredictable, because of that problem associated.
Because in part of what you're saying, the prime two, it does belong as a prime, but it is also special.
And in other words, I have the opportunity to strawman you if I want to, because what you just said sounded crazy.
And I also have the problem...
Possibility to steal Man U. So all the algebraic topologists who just heard, you know, for characteristic not equals to two, they're like saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fair.
And so in part, by just jumping into the middle of this, we don't have the benefit of putting your best foot forward because, you know, if you say one times one equals two, everybody knows that that's crazy.
But what you actually may mean and the fact that you don't use certain terms or the fact that you use certain pronunciations that communicate to me something very positive, which is that you taught yourself.
You learn the stuff from reading about it because nobody taught you or you wouldn't pronounce certain words the way you pronounce them.
So, you know, in part, you always have the ability to make fun of somebody who pronounces a word the way it's read on the page.
And then you also have the opportunity to say, holy cow, that guy actually taught himself.
That's more impressive.
So, in part, what I want to do is I want to start by giving you your best foot forward and see if I even understood what you said when you went into this whole Flower of Life riff that becomes your larger theory.
And the only way I know how to do this is to see whether or not I actually grasped it.
Terrence has several influences, which, again, I don't think it's clear to me.
I have to ask him questions to find out whether I'm even right.
Look, one of the problems is, is I may be wrong about my model of Terrence.
This is the first time I'm meeting him.
I didn't know who he was before the podcast.
And...
I need to know whether or not I'm even building the right model of Terence, because otherwise it's just silly to have me here, and I'm going to critique what I built in my own mind from Terence's words.
He's saying things that are often at a level that are allegorical, and you could make them – so Terence sometimes mentions something called category theory, right?
And there's a weird way in which category theory can take something that seems to be an analogy.
And make it precise and powerful, right?
So you can have two systems that don't look the same and you spot an analogy between them and then you say, holy cow, there's an exact mapping of one system onto another in which it was unexpected that those are the same structure.
So for example, We're going to get into something about multiplication, where Terence has an issue with multiplication.
But to the best of my knowledge, you don't have an issue with addition.
We do do things where sometimes we can divide by zero.
We have concepts like the pointed infinity where you can complete a structure.
The original structure can't accommodate an operation, but you can complete it to a larger system in which that thing does become sensible.
As an example of the 1 times 1, assume that Terence doesn't have a big problem with addition because addition doesn't have the division by zero problem.
It is the case that if you take any two numbers, A and B, two real numbers, right?
Make them positive.
And take the natural logs of those two numbers and add those together.
The exponential of the ln of A plus ln of B. That is equal to A times B. In other words, addition and multiplication are what we would say is isomorphic, or an ordinary person would say exactly the same thing.
So in other words, if you don't allow me multiplication, but you allow me, because you like waves, so with waves you need exponentials and you need natural logarithms, there's no way of changing the law of multiplication and accepting the law of addition because they're the same system.
Well, the precise statement would be that the positive real numbers under multiplication, with the identity element being the multiplicative identity, being one, are isomorphic to the total real numbers Under addition, with the additive identity being zero.
And the natural logarithm and exponential are group homomorphisms that connect the two with one being the other's inverse.
So by the principle of explosion, the reason that people are in part going to freak out about your stuff is that we have a vulnerability.
And that vulnerability says that from a single contradiction, if you can sneak one contradiction through TSA, The entire airport collapses.
Everything that we do just is destroyed.
And so the idea is that the security on mathematics and physics and physical sciences is extraordinary.
For outside ideas, because the first contradiction in the unity of knowledge destroys all of it.
If you've ever seen one of these warehouse racking collapses, where some forklift guy hits some strut and the entire warehouse goes, that's what you're dealing with with the principle of explosion.
And that's the problems with the identity principle that they've been trying to work on for years.
For years.
Norman J. Wildberger talks about it.
It is what's...
Because you have to cancel conservation of energy, and you have to cancel the action and reactionary laws in order for one times one.
Now, I understand.
You're seeing one, one time.
But because of the associative law, the associative law that says if A and B are both positive integers, then A is to be added to itself in multiplication.
A is to be added to itself as many units as is indicated by B. Well, hang on there.
We can get into seniorage, which is the concept of theft that occurs when either the Fed or a counterfeiter creates more script, thereby devaluing Increasing the unit, the number of units that are in circulation decreases the value per unit.
But my claim is, you're going to do a series of things.
Like, I've watched how you deal with people in interaction.
So I think the way I came to understand what you're doing, because it's confusing.
Right?
And the one thing I can't go with you on is I can't go on the Nantucket sleigh ride where we're talking about the Bose-Einstein condensate and then we're talking about the period.
So the way I understand it, because I didn't know anything...
I've seen this pattern before, didn't know its history.
I know you can sort of construct it with ruler and compass, which is sort of a mathematical thing about what you can and can't construct with two simple instruments.
But what these overlapping circles are is a question.
And the way in which I got to understand how Terence sees the world is he says, look, there's this very old pattern that's distributed all over the world.
And there isn't a great explanation for why it's found in so many different places, at least as far as I'm aware and part of your point.
And so I think you took a sort of Straussian approach to this by saying, I bet that this thing is hiding a secret.
And that the reason that this is widely distributed is that it's cryptic.
There's something that has to be understood that is not on the surface.
And then you said something that's very reminiscent of Plato's cave, which is that maybe this is like a shadow on a flat wall and that those two things are exploitable.
And so the idea that this is occurring in a surface Is, first of all, suspicious to you because of that curved linear triangle that you see in black.
And so you said, I wonder if, you know, people always say, as above, so below, but what if you said, as below, so above, and you imagine that there was a three-dimensional structure floating above this that actually projects down to this and distorts down to this?
So that's the first idea.
The first idea is it's not this, it's the thing that projected to this.
And that's what you mean when you say opening the flower.
But what they did years ago, 6,000 years ago, was draw straight lines where the circles overlapped.
And I thought, in what I was reasoning with regard to all energy being expressed in motion, all motion being expressed in waves, all waves being curved, and that there were no straight lines in the universe.
If I have a weight on a spring, which is sort of the quintessential, people don't know this, but most of physics comes out of the system represented by a weight on a spring.
So the simple harmonic oscillator is the heart of all physics, even the most theoretical physics.
It's a very strange thing, Hooke's Law.
When that weight is going up and down, if the spring is frictionless, Energy is conserved.
Now, at the top and at the bottom, that weight is not moving because all of the energy is in the potential of the spring.
I had to run it by you, because you're probably the only one that I know, other than maybe Terrence, that could understand what the fuck they're saying.
High-dimensional bifoton states are promising resources for quantum applications ranging from high-dimensional quantum communications to quantum imaging.
Just that phrase, what fucking percentage of human beings breathing on Earth right now have any idea what any of that means?
I imagine that you have a state in a bosonic fox space, which is multi-particle.
So you've got something in the degree two level of a bosonic fox space where the two photons were created together.
And that's going to be where the entanglement comes from.
High dimensional, I don't know what it means because I know too many different, I assume it's a term of art in this area.
And what they're saying is if I can create something that is geographical, Geographically distributed, but also linked at the point of creation.
Like if a photon decays into an electron-positron pair, those two are going to be entangled.
And if you make a measurement in a quantum sense of one, you seal the fate of the entire system.
And so what they're trying to say is, if you want to get jiggy, people always want to talk about faster-than-light communications by taking an entangled...
Pair and saying that if I do something in one place, I know what happens outside of my light cone.
So we can give meaning to these things.
Then you have to say, well, it doesn't allow you to create information transfer faster than the speed of light.
You have to be very careful and precise about it.
But if you just start getting jiggy, then you start thinking...
No, but that medium, that luminiferous medium, ether, that Maxwell wrote all of his equations off of, Newton believed that light was propagated on that same medium.
The only reason that special relativity came along was because they couldn't, they had misread the results from the Michelson-Morley experiment because it did show a slight change or some drag, but they, from that point on, because Einstein's theory of from that point on, because Einstein's theory of relativity was so easy and it predicted all of the movements of things, it did, they allowed, they abandoned.
They had a bad idea of what the ether was going to be.
Because they thought it was still.
Yeah, in a certain sense.
And what you are trying to say, the way I interpret it, again, and I don't know if I'm right if we don't do the work, is, hey, the spiritual successor to the idea of the ether exists.
Oh, but before you go from that other spot, if you look at that picture again of those two photons interacting, it looks like it's at the center of what would typically be a whirlpool.
This is like the very center of a whirlpool.
So they've got them moving right by each other or in creating that vortices.
That natural vortices.
That's what they took the picture of.
They looked directly down at two lights moving a fluid.
Jamie, go back to where it was, where they were explaining what they used.
Here it is.
Here we introduce bifoton digital holography.
In analogy to off-axis digital holography where we coincidence, imaging of the superposition of an unknown state with a reference state is used to perform quantum state tomography.
See, but that's because of the uncertainty and Schrodinger, all of that.
But if you were able...
Because they started off trying to predict an electron cloud and find a little particle inside of it and couldn't predict it, so all these uncertainties and probabilities came out, but they were doing things on a two-dimensional basis.
That's what I believe that I've figured out with the wave conjugations, because they show the pieces of hyperbolic space to where you don't have to go through all these unnecessary steps to reach it.
Is like how we assemble a picture of you when we do an NMR or a CAT scan.
We have this thing called the radon transform where we send waves through your body and then we assemble a picture of what's inside your body, reconstructing it based on sending probes in and measuring how the system responds.
We could get through this, but I can tell you that I can't read this instantly.
That would take me 15 minutes with looking things up.
I was just going to say, it's just an unbelievably fascinating time that we can actually look at these quantum entangled photons like that and just see it.
Look, right now we're in a crisis where no one knows what's true.
