A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look: Difference between revisions
A Portal Special Presentation- Geometric Unity: A First Look (edit)
Revision as of 01:11, 12 April 2020
, 12 April 2020→Supplementary Explainer Presentation
| Line 817: | Line 817: | ||
<p>[02:42:40] If you're trying to generate the sector. that begins as X one comma, three. Remember $$X^d$$, where d equals four is the generic situation. But you have all these different sectors. I believe that these sectors probably exist if this model's correct, but we are trapped in the one three sector. | <p>[02:42:40] If you're trying to generate the sector. that begins as X one comma, three. Remember $$X^d$$, where d equals four is the generic situation. But you have all these different sectors. I believe that these sectors probably exist if this model's correct, but we are trapped in the one three sector. | ||
<p>[02:43:00] So you have to figure out what the implications are for pushing that, uh, indefinite signature up into an indefinite signature on the Y manifold. And. And, uh, there are signatures that make it look like the Pati-Salam rather than the, uh, directly in the | <p>[02:43:00] So you have to figure out what the implications are for pushing that, uh, indefinite signature up into an indefinite signature on the Y manifold. And. And, uh, there are signatures that make it look like the Pati-Salam rather than the, uh, directly in the Spin(10), SU(5) line of thinking. | ||
====== Thanks & Final Thoughts ======= | |||
<p>[02:43: | <p>[02:43:22] So we will attempt to present the full theory shortly. Keep in mind, this took seven years to just bring me to want to come back to this, but it must be reassembled from decades of notes, and that's part of the problem when you're working alone and you're not really expecting to talk to anybody. So I want to thank you for your patience and your time. | ||
<p>[02:44:31] In most, especially, I just want to say that I've asked a tremendous amount from my family to stick with me on this quixotic quest. | <p>[02:43:39] and I just want to read a bunch of names that people who mattered to me, and if I've done anything wrong, this is no reflection on them. [[Marcus du Sautoy]], [[Peter Thiel]], [[Isadore Singer]], [[Raoul Bott]], [[Michael Grossberg]], Adil Abdulali, Harry and Sophie Rubin, Bret Weinstein and family, Heather Heying and Zach and Toby. | ||
<p>[02:43:59] Peter Freyd, Scott Axlerod, Nima Arkani Hamed, Louis Alverez Gaume, [[Edward Frankel]]. Dror Bar Natan, [[Shlomo Sternberg]], [[David Kazhdan]], Karen and Les Weinstein, Haynes Miller, Ralph Gomory, John Tate, [[Sidney Coleman]], Graeme Segal, Robert Hermann, and Hira and Esther Malaney. Errors and omissions because I've too many people to thank are all my own. As for the claims that should reflect badly on no one else other than myself. | |||
<p>[02:44:31] In most, especially, I just want to say that I've asked a tremendous amount from my family to stick with me on this quixotic quest. I want to thank Pia Malaney, Naila Weinstein, and Zev Weinstein. I love you all very much, and thank you for making this possible. I do want to leave you with one thought. | |||
<p>[02:44:51] I really think that we've gotten completely bent out of shape about trying to force a formalize and routinize science. It doesn’t work. You cannot mandate sciences, social engineering. You can't decide that science is always in the zeitgeists and done by committee. In fact, it is essential to understand that science will not conform to what you want. | <p>[02:44:51] I really think that we've gotten completely bent out of shape about trying to force a formalize and routinize science. It doesn’t work. You cannot mandate sciences, social engineering. You can't decide that science is always in the zeitgeists and done by committee. In fact, it is essential to understand that science will not conform to what you want. | ||
<p>[02:45:13] One of the things that I, I'm very proud of, I think is quite true | <p>[02:45:13] One of the things that I, I'm very proud of, I think is quite true is the saying that great science has the scientific method as its radio edit. I don't think that great science is actually done the way we say it's done. And I think that directs 1963 Scientific American article should be read by absolute absolutely everyone. | ||
<p>[02:45:37] Every time major theories have come out, they've almost always been wrong, but they're not wrong in an important | <p>[02:45:37] Every time major theories have come out, they've almost always been wrong, but they're not wrong in an important way and I think that we have to fix the political economy of people racing to correct theories or point out that there is no agreement with the experiment. We are killing many of our best ideas by creating a terrible and combative environment, which already attempts to apportion credit for work. | ||
<p>[02:46:05] And more importantly, risk | <p>[02:46:05] And more importantly, risk undertaken by individuals. And I just think that, I want people to understand that. I've always wanted to share this, but I detest the culture that I saw that cropped up around what is now become known as the Seiberg-Witten equations when they were put forward. There was a period of time where I watched people, as if it a feeding trough trying to stay up around the clock to use a new machine tool that had been given to them to claim. | ||
<p>[02:46:38] Credit and it profoundly pushed me away from the community. We have to become more ethical and we have to honor the people who are trying to speak and act imaginatively. Now, if this doesn't work, if it's silly | <p>[02:46:38] Credit and it profoundly pushed me away from the community. We have to become more ethical and we have to honor the people who are trying to speak and act imaginatively. Now, if this doesn't work, if it's silly, I'll have egg on my face and I'll go on, I'll be fine. But I'm very worried that maybe some of the best ideas are between the ears of people without the confidence in the chutzpah and just the sort of almost psychotic drive to push things across the finishing line. | ||
We've got to be kinder and nicer and more decent and stop stealing people's lives, their credit, their future, and their ability to have families and make a living. And that's absolutely essential. Well to me, and I look forward to finding out whether this theory has merit to it or is without merit, but I guarantee that if I'm going to go down with the ship, I'm also not going to be knocked off the ship, as I was many years ago. | |||
<p>[02:47:39] Completely unfairly, and I won't dwell on it. But the amount of power you professors have is absolutely | <p>[02:47:39] Completely unfairly, and I won't dwell on it. But the amount of power you professors have is absolutely almost without parallel because nobody really understands enough to adjudicate disputes that happen in academics. I'm going to insert just that we fund you better and that you are nicer to the people who depend upon you in this beautiful chain that we call a science, scientific method. | ||
<p>[02:48:08] And most particularly | <p>[02:48:08] And most particularly an American science, which I think is still the envy of the world. So you've been through the portal. I know it was a long slog. I hope you found it interesting and enjoyable and we'll see you again soon. Be well, everybody stay safe. | ||