How Do We Go Beyond Einstein? Eric Weinstein and Avi Loeb

What is the biggest lie ever told?

Very grateful this conversation is taking place ❤

I appreciate your time, Eric and Avi. Thank you.

Sure seems like a lot of edits here. Wish I could see the unedited conversation. It's quite jarring

Great work n conversation fellas ,It’s time to bring a new perspective to our current science n mathematics

Calling the conference "Into the Impossible" - I got chills. People, let's do this!

I wanna see the see the unedited version!

Why so many edits? You must know the people that tune in to watch your Channel or perfectly fine with watching a 2-hour conversation with Avi and Eric. As always super fun chat. I'm glad to see your channel is growing by Leaps and Bounds these days

The problem is QFT itself, quantum mechanics itself. You cannot put non linear evolution into a linear bottle, without dispensing with boundary conditions rendering it just a superposition over everything that could possibly happen in free field theory, which is essentially just nothing happening at all. QFT is based primarily on perturbation theory which in the context of quantum mechanics is just combinatorics over free field theories and gluings of freefield solutions, aka propagators and vertecies. Gravity, in its raw theoretical form is what happens to maxwells equations under extension such that it is not differential equations describing linear time evolution of a medium with waves and stress gradients, but a system of non linear differential equations that describe a non linear medium, that simple means that gradient energy in the form of waves or static potentials cannself confine, and to be perfectly rigorous we can dispence with the linear evolution of static gradients all together, since the notion of potentials does not even make sense in linear time evolution. If you use maxwells equations for anything other than free field evolution of waves, then you must wheel in newton or some other additional 2nd order in time differential equations, or you simply are not describing inertia, neither in matter or in light. So when you extend maxwell to behave like a non linear medium, charge and mass can arise as self confinement of gradient energy, that is, energy in the medium can change induction rates and lead to confinement, which in turn leads to interaction of energy with energy in the medium. Gravity in that context, in a first order approximation where length contraction andntime dilation is ignored, which is not a rigorous thing to do but whatever, is just a change in induction rate of a medium locally and a flow of the medium locally, which btw is equivalent to tilting lightcones, like you would when you do a galilean transform that applies to a lightcone structure, that is, the flow of the medium, is a flow of isotropy, basically a spatial derivative of the flow/tilting of lightcones. You can view this as a gauge theory, where isotropy choices, aka whether you use an einsteinian metric or a galilean metric, or a combination, can be thought of as a gauge, and in gravitational gradients, the flow gradient and scalar gradient in induction rate are interchangeable to some degree. It just allows you to express a gravitational gradient in terms of multiple identical forma of the derivatives. It is just a gauge theory, the convention that leads to +--- or -+++ metrics is just a gauge, sorry. So when you generalize maxwell, you do not end up with a reification of representation into geometry like those muppets on earth did. Anyways, i tried to pace this comment very slowly, so it is understandable. Metrics are abstractions, yes, very good, they are often arbitrary without specifying what local gauge redundancy they are associated with, it is very unfortunate that we developed GR and SR in intrinsic geometric language before we understood gauge theory. Simultaneity for instance is just a gauge choice in SR, it is physically meaningless, doing a galilean transform to obtain a reference frame description associated with motion is a valid transformation under the same gauge group, yes very good, relativity is an oxymoron yeah, lorentz symmetry is really a representation of a gauge symmetry. Please stop continuing to treat it as its own fundamental thing, local time is just a gauge choice.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the fact that Eric brought this is up in the past AND in this video (about the suppression/purposely diverted) the direction of science away from gravity control and the topics Jesse Michaels covers so well in some of his videos. KEEP TUGGING ON THIS STRING