Nobody knows who's full of shit.
Nobody knows where they can trust, you know, what they can trust, who they can trust.
And one of the things that actually, you know, moved me to come and to reach out to Joe is that by default, I think, you know, I've addressed the National Academy of Sciences four times, I think, because they were lying and I caught them.
And so they wanted to know how much I knew about their lie.
It's weird to think that this little studio, in a weird way, is one of the rivals of universities when we don't know what's going on at Harvard.
As you recently seen, we don't kick out plagiarists.
We don't check what's going on at the National Institute of Health.
And so it's very strange that this table is one of the last things that is trusted by many people.
And that's one of the reasons I'm here, which is people have a chance to see people in conversation about things.
And, you know, you screw up, but the conversation's recorded and we all go on and people have a chance to see what's coming out.
If we can go back to the flower of life, I can try to...
Because the one times one, when I say the one times one, but like I said, that was a metaphor to say something's wrong, something's wrong, but they know something's wrong with the math.
Renormalization theory is a way of saying we know that we're working with math that's wrong and on the other hand we have a way of working with math that's wrong even though we know it's wrong.
If you have an error of a particular kind and you can find an expression with the same error That's different in the denominator.
Sometimes you can cancel the part that's wrong because you introduced it twice.
So introducing two problems is better than having only one problem because you have the opportunity to have one problem kill another.
Is there a potential future where human beings, through whatever means, develop a superior method of mathematics that doesn't have a problem with the number two?
That doesn't have all these issues that we're talking about.
And by doing the Nantucket sleigh ride, you lose everybody like me because nobody thinks it's real.
And what parts of it are real and what parts of it are wrong and what parts can be improved and what parts should be improved and how important it is is never going to get adjudicated.
One was named Derek DeSola Price, and the other was Richard Feynman.
And they were obsessed with it.
And it turned out that that thing completely rewrote our understanding of how much ancient wisdom and knowledge there was because this was a mechanical calculator for understanding the positions of celestial objects far more advanced than we had any idea was possible.
So if you want an analogy, in part, I'm trying to steel man you.
This is when they still believed in the Ptolemaic example of the world, but this doesn't seem to follow Ptolemaic equations, those 39 equations from now.
That's one of the reasons I believe that we listen to people who have things to say.
So if we go back to the flower of life.
So Terence has a couple of ideas, one of which is this is the shadow, another of which is that once you go into higher dimensions, you should be thinking of these curved linear structures, and then instead of focusing on the spheres, You should focus on the areas in between, the voids.
And in crystallography, you might call this the interstitial, the interstitial voids.
So there's several ideas that this confused, by the way, Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he said, I don't know where these shapes come from, but they are beautiful.
That was like the faint praise that he ends his critique with.
So what Terence is doing here...
Is he saying, look, the circles are cross-sections of spheres, and the spheres have to be placed in very precise places to generate what Terence is going to start talking about as wave conjugations.
And he has different ways that spheres run into each other.
Then he says something very cryptic, where he says, if you drop a...
Pebble.
...in the center of a spherical lake...
Circularly symmetric-like.
The wave will radiate out until it hits the wall, the shore, and then it will radiate back.
And so he's talking about this, and he says wave conjugations, and wave conjugation didn't call up anything directly when I heard him say it.
The conjugate wave coming back, if you do something like a garden hose that's affixed to the wall, it'll hit the wall and come back or something.
So what Terence is talking about...
Is the idea, and you could do this, where we could drop, like, let's say six stones in precise places in water, and then, you know, using super slow-mo, watch what happens as these waves in precisely placed places run into each other.
Because really what physics is is waves in collision.
No, what you mean by negative space, negative curvature and negative space are different concepts.
So the word negative is appearing twice and that's why we're confused.
Again, you know, there are a million of these gotchas where you're- Can you describe the difference between the two?
Sure.
If I take the tip of my nose, That's going to be positive curvature because I've got one curve going one direction.
They're curved in the same direction.
On the other hand, if you look at the crease of my nose, that's going to be negative curvature because I've got one that's going like this and another that's going like that.
Jamie, is it possible to take a look at a monkey saddle?
So that would be negatively curved, right?
Because you'd have things going in opposite directions.
So now what he's doing is he's saying, if I have eight bubbles, And these bubbles, each face of this object, this octahedral object, he's taking a sort of curved linear triangle on a sphere, and he's imagining that these things are all sort of Racing towards each other.
And how would you generate...
No, no, no.
If you put those two in, he's going to go into a different world.
So Neil doesn't know where this comes from, right?
Now, the way in which you would do this, I believe, is that you would take a...
Let me think about how you do this.
You take the eight vertices of a cube and you put a sphere at each one, a small sphere.
So imagine that you had a vertex at 1, 1, 1 in three-dimensional space, and then you had another vertex where all of the vertices are going to have either 1s or negative 1s.
So you have eight possibilities.
So you could have negative 1, 1, 1, or negative 1, negative 1, etc.
You allow those spheres to increase to a size of square root of 2 radius.
And that will close off all of the means of escape, leaving a cavity in the center of your cube.
And that cube will have an octahedral cavity that looks like this.
And the interesting thing about this piece right here is nature always makes things in pairs and they're always balanced.
This doesn't exist.
This exists only as a result of a pressure condition, a higher pressure condition.
Jamie, if you go to that last blue, tap that last blue on, yeah, past, not the last blue, go around one more time, that one right there.
That huntian only exists as a result of the eight pressure conditions created...
Hold on, you'll appreciate this.
Now tap on that huntian in the middle.
No, no, not that one.
Damn, I got to start it again.
You can hit that one again and then tap on to...
Yeah, tap that.
Make that go away.
That right there is the pressure condition created from eight tetrians interacting, and they create that other greater pressure condition.
That's the negative space that they generate, but it's a massless area because the moment that the tetrians disappear, that space goes away and the energy generated disappears.
So what's going on is that, for example, Neil can't figure out, well, where did this come from?
So what it is is...
Spheres of radius root two at the eight vertices of a cube passing through each other but closing off an octahedral cavity with positively curved triangles inside.
Because in this case, in order to do this, what he did is he said...
I'm going to make mathematical spheres, they're going to start to intersect each other, right?
And the intersections are going to be ignored because it's made out of fictitious math material, until they close off the holes in the cubical lattice structure, leaving octahedral voids with this kind of curvature.
To make what he calls the all-shape, you do something very different.
You'd start off with a tetrahedron, which is distinguished among the five platonic solids as being self-dual.
That is, there are four vertices and there are four faces, and you can interchange faces with vertices.
And in fact, I don't know if you guys have these things.
So if you think platonic solids are old, a guy named Chuck Haberman figured out how to take the self-duality of a tetrahedron, and you can change the color of the sphere by throwing it up.
And effectively, if you think about the four dots on the surface of one of these, In between them are four triangles.
And he figured out a mechanism.
We can cut one of these open.
There's a gearing mechanism inside that's hidden from the public.
Alright, now my point is that one of the things that Terence has going against him is people are saying, oh, you know, he's just playing with stuff people have played with since antiquity.
There's nothing new.
And then I would say, well, then why did Charles Haberman...
Create a mechanism realizing the self-duality of the tetrahedron.
Nobody even talks about it that way.
And by the way, here's something that people, you know, play Dungeons and Dragons they don't really even have any idea of, is if you take the five platonic solids here and you put the tetrahedron in the middle and you put the triangular structures of the octahedron and the icosahedron off to the sides,
there's a duality That interchanges the pairs with the center being self-dual.
In other words, the cube has six faces and eight vertices.
The octahedron has eight faces and six vertices.
The dodecahedron, 12 faces, 20 vertices.
The icosahedron, 20 faces, 12 vertices.
Now, all these pairs have the same number of sides because the number of vertices plus the number of faces minus the number of edges has to equal two for anything that is spherical in nature.
I call bullshit on the idea that because Terence is playing with stuff that people have been playing with since antiquity, that there's nothing new under the sun.
Because if there's nothing new under the sun, first of all, how did Charles Haberman come up with something so cool?
Second of all...
That means that there's an object that hasn't been invented.
I give this to high school kids.
You should be able to throw one of these up as a cube and have it come back as an octahedron.
You should come up with a gearing mechanism.
And you should be able to throw up a dodecahedron and have it come back in your hand as a differently colored icosahedron.
And I've never seen those toys.
Just the way the Rubik's Cube came out of nowhere, or Hungary, and that thing took over the world by storm.
So to claim that a guy can't do engineering on platonic solids and come up with something new, the Rubik's Cube, the Habermans switch pitch, these things prove that that's not true.
Well, there's a difference between – you see, Terence has much greater odds of contributing to the world of engineering than he does to the world of mathematics.
I mean, the odds that he's doing something new in mathematics, I'll be blunt, are very, very small.
So what you mean is a symmetry that is amped up, but supersymmetry is a reserved term that means something hyper-particular between bosons and fermions.
I think what he's saying is you're talking about a thing and you're using the term supersymmetry, and he's saying that supersymmetry only applies to a very specific thing.
If you're getting intimate with your lady and you're into rough play and she's not wearing any clothes, is it a rear naked choke if she grabs you from behind?
I come on your show and I do this thing, which I've never really discussed why I do it.
I have this feeling that somehow Sean Carroll, 15 years ago, started talking about a suite of ideas like entanglement, the multiverse, these Boltzmann brains, whatever.
And people have been talking about them ever since because it was a very successful tour.
Much of the coolest stuff in mathematics and physics that's completely established, that's non-speculative, is not discussed.
And I don't know why.
And one of the things that I tried to do was I tried to show you the hop vibration.
I tried to do the thing about the Dirac string trick.
Terence is bringing cool stuff from the world of geometry.
It's a proof, effectively, that people don't know where it's coming from A lot of this is real as geometry.
If you look at the thing that he calls the Tarrington?
So the Tetrean that is the thing that is closest to us, the black thing that is closest to us.
So he then starts to make noises about it, and he says things that I don't love, which are that those faces he associates with the electric field And the vertices, which sometimes he calls vortices and sometimes I'm not quite sure, he associates with the magnetic field.
Now, I don't have a clue Why he says the next thing, which is, and because the number of magnetic and the number of electric things are balanced, they cancel out and therefore it's the weak force.
And to me, it's just like super cool stuff and then suddenly turns into horseshit.
Here we have those two tetrians on the end, they both have equal poles, four electric poles and four magnetic poles, according to how I see it, where magnetism is spinning off of the tips, the vortices, because it's no longer able to maintain that center space of spinning centrically.
Well, anytime you look at electricity, that was one of the things that Victor Schauberger was talking about.
Electricity, when water starts to spin to the right, it cools down.
That's the natural nature of electricity.
Electricity is colder It flows better in the coldest environment.
So as it's cooling down, as it's spinning down to a higher point, trying to get to that higher point, that's the highest point there.
It's looking for the highest density.
That's the North.
North is always the highest density.
South, no matter where you are, South is always away from the higher point when you're talking about universally, not talking about geographically on the Earth.
North is always seeking a higher position.
South is always seeking a lower position.
That's based upon stuff that Walter Russell talked about, based upon the stuff that Victor Schauberger talked about.
But it's a problem with the definition of the words, the terms.
Yeah, what I was trying to get to the conclusion, like magnetism and electricity, like what brings you to this definitive conclusion that you can so clearly state that this is what's happening there?
See, that's why I love the geometry, because the geometry demonstrates, even though I've been autodidactic and have learned these things on my own, the geometry is its own proof.
Like, even in showing that these create an icosahedron, if you'll move those just for a second...
That is, there are only six independent components, because if you flip that matrix from the northwest to the southeast as the line in which you flip over with the zeros, The things above the zeros determine the things below.
So there's six independent entries in the top triangle.
Now, the top three are the electric components in a Cartesian coordinate system of the tensor, and the B fields are the magnetic, okay?
Terence could say something closer to what we understand reality to be.
He could, for example, hold up a cube and say, you know, the six faces of the cube Remind me of the six independent entries in the electromagnetic field strength.
And then the idea is there's a duality, and the duality relates the electric field to the magnetic field.
And then you might invent something called Olive-Montone and electromagnetic duality, right?
So, in other words, if I took the top three, if I hold the cube up like this, and I put electric above and magnetic below, and then I did a transformation that took top faces to bottom faces, He would be doing something that might bring him to recent research on electromagnetic duality.
But instead, what's happening is that the spheres are reminding him of waves, like wave fronts, that are expanding spherically.
And he's got super cool geometry.
The reason that this is so cool is that we haven't seen much of it.
That thing, we did not understand until the mid-1970s.
Remember I tried to tell you to get Jim Simons on this podcast and then he just died?
Jim Simons and C.N. Yang figured out, and this is going to figure into what Terence is saying, that everything, all forces are curvature.
It's not just gravity, which we've known has been curvature since 1915, actually 1913 for Einstein Grossman.
It's actually the case that electromagnetism The weak force and the strong force are a different form of curvature, which might be called Erismanian curvature or fiber bundle curvature, which is not necessarily Riemannian intrinsic curvature.
This object encodes the curvature, encodes electromagnetism as the components of curvature, to your point about nothing is a straight line.
Yeah, because what you have, and by the way, this is a super subtle thing.
We've only really known this for 50 years, thereabouts.
There is a weird, mysterious circle that none of us can see at every point in space and time that we can't derive from space.
Okay?
You can have space-time and something else put a circle at every point that is obscured from us.
And that thing has a curvature even if space and time is flat.
So we call the idealization of flat space-time Minkowski space.
You can slap a curvature Tensor of a circle on top of it generate this and it wasn't until and this is mind-blowing Can we get the Aronoff-Bohm effect up here?
See but that's where My biggest issue is why go through all of those steps to define curved space with flat plane Matrix when you have the definition of it right in front of you That's why when you get a chance, I'd love for you to lay these out so you can see it predicts every distribution, every waveform.
Now you have this crazy thing, which is like you have a cathode ray tube at A, let's imagine, and you shoot it through a double slit.
And you want to know whether or not there's current flowing in this insulated thing that you can't see.
Now you think that the insulation is going to keep you from being able to tell whether there's current flowing.
It turns out that the interference pattern It changes whether there's current, even though there's no E and B fields outside of that insulated structure.
And that proves that it cannot be the electromagnetic field strength that actually determines electromagnetic phenomena.
What's really going on, can we call up the electromagnetic four potential?
So one of the things is if you want to hang with the cool kids on any of this stuff, you don't try to map the electromagnetic fields because it's the electromagnetic four potential that's got it going on.
I'm looking for something that looks like A equals and then four components.
Hit that thing that you just had.
That's good.
That A, where you see partial derivative of A, that thing is called the gauge potential.
And the gauge potential is really where the electromagnetism is happening.
This thing over here on the right, the Faraday tensor, is a consequence of the real star of the show.
A is the thing that matters.
And we thought that A was a convenience product that constructed the electromagnetic field strength until the late 1950s.
I think one of these guys who developed this, his name is Yakir Aronoff, who's at Chapman University.
I think he's still alive.
So in other words, we fooled ourselves into thinking we understood electromagnetism until the late 1950s, which is one of the reasons that you listen to your heterodox colleagues as opposed to making fun of them mercilessly, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Now, most of the time, what Neil says is, oh yes, one in 10,000 heterodox people have a point, and Neil bets on the 9,999 who don't, and so he doesn't listen.
This thing here Is a proof that you can find elementary omissions very late in the game that change everything.
And everybody who pretends that peer review works and that we've known this since antiquity, all this stuff, they need to understand the exceptions we've already found.
If Terence wants to do good, he would take that A with the new At the beginning.
And he would say, okay, electromagnetism isn't about the electric and magnetic fields.
It's about four of these suckers rather than six of those.
So the key point is the Penrose staircase is not just an optical illusion.
It's actually an effect called holonomy.
And those things are called horizontal subspaces.
And the electromagnetic potential, which gives rise to the photon, actually is a series of stairs that appears to be in some kind of a contradiction.
The curvature that he keeps talking about is the thing that actually resolves that contradiction.
And, in a weird way, the photon is a function, sorry, the photon is a derivative, and the electron is its function, and you use that derivative to differentiate the function.
That's a crazy way of saying it, but at its deepest level, that's really what we are.
We're in a geometry in which those flat planes say derivative equals zero.
And you're trying to take the derivative of an electron based on this stuff.
And geometrically, this only got worked out in Stony Brook, Massachusetts, in the mid-1970s, except for a guy named Robert Herman, who nobody listened to in Boston, who was off self-publishing.
One of the things that this is talking about, again, this is where I have issues because we're talking about two-dimensional or three-dimensional space that does not exist.
We're still talking about imaginary things instead of talking about real things like math's departure from reality.
Where numbers started representing actual things.
Math departed from that to where now math doesn't represent actual things.
The numbers don't represent any true things.
And so anything can happen inside the mathematics that they build from.
But when you have the actual stuff, like what I wanted you to do, if you could lay these out just for...
If you move this one out of that, out of the way, and some of those.
This will continually predict every harmonic node, every wave function.
It will continue on.
They overlap on each other to where any size, any crystalline configuration that somebody could hope for This is the supersymmetry that I'm talking about that defines the entire wave field.
Everything that you touch in this space made of spheres and platonic solids and whatever.
You could spend your entire life, and I've seen people do it, staring into this and just finding cool thing after cool thing, thinking that you're seeing Jesus.
And if you're not very careful with the mathematics that you're playing with, you are going to get so high.
You are going to see everything connect to everything.
And there's a reason that this stuff takes place in Islamic art.
There's a reason.
You know, if I bring up...
This is another version of the...
I believe in spiritual, sacred geometry, they call this the Merkaba, which is like Hebrew for chariot.
Everything connects to everything else in this unbelievably beautiful way.
And the concern that I have, Terence, to be entirely honest, is...
You have to get disciplined about this as a drug because otherwise you're going to see everything in everything all the time and you're going to have the same repetitive conversation where people don't take you seriously because you're going to keep hitting on 19. But if light passing through these show the same cymatics that we look at when we're looking at natural occurrences of individual frequencies,
You say geometry is a proof, and one of the things is you are at your weakest when you have an equal sign.
No, no, no.
You're at your strongest geometrically.
You're at your weakest when you have an equal sign.
You say the dumbest stuff about equalities, and you say the coolest stuff about geometries.
And I wonder whether you mean something.
Like, it took me a long time to figure out what I think you mean when you do this riff on the square root of 2. Jamie, could I trouble you for that portal group slash TH? Okay.
If you do the square root of 2 challenge, right?
You say, Howard's unbalanced equation.
You say, okay, take the square root of 2. You cube it.
That's equal to two times the square root of two.
That is illogical.
It is unbalanced.
It is unnatural.
Now, first, I had no idea what the hell you were doing.
So I came up with something to prove to you that I'm trying to understand you.
And I said, take the number of Magi at Jesus's birth.
He was born in the 25th day of the 12th month.
If I raise the 12th root of three to the 25th power, And I take the fact that Jesus died in the ninth hour according to the Bible.
I see the same Trinity rooted by the number of apostles.
Now that seems to be like a profound statement.
But the fact is, all I really did is I created an equation based on two numbers, X and Y. And your version of it, I put in 1 and square root of 2. And in mine, I used 12 and 3. And the reason I got 12, 25 was that 25 is just 2 times 12 plus 1. So, in other words, the danger of this stuff...
Right?
Is that when you start to see patterns and you start to see stuff that looks crazy, you don't realize what you're actually doing.
What you're really saying is you're coming from a perspective that is philosophical before it's scientific or mathematical.
And you have a statement which says, everything is in motion.
And then you go into a riff about loops and you say, take out your calculator, turn it to the side, take the square root of 2, cube it, take that Divided by two.
Then you do this thing where you happen to know the large decimal expansion up to a point, which increases people's confidence.
You've got to be worried because that's like the confidence in con man too.
Now a fixed point, you have something called a transformation.
The transformation, let me see if, Jamie, if we can bring that back.
So I'm just trying to standardize your...
Can we go below that?
Let me see.
Okay, Terence loop.
You have a mapping, T for Terence, from the real numbers to the real numbers, given by x cubed divided by 2. If you take the polynomial y cubed minus 2y equals 0, that factors as y minus square root of 2 times y plus square root of 2 times y minus 0. You claim that there's only one number that satisfies a fixed point relationship according to that mapping, which you call a loop.
There are actually three.
Zero, negative square root of two, and two.
You make the correct point that if you iterate that for numbers above the square root of two, it's going to go off to infinity.
If you were to go below numbers of square root of two but above zero, it'll go towards zero.
Zero will go to zero.
And then you'll have the same thing below negative square root of two.
It'll go off to negative infinity.
And above square root of two, but below zero, I think it'll go off to zero, okay?
That thing is studied under fixed point theory.
And you can look up the Lefschetz fixed point theorem, the Kakutani fixed point theorem, the Brouwer fixed point theorem.
All of these are proofs that you have to have fixed points.
Now I thought, why does he keep doing this riff?
And then I realized that he's got a thing about everything is in motion.
So for him, it's unnatural In the illogical, you use both words, that the square root of 2 would be fixed under this iterated experiment.
Now, that is not unnatural.
There is something, I hate to say it, it's called the hairy ball theorem.
Okay, the hairy ball theorem says that you cannot comb the hair on a rambutan without creating a colic.
So let's see if we have any cool images of it.
In other words, if you have a map of the wind that is going along the surface of a sphere, there has to be some point which is perfectly still.
If you have a map of a sphere to a sphere, there has to be some point that doesn't move.
In other words, what you're saying about things can't be still is not only incorrect, it is impossible to avoid stillness.
And this is in part what John Nash got his Nobel Award in economics for, because he took work of von Neumann and Morgenstern on two-person games, turned them into multi-person games with a higher dimensional fixed-point theorem, and said a multi-person game is more interesting because that's a market, therefore markets have equilibria.
So you're saying real stuff in a way that fundamentally just doesn't We don't know how to talk your talk.
I'm saying that the square root of 2 is a manufactured number because of the identity principle.
If the identity principle was not involved, then they wouldn't have a problem with 1 times 1 equaling 2. Why are you offended by 1 times 1 equaling Just because action and reaction.
The universe, it's the separation of math from science when math was supposed to define physical things.
So when they have things that doesn't align, we can't make sense.
No, I'm literally saying there is nothing in the universe that is at rest because everything is moving and communicating through vibration and vibration requires oscillation and oscillation requires motion.
So what you're trying to say is that if the universe at its deepest level is a quantum mechanical system in which there is no ability to create vacuum, in a naive sense that the vacuum that we talk about is not the vacuum that people naively think, therefore any mathematics that references anything that is zero or still or whatever is invalid.
I don't know what to tell you about this because it's like if I say something about a sphere, you might say, hey, Eric, what is the thickness of your sphere, all the points unit distance away from the origin?
And I'd say, it has no thickness.
And you'd say, show me one thing in the universe that doesn't have thickness.
And then I'd say, well, wait a second.
I'm talking to you about a mathematical structure that exists as math.
I don't want it to hear about math that isn't immediately referenced to physics.
Mathematics has a physically independent structure.
It is a system of logic.
Then you have this very weird thing, which is You know, Eugene Wigner famously talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences.
But, you know, David Tong, I think, talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in the mathematical sciences.
Many of us have had that for the last 50 years since Simons and Yang.
And then there's also this thing which people associate with Max Tegmark, which is older, which is the mathematical universe that The math is the basis, that there is a point at which the map becomes the territory to borrow from our friends in the psychedelic community.
Now, I can hear you, I can understand you, I can track you, but what you were doing when you were lecturing is terrible.
It's really, really bad because you have points, and by going over them and saying the super dramatic thing, You are, in fact, causing people who don't trust Tony Fauci, let's say, because Tony Fauci shouldn't be trusted, to say, maybe we can't trust mathematics.
Now, I have a lot of competitors, enemies, people I really don't like.
I have stalkers who actually stalk my family and interfere in my personal life who have PhDs.
My level of disagreement with them about the physical universe and the mathematical universe is essentially zero up to 1973. We don't really start to see a breakdown in the community of science, I think, until the 1980s.
Science took a wrong turn when it walked down the road of relativity in abandoning the ether and now they've walked down this road and now they realize that it's a potential dead end but instead of turning around And saying, okay, well, let's use the luminiferous ether that all of these equations were built off of.
And here a young man that's outside of the world has come in and said, okay, I have the wave conjugations that make up and prove the etheric nature, the etheric substance.
Jamie, if we could bring back the portal group page, I can sort of show what Terrence is talking about, what his geometries, how he relates them to the physical world.
So if we could go up to Howard's unifications claim.
It's the determinant of the space-time metric with which you might have an issue.
Okay?
So in other words, you're normalizing, you're saying that if the rulers look one way or the rulers look another way, according to Einstein, you have to put more weight or less weight on a region of space.
Do you know what that R is?
That's the foreplay, and then in the parentheses is where the stuff gets crazy.
So after Einstein did his big general relativistic field equations, that was like Einstein scaling the sheer face of halftone.
Hilbert walked up the backside like a week later.
And said, you know, you can derive your super complicated field equations from the simplest thing in the world, which is the scalar curvature.
So when you say everything is curved, that R is the scalar curvature of Einstein's pseudo-Romanian metric.
And then, remember F mu nu?
That's what we were just riffing on before?
That's saying, we don't know what to do with the electromagnetic stuff, so we're going to do the stupidest thing possible, and we're going to figure out how big it is and square that, and we're going to shove that into this thing...
To be minimized, which means make this as small as possible, so give me the configuration that gives me the least electromagnetic size.
Then, because of 1954, a guy named C.N. Yang and his sidekick Mills, who didn't do nearly as much afterwards, said, you know what, the strong and the weak force Are exactly the same structure as electromagnetism and we didn't know that.
So nature in that first line from the R to the W It takes curvature four times, and three of those are doubled, like FFGGWW, but one of them is singly in there, and that is really sort of the soul of the incompatibility, not what Ed Witton says about you can't quantize gravity.
That's not the discrepancy.
We've been lied to for a long time, in my opinion.
What it is, is that the curvature that enters as gravitational and the curvature that enters as the internal forces, the nuclear forces and electromagnetism, occurs differently.
One is Ramanian, one is Erismanian.
The line below that, Dirac, in that term, psi bar d psi, is telling us the kinetics and the interaction through minimal coupling of the matter with the force that's in the line above.
And then the last three terms are the fudge factor due to Peter Higgs because we found out in the late 50s A gal named Madame Wu, the dragon lady of physics, told us that if you put cobalt-60 and let it beta decay in a strong magnetic field, all the particles come out spun one way.
And that left-right asymmetry meant that you couldn't put in masses in a standard way for the matter which is showing up as psi.
So instead what we do is we have this thing which is a field called the Higgs boson.
And so that H thing is said to have a VEV that varies slightly in the world.
Vacuum expectation value because the vacuum isn't boring.
Now that V of H That is the potential term that you neglect every time you say that all energy in the world comes from kinetics.
That's not true.
And that V, and there's a portion hidden in those FFGGWWs, which is pure potential.
That last thing, which is not commented upon here, is called the Yukawa coupling.
And that last term is how the Higgs field gives the illusion of mass To the matter which was prohibited from having a naked mass because of the efforts of Madame Wu and Yang and Li, which is the same Yang of Yang and Mills.
That thing that we just went through, which may have been boring to people, is the source of everything we know about the world at its deepest level.
This thing right here, which might be called the partition function, Is a Feynman path integral of this, and if you could understand what this is, we don't know of anything that isn't in what you're seeing.
Now, this is the difference between having, you know, they've been working on this for damn near 60, 70 years, but they don't have any physical models.
That represent any of these things.
And if my physical models describe the electric force and the magnetic force and is able to account for all of the actions that takes place or the effects that we see, then it should be a better replacement instead of having to go through...
Three, you say, well, look, it's got four electric and four magnetic because you associate the faces with electric and you associate with the vertices with the magnetic.
You say, you go back to Walter Russell who has this whole thing about exhaling and inhaling, expanding and contraction.
You know, it's a lot like Ecclesiastes.
There's a time and purpose to everything under heaven.
And then you say, because it's balanced as four and four, it must be the weak force because there's no net voodoo on it.
Okay?
Then when you get to your, if you can bring up what you call the Huntian...
I would say this was a secondary structure in protein.
So my claim is that one of the reasons that Rosalind Franklin didn't actually get to the double helix is that she was a really good scientist, and Watson and Crick were not good scientists.
She said, look, I can see right through you.
You just found out that Linus Pauling I figured out the alpha helix in protein.
And you wannabes who don't know jack shit about biochemistry want an alpha helix.
And you want to do nucleic acid as an alpha helix and look based on the X-ray crystallography of the Maltese cross.
You're going to try to shove DNA into something so you get to be Linus Pauling all over again.
I don't want any part of it.
And the problem for her was, yeah, helices are ubiquitous at all different levels.
Right?
So in other words, Watson and Crick didn't own the double helix.
What happened is, is that a very common structure that's going to come up over and over again, it's going to come up in viruses, where you have helical viruses, you have it in protein, you have it in nucleic acid.
That structure is because there's a platonic form, which you're finding here.
You're going to find helices over and over and over again because you can't really have nature stop finding the structure.
It doesn't belong to any instantiation of the system.
And so everything is going to rhyme.
Now, your big problem is that everything rhymes to you because you know a lot of stuff and you know a lot of similarities.
Your brain is very good at that.
And what your brain is not very good at is pruning the amount of rhymes that it sees.
You're taking all the good stuff that you're doing and you get into 19 and you're saying, hit me.
And each time you do that, I want to slap you and say, don't do that.
Because even if what you're saying is true, let's imagine that we find Some structures like the ones you're talking about in wave fronts, right?
I think what you're doing is totally canonical, and it's very, very natural.
And I think you're building models, and you don't know how to do the algebra, probably, and you probably don't know how to do the differential equations, all that.
I would love to work with a mathematician that can define and redefine these pieces and write new axioms if there's real axioms to be made from it or postulates to be made from it.
He's an amazing treasure because that guy has a gift for explanation in our community and in a world where a lot of people in string theory have lost complete touch with reality, right?
This guy knows every aspect of physics so well that he can explain it with razor-sharp clarity.
So he's an absolute – he's a national treasure of the UK. And I reached out and I said to him, look, dude, you're talking about these 16 fields?
Okay, standard thing what we would do is we'd say, okay, wait a second.
I don't really buy your claim that 1 times 1 equals 2, but let's try to evaluate what you're saying.
Then I'd create something called the Terence times binary operation star sub t.
And I'd say that provisionally, I define a star sub t times b to be equal to a times 1 plus b because your rule says that you should add a to itself b number of times.
So that is the formula in standard mathematics for what you are introducing as times.
Then I come up with the Terence root of c, equaling d if d Terence producted with itself equals c.
So now I have Terence binary operation, Terence root, and the Terence square operation.
And I say now, okay, now that's a totally legitimate object.
Until you try to blow away times or multiplication in the normal sense, Now what I've got is I've got a new operation and I want to know its properties.
Is it commutative?
No.
A Terence times B is not B Terence times A. Those are two different numbers.
Then I ask, is it associative?
Yes, it is associative.
So now I'm trying to make standard math out of the crazy-ass shit that you say when you go to Oxford, and this is how I would start to understand it.
I would say, Terence, do we get anything new out of Terence times Terence root Terence square?
And I would therefore not incur the penalty that you're incurring.
The penalty that you're incurring is when the rest of us work our effing asses off.
And you come in and you say, I've developed – imagine if I got on this program and I said, is John Jones out there?
He's a huge pussy.
He doesn't know how to fight.
I have a one-touch technique.
If I lay a pinky on John Jones, you're going to see a quivering little pat of butter.
But in me saying one times one equals two, like I said, that's a metaphor that there's something very wrong with the math because math should not be done.
If you take the most beautiful ski slope you've ever been on and you imagine it was perfectly groomed so that there's just...
All it is is smooth.
You cannot create...
Non-linear smoothness without giving rise to something called the tangent bundle.
And the tangent bundle has made up of linear objects.
The non-linear includes the linear.
And it actually goes with your philosophy, which is that everything is an action and a reaction.
The non-linear creates the linear, but the linear encodes the non-linearity.
So if you actually wanted to practice, if you wanted to get as high as you could on Walter Russell, You would not try to deny the linear.
You would say that the nonlinear is part and parcel with the linear and that creating the nonlinear requires creating the linear.
The differential operators at a point on a nonlinear structure form a linear space.
And that's how we encode the tangent bundle when something doesn't sit inside of something else, because you hear that the universe is expanding.
You say, well, what's it expanding into?
Well, what we do is we encode that expansion without having a structure around it, no ambient space, by saying that the differential operators at a point are linear.
So we've got an entire language that you don't know about.
That means that it is no longer having to deal with the equal and opposite forces that nature puts on everything.
Because the greater the action, the greater the reaction.
Greater the reaction, greater the resistance, greater the resistance, greater the curvature.
Everything in this universe has the resistance and that's where the curvature come from.
So when they talk about I don't mind them trying to go in a straight line.
But the curvature of the universe is literally that phi at 1.618, that expansion aspect of it, that's the only consistent thing that you see in everything in the universe.
And there's a raging controversy as to whether that thing is a number or whether that thing is like the temperature, which might vary subtly.
And this was this thing where Einstein supposedly said his greatest blunder was to put this in.
He then found that you need this because Hubble shows that the universe is expanding and then very recently in the end of the millennium they said not only is it expanding but it's expanding at an accelerating rate and that's when this whole dark energy thing really took shape.
That thing, and where was I going with this?
Oh, yeah.
Jim Gates, who's probably the finest African-American physicist we have, brilliant, brilliant guy at the University of Maryland College Park.
He's a strengthier, so he and I are naturally like Montagues and Capulets, but he's a lovely guy and very, very brilliant.
He says, look, we need supersymmetry because that thing should blow up.
And it's almost zero.
And the only way that it's almost zero is because the bosons and the fermions, if supersymmetry is true, have to be balanced.
Right?
So imagine that you had two gods pushing on a door.
And they're of exactly equal strength.
The door doesn't move practically at all, not because they're not powerful, but because they're perfectly balanced, like unnaturally balanced.
Well, but these are two irresistible forces pushing in different directions and creating the immovable object between them, to carry through the analogy.
So that thing has to do with a balancing Between two incredibly powerful but opposite structures.
And I think that you're negating the idea very often that you can have perfectly balanced things through fine-tuning issues.
Now, one of the fine-tuning issues that we don't talk about, we usually talk about them in physics, but the most famous one should be the one in biology, which is before we had DNA, there was a guy named Erwin Chargaff who And he gave Watson and Crick the worst peer review in human history.
He said that these are two idiots, that they were pitch men in search of a helix.
They didn't know anything about chemistry.
And he totally dismissed them.
He is the guy who figured out that the amount of A was equal to the amount of C and the amount of T was equal to the amount of G. And the only reason that that's true...
It's because of hydrogen bonding that fixed the amount of A to be the amount of C on the other side.
That's right.
And so the idea is that that was the fine-tuning solution.
Why did you always have equal amounts of these things?
Oh, because you didn't see that they'd been paired in a helix.
You just saw it once it was broken.
But the actual nucleotides had been paired, and so the hydrogen bond enforced that.
One was a double bond, one was a triple bond.
This is like this.
We're trying to figure out why lambda...
We would understand better if it were zero, or we would understand better if it was enormous.
The fact that it is almost zero in a world where the vacuum is filled with crazy stuff, to your point, this is one of the greatest reasons for...
It's probably the greatest...
I agree with Jim.
This is the reason for supersymmetry.
Without supersymmetry, we don't have an explanation for why that thing doesn't blow up.
Right now, where this is, is something called the double copy...
The double copy is a relation that was totally unexpected between the amplitudes associated with gravity and the amplitudes associated with the Yang-Mills stuff.
And I just met with a guy, Zvi Byrne, at UCLA, who's one of the guys who brought us this double copy.
And it's a great mystery.
It's like looking directly into the equimolar relations before you have the double helix.
So there is a relationship that is much deeper than the superficial relationship between, you know, can we bring up the Newtonian force of gravitation?
We're about to do the analogy between electromagnetism and gravitation.
Newtonian gravitational force law.
So we have these inverse square laws, and because of the similarity, can we do the electromagnetic force law?
with two charges separated by a distance of R.
Joe, who has smoked weed in this while we're waiting for it?
Nobody.
Okay, just Elon.
He's the only one who...
Okay.
So if you look at...
Let's do the electromagnetic...
The FE equals KQQ over R squared.
Yeah.
Okay, so fix that in your mind, and imagine that I turn the q1 and the q2 into masses, and the r is the distance between them, and that k becomes a different constant.
So now let's do Newtonian gravitational force.
Okay.
You go above?
Yeah, let's do the one with the two big spheres right there.
So you see that it's like very, very similar, formally, right?
There's a constant in front, there are two different objects, and there's a distance.
So one of the reasons that I wasn't...
I have the same feeling you do about that Saturn hexagon.
Like, what the hell is that?
It's unexpected.
And I've never understood this great red spot on Jupiter being a...
If it's a gas giant, it's so stable for millennia.
Partially what happens when electrical engineers get older, they start to have this idea about electricity and gravitation.
And you get this stuff about electric gravitics.
Sometimes people call it gravited dynamics.
And the formal similarities between these things appeal to people, and they want to see one as the other.
And, of course, the Kaluza-Klein theory tried to connect gravitation and electromagnetism super early on.
So part of what happens is that Terence tries to say, look, I keep coming up with these ideas of somehow wave fronts.
The wave fronts create these shapes that are related to the platonic solids but curved linear versions of them.
He associates the tetrahedron with the weak force.
He associates...
The octahedron with the strong force, he associates an octahedron flanked by two tetrahedron, all curved linear, on opposite faces with the photon, i.e.
electromagnetism.
He replaces gravitation.
Then he says, weirdly, that he has a grand unified theory because he doesn't have gravity, so he doesn't need to put gravity in because of the similarity.
And then he's got these shapes.
And the disconnect is between the shapes and invoking forces.
In other words, there's a moment in the story in which it's just this massive leap.
The Lagrangian, most of the time when people hear Lagrangian, I'm just saying this further, Lagrangian points are those points in space where the magnetic fields meet up into where there's almost a balance.
The Higgs field has to do with the fact like none of us are zipping off at the speed of light, yet we're all made of matter that has an asymmetry due to the weak force.
If the weak force was not around, We would not need the Higgs force and the Higgs field, rather, the Higgs field to generate an as-if mass.
But because of the asymmetry built into the weak force, which is the only thing that has this left-right asymmetry, We can't have normal mass.
There's a place to put a normal mass in the equation that's forbidden if the universe is left-right asymmetric.
This has to do with this thing called the tau-theta puzzle from the 1950s.
Now, let's notice how beautiful this woman is and the fact that she's asymmetric, right?
And the asymmetry has to do with a mold that she didn't remove from her face.
So we can tell when you have an image of her, like if she wasn't holding a can of Pepsi, and she wasn't next to a Pepsi machine, you wouldn't be able to tell but for the mole whether you were looking at her or a reversed image of her.
So Marilyn Monroe, Sydney Crawford have this left-right asymmetry to them.
That thing is like the weak force.
It's the only thing that can detect this difference between left and right.
And the weak force is the thing that prohibits a normal mass that forces us into a Higgs mass through something called a Yukawa coupling.
So that's the whole reason that it's in that thing, is it's a crazy Hail Mary to save all of physics, because normally if the world were left-right asymmetric due to beta decay, the thing that causes a neutron to decay into a proton and emit an electron and an anti-electron neutrino in the process, That process is the thing that denies us mass.
And we would be at the speed of light, and we would all zip off in opposite directions, but for the Higgs field.
The guy knows how to fight, and he's got a spinning back kick to die for, okay?
What happens is I get my ass kicked.
You do not know when you're gonna get your ass kicked.
And it's a big problem that you're gonna keep courting because I watch you.
You keep finding the space where we could come together and you insist on teaching into it.
And it's like I'm trying to be nice as pie because I'm inspired by what you're trying to do.
But you have no idea like When you're fucking with a guy with an Italian last name in a shiny suit with a funny collar that you don't recognize, you just, you gotta stop.
Can I ask you, before we go on further, you feel that the theory of gravity is incorrect, and there's something else that accounts for all of the effects that we call gravity.
So far as I know, I'm the only person who's tried to understand Peter White's theory of the universe, Garrett Lisi's theory of the universe, Stephen Wolfram's theory of the universe, your theory of the universe.
What I'm trying to say is that physics and science is broken down.
I will steel man you.
I will try to put your best foot forward.
I'm not out to get you.
Where we are right now is that the Brian Greens of the universe will not look at anything that isn't string theory.
They're really like that.
So whether it's Ed Witten or Sean Carroll or Neil deGrasse Tyson, this generosity of spirit, spirit of collegiality, it's dead.
Okay?
And what you get is gotcha artists.
And that's all they do.
There's also something called gripe and swipe, where they try to find any flaw in what you do so that they can throw you aside and then they can take every right thing that you did and put it under their own name.
It is more important that you get a small number of us to say he did something than you fooled some patent examiner who has no idea what the hell's going on and can't actually earn a living the way he dreamed of being an engineer.
And so, you know, at some level.
The most important thing that you've done Is weirdly based on an error, so far as I can tell.
The linchpin is the lowest common denominator of all matter, either seen or unseen.
The linchpin is the internal dimensions of a torus...
The linchpin is the universal wave conjugator for all things matter.
It is the true currency of the universal flow because it is the common factor of all things.
It is the measurable constitution of a quantum or quanta, the smallest reflection, ultimately in collective potential of all things, which equals the multiverse, blah, blah, blah.
Let's now just watch our friend Brian Green do the same thing.
It's a great expression on Brian's face.
unidentified
String theory comes along and suggests that inside these particles there is something else.
So if I take a little cork and I magnify it, conventional idea says there's nothing inside, but string theory says I'll find a little tiny filament, a little filament of energy, a little string-like filament.
And just like the string on a violin, I pluck it and it vibrates, creates a little musical note that I can hear.
The little strings in string theory When they vibrate, they don't produce musical notes, they produce the particles themselves.
So a quark is nothing but a string vibrating in one pattern.
An electron is nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern.
A neutrino!
Nothing but a string vibrating in a different pattern still.
So if I take all of this back together, I have my ordinary orange, and if these ideas are right, they are speculative, but if they are right, deep inside the orange or any other piece of matter is nothing but a dancing, vibrating cosmic symphony of strings.
Now, string theory is not a terrible idea initially.
It becomes a terrible idea when the string theorists suggest that nothing else has happened for 40 years and they've sought to kill off every single person who has pointed out that there are other ideas and that they don't listen to their colleagues.
And so, in part, you're going to incur an emotional penalty from me with the linchpin, which is a terrible thing because the linchpin is actually incredibly cool.
So the same basic pattern, which is one thing explains it all, has a terrible kind of...
So what's going on is that inside of a tetrahedron, if I understand you correctly, I've got these vectors that point out towards the vertices, and between any two vertices, any of the four vertices, there's one of the six edges.
But if we did it on a harmonica, and the harmonica was probably tuned...
Sorry.
That's not going to be three.
It's going to be 2.966.
Because the reason we divided that octave into 12 parts is that we couldn't figure out how to get three to be perfect, because what you said, Pythagorean comma, which most people don't have any idea of.
By the way, you have to get Jacob Collier on the show.
So the reason that you came up with an undiscovered geometry is that you figured out something that is analogous to even temperament, which is, if you shove a pentagon, which should have three radians distributed around five angles,
In degree terms, that's 108. But the angle between the vertices of a tetrahedron is 109.47 and change.
And so effectively, the same game that we played, and people like Bach started playing with even temperament, is where do you pay for even temperament?
You can put one of these things up, and with three degrees of freedom, I can spin it, right, like a full-on UFO and just have it moving in crazy ways that nothing else can move.
Because a quadcopter has only four degrees of freedom because it's got the four motors.
I consider this to be the magnetic field because they're expanding at the center and magnetism, in my language, magnetism expands out and becomes greater.
So the idea is that you have these little units, which are very much like your drone units, your linchpins, that come together to form capsids.
So can you hold up one that encases a dodecahedron?
Like right here, right here.
So that is like a capsid made from capsomeres.
So I want you to spend some time on the protein data bank.
Maybe let's go to the protein PDB capsomere.
And you'll get an understanding of all the ways in which nature has been doing this engineering that we've been learning from.
Maybe actually just go to the site PDB. Yeah, let's try that.
Herpes.
Basically what these are are little nature's version of linchpins.
The triangular platonic solids are valued because the triangle is a stable structure.
If you think about a square, a square can become a parallelogram very easily.
Engineers will use triangles over squares.
What you need to do, in my opinion, is to figure out...
The Eternal One's understanding of these structures and how he or she creates these things with the stability that actually use the imperfections just the way you were using the imperfections.
And by the way, I did look at this years ago and totally discarded it because 108 wasn't equal to 109.47.
It's close.
And the fact that you're willing to deal with something doped with imperfection Is what actually is the genius akin to even temperament.
And what you're talking about, I was talking with him about several years ago, and what he was going to do is to mine the periodic table for the music of the elements and also go beyond that for molecules.
440 is concert A in a time when we've decided that that is concert A. If you were to use the Hindustani system, let's say, instead of do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do...
But I'm saying this is that for North India, right?
It's an irrelevancy, because everybody's allowed to tune their sa to a different tone.
They don't have to tune their sa around A440, because there's only three instruments.
There's a tabla, which doesn't have that tone as an important part.
There's a tanpura, which is tuned to the soloist, and the soloist determines what their sa should be.
So can we do sarega?
So, in that system, the absolute value doesn't matter, because you can tune it to whatever you want to tune it.
You're not trying to come up with an orchestra.
It's only the orchestral aspect of Western music and the need for even temperament that forces us all to listen to the concertmaster as to what A440 is, right?
What you have is a situation in which nobody understood what you said about the periodic table, except for a tiny number of people.
Now, if we go to that page, Jamie, that we put up, go back below that.
The Sound of Hydrogen from WSU. So this is an academic page dedicated to the idea that you're trying to figure out how to play these things, and this is the sonification.
Now, you attribute more meaning to this, I think, but you need to know about a guy named Luca Turin, who's a buddy of mine in the UK at Buckingham University, which is trying to do some wild radical stuff.
They are working on the idea that smell is not based on shape, but is based on frequency of the valence electrons.
And that particles that vibrate the same way smell the same, even if the shapes are different.
And if their shapes are very similar, but their vibrations are very different, they don't smell the same.
So there's an entire book called The Emperor of Scent about the academic, like all the people who try to push you down.
They're trying to push Luca Turin down as if he doesn't know what's going on.
And so trying to sort of synesthese these things by saying that everything that has frequency and vibration can be understood in each other's terms It's a small, freak community of very smart people trying to do what it is you're doing.
The only problem is, you gave us...
People ask me for an analogy, what do you think of Terrence Howard?
What you did to the periodic table was, by the way, what a gift that I hate the periodic table.
Can't stand it.
The problem is, I had to analogize when I said, when people asked me what I thought of you, let's click on that thing.
That periodic table is one of the alternate periodic tables that's much more in favor with people who are mathematically minded, like you are, Rather than the Walter Russell periodic table.
Because what this does is it uses the quantum mechanics to stop with those exceptions.
Isn't it weird that there's like a footnote in the middle of the standard periodic table in which you just say, well, these things are exceptions to the rule.
This is an attempt to use the electron orbitals in terms of the spherical harmonics Where you're looking at complex valued functions on the two-dimensional sphere.
And this sort of Aufbau principle, imagine that there was only a Coulomb potential centered at the origin in the hydrogen situation.
You would go along and say, hydrogen first, helium, then lithium, then beryllium, then boron, carbon, nitrogen, etc.
And this is the way in which you would build up the outer shells of the electrons in which the You have this principal quantum number, which is basically the energy level, but then the L quantum number is what we would call a highest weight for a highest weight representation of SU2 or spin 3, which is the double cover of SO3. That first one is one-dimensional, but it's spin up and spin down, so you get two elements.
The next one is going to be three-dimensional, but you're going to get six elements.
And then you're going to get five-dimensional, because it's SO3 that determines the representation theory.
This thing is what I wish you had given us, rather than the Walter Russell thing, which is sort of a historical artifact.
Now, no offense, but the big problem is that if you are trying to talk about hydrogen, And then you imagine carbon is an octave above, I think is what you said.
Doubling the frequency.
What is that thing below hydrogen?
And you say, no, no, no, it's too dense to be perceived.
Terence, you're talking about a periodic table from like 1926, something like that.
And Walter Russell had some decent intuitions that he instantiated terribly.
Now look at all this shit that you're doing.
And look at the fact that he's locked in 1926. Dirac is not going to come up with the Dirac equation to supersede the Schrodinger equation for another two years.
Quantum electrodynamics isn't going to be born.
The neutron isn't going to be discovered until the early 30s.
And you're taking the wrong fight.
You're saying when David Tong, here's what I really didn't appreciate about what you did.
David Tong said, this is all a lie.
And you took the wrong meaning from that.
What David Tong was saying was different.
David Tong was saying, we teach hard little ball theory.
Right?
There's an up quark and two down quarks in every neutron and two up quarks and one down quark.
And they're all little hard little balls stuck together by rubber bands.
And then we've got one electron going crazy around it.
I spent a lot of time on it, and I thought, out of respect for him, what I should do...
It's given my most informed critical analysis that I can.
In my field, we call that a peer review.
You come up with an idea, you present it either at a conference or you first write it up, and you send it to your colleagues.
It is their duty to alert you of things about your ideas that are either misguided or wrong, or there's a miscalculation that doesn't work out, or the logic doesn't comport.
That's their job.
Not all ideas will turn out to be correct.
Most won't be.
But to get to that point, you need to know things like, what has everyone else said about this same subject?
Am I repeating someone else's work?
Is this a new insight that no one else has had, but has foundations that are authentic or legitimate or objectively true?
Am I making a false assumption?
Am I making an assumption that someone else has already shown to be false?
All of this It goes on, on the frontier of science.
Let me make it clear that I'm delighted when I see people with active minds trying to tackle the great unknowns in the universe.
It's a beautiful thing that people want to participate on this frontier.
What can happen is if you're a fan of a subject, let's say, a hobbyist, let's call it, it's possible to know enough about that subject To think you're right, but not enough about that subject to know that you're wrong.
And so there's this sort of valley in there, a valley of false confidence.
This has been studied by others, and it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It's the phenomenon where a little bit of knowledge, you over assess how much of that subject you actually know.
And then when you learn even more, you realize, no, I didn't know as much as I thought I did.
So then there's a sort of a lull there.
And then when you learn even more, you come back up.
Ultimately, learning enough to know whether you were right or wrong.
To become an expert means you spend all this time.
It doesn't happen overnight.
You can't just sit in an armchair and say, I'm now an expert.
It requires years and years.
of study, especially looking through journals where new ideas are published and contested.
That's what we have learned is the most effective means of establishing that which is objectively true or determining that which is objectively false.
Both of those work hand in hand to move the needle on our understanding of the universe.
Sir Arthur Eddington, an astrophysicist, provided the first experimental evidence for Einstein's general theory of relativity, which, by the way, was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Crazy idea.
The platform to be accepted for the ideas is not social media.
It is not Joe Rogan.
It is not my podcast.
It is research journals where attention can be given on a level that at the end of the day offers no higher respect For your energy and intellect than by declaring that what's in it is either right or wrong or worthy of publication or not.
I wanted to post this to my website so you can see my comments mixed in with his treatise.
Is there anything below that that we've put together?
This is...
Let's go above.
This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, just so you don't feel bad about yourself, talking about me and my theories based on a question in an Ask Me Anything.
Will you be able to talk to Eric Weinstein about the new theory of geometric unity?
This is from 2013. We are all wondering about that.
Cosmos is not your normal talking head documentary.
In fact, it's the feature of the original that enabled the series to live for an entire generation beyond the shelf life of hundreds of other science documentaries that came afterwards.
So the answer is no.
Let me explain where you are.
Neil is not unaware that you are never going to get your hearing in a peer-reviewed journal.
Your ideas are going to come through.
You're a self-taught autodidact polymath.
You haven't been cleaned up.
You haven't been taught how to speak properly.
You don't know the fact that when you say lube, we know fixed point.
I know how to do all this stuff, right?
You're not getting a peer review from me.
I know a lot more than you do about a lot of this stuff.
You're getting an elite review.
And my elite review says that a lot of this is bathwater, but a small amount of this is baby.
And that's not available anywhere.
It's not available in a university.
It's not available in a journal.
That's available on the Joe Rogan Experience.
And, you know, Neil's right.
If what you want is peer review, you should go to a journal and they will laugh you out.
They will take one look at your email address.
And if it doesn't end in.edu, I promise you, you're not going to get hurt.
I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson actually knows the history of peer review.
This is Google Ngrams and it tracks how often a phrase is found in the corpus of English language books published in the world.
Peer review basically begins in the mid-1960s.
Now, there were various forms of review.
Editors, in particular, were very distinguished individuals who were chosen to not peer review things, to simply take a look at things and see who should be published and who should be not.
Can we bring that back up?
More or less, from what I can piece together, Ghislaine Maxwell's father, who started Pergamon Press, destroyed...
He figured out how to destroy science and make a fortune by blowing out the number of journals and forcing every university to subscribe to every journal that he could figure out how to publish, because to not subscribe to all of the journals required an admission that you had an incomplete library.
So he diluted the quality of the editorship of the leading journals.
This was a group, a very informal, high-quality enterprise.
Now, most of the destruction of science, in terms of how high-quality it used to be, has taken place relatively recently, post-Robert Maxwell.
Because now we have an enormous number of journals staffed by people who can't spot publication cartels where we agree to cite each other's work and we agree to publish stuff, pay for play.
all of the nonsense that you see with irreproducible research comes after this peer review thing.
The peer review thing got woven in so that people think that the scientific method and peer review are effectively the same thing, where one is an unwanted infection from the biological, biomedical universe, which had peer review much longer than everything else.
Neil is giving you a very cursory back of the hand brush off.
We have to sort out what happened with Tony Fauci and the origin of COVID.
I was very distressed when Joe was sort of credulously accepting everything that you were saying at a level where he did say, look, I can't evaluate this.
He was letting you have your peace.
Joe has established an extraordinary thing where he can call on a Roger Penrose.
...is what is peer review actually and why is it controversial?
So imagine that you have four types of people.
You've got two establishment figures, one of whom is screwing up the field, who's in a very powerful position and should be removed from being the impediment to progress that they are.
Another person is an establishment figure who's killing it.
They're the establishment because they're supposed to be the establishment.
The establishment has recognized how valuable that person is.
Now you've got two other figures.
You've got an axe murderer who desperately feels that they've got the secret of the universe and anybody who doesn't understand them is a horrible person.
Or you have a heterodox person who actually knows what they're talking about and can overturn the established order, which is where you get a revolution.
Peer review just sees establishment versus non-establishment.
It will lock in a terrible idea for 40 years.
And it will stop somebody coming from outside.
It will reapportion credit.
So suddenly you do a lot of work and somebody, you know, this is this thing I said about gripe and swipe.
We notice one flaw in your work and we take the entire corpus that you've produced away from you and we publish it under our own name.
I can tell you a dozen terrible stories of peer review where people have confessed to using peer review as a weapon against their colleagues, particularly younger colleagues.
And to simply say peer review, it works, bitches?
Holy cow!
How can this be?
I thought I was upset with some things that you had said and done.
No, no, no.
They're dwarfed.
They're dwarfed by this.
This is so disingenuous.
Basically, this is saying, please submit your stuff from a gmail.com address.
We'll take one look and say, it doesn't look like.edu to me.
And we'll throw whatever you do in the trash heap and we'll say, well, you got the benefit of my peer review.
Now you look at what Neil said about your stuff, and by the way, he's right about one times one equaling one.
You're wrong about that.
That was your opener.
You picked a terrible move.
On the other hand, you heard what I said about the linchpin.
It was a combination of bath water and baby.
I do not have any economic or authoritative interest in taking anything that you've done and putting it under my own name.
I am simply here to help you.
And when we talked about the angle and all this stuff, I can tell you that that's a great idea.
It may have been had by somebody else because I don't know.
But I assume it comes from you.
It may not work in practice.
I think it's pretty promising.
And I think if you don't do anything else and you create one drone that just does that really cool thing, it'll all have been worth it.
What I'm trying to say is we in science have lost the ability to talk to people who do flawed stuff from outside.
All we want to do is get rid of you.
And it's because we have this fake openness.
We have a fake scientific method.
Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method.
We got along fine without it.
Peer review isn't even peer review.
It's something called peer injunction, where your peers can stop you without shorting you.
I'm happy to bet against you in all sorts of things that you're doing.
And if you win and I lose, I'm on an unbounded negative experience.
But if I block you and I won't short you, That's saying that I think you're dangerous because it's too dangerous to go short.
And the idea that we're handing old people and established people and very politically savvy people the ability to block you without shorting you is unforgivable.
So what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to offer, I'm like, I'm not pretending to be your peer.
I know a lot more than you do.
I'm giving you an elite review and you're welcome.
And the elite review doesn't find you as baseless as the peer review that supposedly got handed to you does.
So that's, you know, in part what I'm trying to get at is, in my field that I care about, for 40 years we've heard this unbelievable trope that only the string theory people are doing real work and everybody else isn't.
And it's total hogwash, and there's no way we can get out from under these people.
In the case of Anthony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya, I was just with Jay Bhattacharya in Italy, you have this guy who has a PhD in economics, and he's a doctor, and he's a professor, and he becomes a fringe epidemiologist overnight because some bureaucrat who is probably in control of the bioweapons portfolio Because we signed these two treaties during the 1970s, the Geneva Convention and the Bioweapons Convention.
He and Francis Collins suddenly convert a respected colleague into a fringe epidemiologist.
It's like, no, we're going to have a mutiny.
And the mutiny is going to be based here, because this is a place that you'd invite Tony Fauci and Jay Bhattacharya.
Shall we discuss whether or not random mutation is the true engine of neo-Darwinism?
Is that reasonable?
Or do some of these crazy people who say, I don't know what it is, but random mutation isn't powerful enough to build proteins because stability is too difficult?
The sad fact, Joe, is that you built something that has some credibility.
And even though you think of it as, I just like having conversations with people and a lot of them are fighters and I'm just a meatball, we don't have any other place.
We can't go to the National Academy of Sciences.
It's too politicized.
We can't go to Harvard.
You saw what just happened with Claudine Gay, who's still a professor.
We've lost everything.
And podcasts, as dippy and shitty and as variable in quality as they are, Jerry very much included, is this is all that's left.
And my claim is that I'll challenge Neil.
I actually think that this is a better place to do review because I'm on the hook.
And by the way, some of the shit that I've said is probably wrong.
The thing that pisses everybody off is the fact that I have the models behind what I'm talking about.
When I talk about when we describe the electric field or the plasmic field, I've got models that define every aspect of that motion and I'm waiting for it to be reviewed.
And this is one of the failures of Joe's bullshit detector.
In other words, You believe what you're saying, and you're obviously very, very smart, and you obviously have a huge amount of things that you've been introduced to.
Like, how many other people bring up Herman Grossman and Geometric Algebra and Clifford Algebra?
I think I'm probably the only other one in the history of this program to do that, right?
Noam Elkies, I entered Harvard at 19 with a master's degree.
Noam was 18. He didn't have a master's degree, so we were sort of in a weird way, neck and neck.
And everything that I thought I was good at, Noam was better.
Noam, I played a little piano.
Noam could compose anything.
I mean, this guy's just like super genius beyond genius, right?
And he wasn't a bad guy at all, but he was so powerful in his mind that he composed, I think, an 11 by 11 crossword with no black squares.
Stuff that just can't be done.
And I thought, geez, there's just no point in competing with Noam Elkies.
And one Christmas party, a professor named Raoul Bott heard me trying to play boogie-woogie piano.
And Noam sat down and, like...
Raoul said, well, why don't you play us some Boogie Woogie?
And Noam started playing what he thought was Boogie Woogie, but it was like Rachmaninoff.
And Raoul would say, no, no, no.
And Noam would go into Chopin, and then he'd go into Liszt.
He was playing ever more brilliant things, and finally his brain just blew, because he couldn't think through Boogie Woogie.
But Noam then became the youngest professor in the history of Harvard University.
I realized that I had accidentally entered in a year in which a Noam Elkes was present.
And by having my ass kicked repeatedly by this guy, I had to ask myself the question, well, what am I doing on this planet?
What do I have to contribute?
And all the things I see Jamie Foxx doing, he's not trying to do anything like this, right?
There's a creative spark and a spirit in you that I really see and appreciate.
It comes from an older era, and we don't have people like you in the academy anywhere.
We used to have lots of these polymaths who would connect fields.
And right now, what we've got is a specialization epidemic.
And as far as I can tell, what you need is some discipline.
And you need discipline from coming into contact with people who know a lot more than you, who can educate you as to what we already understand, how to communicate those things.
We have an assassin epidemic because the midwits in the system All they do is see things in terms of like Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger.
The funny part about it is that that's the midwits endpoint, is that they see heterodox thinkers.
And they can't figure out how to place them.
And so they just say, if I can find one error, I can reject everything.
And you keep triggering that, and that's why you are where you are.
Harvard University needs to go back to the business of kicking ass and taking names and being the place that is the shining city on the hill.
Enough with the anti-Semitism, enough with the woke, enough with the DEI. Don't ever let me catch you talking about Jim Crow mathematics.
You're getting absolutely Treated seriously for the serious stuff that you've done.
You're getting treated properly for the wrong stuff.
That thing about the PhD, it's basically fraud.
What I'm saying to you is, I don't give a shit.
Merit is merit.
If I can catch you in a fraud, if I can catch you in a lie, I can catch you in an error, I don't care.
My question is, what did you do?
What was the cool stuff you did do?
I'm not an assassin.
I don't care if you, in part, exaggerated your achievements.
I know how it feels like to be shat on.
I know that you have no ability to fight what's being said to you from on high.
Okay?
What I'm saying is the only thing that matters is what you contribute in the end.
And imagine that there was fraud.
Imagine that there were lies.
Imagine that there were errors.
And imagine that the linchpin turns out to be the next level drone that defines everything because accidentally there are six degrees of freedom and there's six dimensions in the semi-direct product of SO3 with R3, whatever.
It doesn't matter.
It's that cool.
Gregor Mendel probably faked his Peapod experiments.
And there's a guy named David E. Kaplan at Johns Hopkins University who said to me something.
It's so beautiful I can't reproduce it.
He said, physics is based on everything.
It's the backstabbing.
It's the frauds.
It's the geniuses.
It's the craftsmen and the workmen who get the job done.
The experimentalists who toil on papers with a thousand people.
And this community of all of these people Have come together to produce something which is something close to the source code of the universe.
And if you're interested in that pursuit and you want to get rid of some of the baby fat and some of the bullshit, I'm happy to help.
There's a lot of work to do it.
It happens that I had done a lot of the work over my life so I didn't have to put an infinite amount of energy into this.
But what happened is that you created a mass delusion.
And it was a mass delusion in part because we're not aware of what mass delusions actually are.
They start with a nub of truth.
They start with creative sparks of genius.
So we're on the lookout for people who are just frauds, who have nothing that they actually can contribute.
What we don't realize is that you have these things about kayfabe, which are these melanges of reality and fakery, and they're interwoven.
What you've produced...
Is something that is part bullshit and part real contribution.
And we don't have a system to pull it apart, and we don't have any experience for how to sense when that's what's going on.
What I've tried to do is introduce a new set of tools to the scientific and mathematical community so that they can advance past the platonic solids.
The platonic solids I still see in a two- or three-dimensional position.
And since we are living in hyperspace and hyperbolic reality, then we need to have tools that define that hyperbolic space so we don't have to go through Loren's transformations and all of these unnecessary steps in order to get to defining curved space.
And I'm here to learn from you because I'll tell you something, the linchpin is a good example of something which I didn't know, and to the extent that I did know it, I threw it away, and I think it's a great idea, and I think that the art, and I think that some of the higher dimensional stuff, and I think that a lot of this stuff, Has a kind of beauty that if John Horton Conway were still alive and hadn't been killed by COVID, I'd know where to send you.
There's a guy, you know, there are sphere-packing people, there are combinatorists, there are all sorts of people who play with stuff in this realm.
But the one thing that you've got to stop doing is that when you get on a program that has millions of people, you can't create one more mass delusion.
I've got a Fauci mass delusion.
I've got a string theory mass delusion.
I've got a Biden is fine mass delusion.
I've got a Trump is not a problem mass delusion.
All I have morning, noon, and night is mass delusion on mass delusion.
But people don't understand that the reason that these mass delusions get started is that there's a nub of truth in them.
QAnon can't be total bullshit because it's got some core in it that's right and some craziness.
If you think about Dianetics and Scientology, the first thing that they teach you about is the reactive mind.
That's not a terrible theory.
And then before you know it, it's Xenu and Volcanoes, right?
So what's going on is that people are not aware Of how kayfabe works, right?
Wrestling is one of the most dangerous, demanding sports of a certain kind.
Now, it happens to be theatrical and pre-programmed.
But if you've ever dealt with anybody, like, the wrestling community suffers a death rate unlike any other sport in the world.
What you have to understand is that kayfabe, and I highly recommend you look at my essay from 2011, is about what happens when fantasy and reality intermingle.
And that's what you did on the last time that you were here.
And I can talk to you about the fantasy, I can talk to you about the fraud and the lies, but I'm also going to talk to you about the contributions, the genius, and the insight.
And what I want the world to learn is you're getting sucked into mass delusions that you're not properly imagining.
There's almost always a core of truth and reality that the mainstream won't acknowledge.
And then there's almost always a bullshit payload that gets leavened in because, in some sense, the mainstream is our official cult.
And then all of the rest of us produce these other cults.
In my situation, I've gone 40 years and I haven't had a really deep conversation about GU, Geometric Unity, with my own community.
Where you are is that you're in a world in which the number of people who are both competent and honest and ethical enough to have the conversation with you has dwindling to fewer than 10. It's been a pleasure and an honor to appear with you.
Try not offering, because the first thing you need to do, the first thing you need to do is not necessarily be a student.
It's not a higher versus lower.
But just recognize that you're bringing gifts.
And you're bringing problems, and it's very expensive to help you.
But it doesn't mean it's impossible.
And one of the great things about this program is that if there is anybody out there, they can hear it.
Now, I'll be honest with you.
I've been on this program maybe six times before.
I am often astounded that I can reach all of planet Earth, and there isn't a single soul who can hear me.
And I think that one of the things you're going to have to reckon with is you're saying certain things And you may get hundreds and hundreds or thousands of responses, and there won't be a single meaningful response among them.