Eigenbros ep 112 - Understanding Yang Mills Theory

Eigenbros ep 112 - Understanding Yang Mills Theory Eigenbros 7.27K subscribers Subscribe 360 Share Download Clip Save 11,422 views Apr 16, 2021 Physics & Math Juan & Terence attempt to tackle the monster topic of Yang-Mills theory. Gauge Theory, topology, quantum field theory, differential geometry, group theory, and more all have a relationship with Yang-Mills theory. #YangMills #gaugetheory #physics Follow us on twitter: / eigenbros​​​​​​​​​​​ Support our channel: / eigenbros​ Our mailing list: http://eigenbros.com/mailing-list/​​​​ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OIg3Px... Social Media: https://linktr.ee/Eigenbros​ Chapters View all Explore the podcast 73 episodes Physics & Math Eigenbros Podcasts Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Eigenbros 7.27K subscribers Videos About Subscribe Twitter Instagram Patreon Linkedin 57 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... Pinned by @Eigenbros @flowerpt 4 years ago OK, my major accomplishment from this podcast is to understand where Yang-Mills fits into everything. Yay, even though I didn't grok 2/3rds of the content. I'll be back after I take a few more prereqs! BTW, I actually do know something you talked about - railroad gauges. The gauge is the distance between the rails. By convention it's measured from the inside of both tracks. Now, maybe, and I am just wildly speculating, it's called a gauge theory because the tracks seem to go infinitely in both directions, but you can discretely measure the width of the tracks at any point along it and get the same value. That meshes with my vague understanding of how gauge theories are useful for calculations of problems with similar attributes. Somebody fact-check me on this. 8 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @SpotterVideo 1 year ago Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957–8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. . Reply @____uncompetative 1 year ago 50:16 continued 2 So, this "abuse of notation" is just a summary of what I just expanded on in the paragraph above. You have no Spin 2 gravitons in Geometric Unity as it does gravity classically via squished space-time geometry. You have Spin 1 (vector fields) of Gauge Bosons such as SU(3) => 3² - 1 = 8 gluons and SU(2) => 2² - 1 = 3 chiral Parity breaking weak interaction mediating bosons called W⁻ and W⁺ and Zº and U(1) => photons all described by the Yang-Mills curvature equation. Then you have Spin 1/2 (spinors which require a 720º rotation to return to the same orientation and sign) which host the Fermionic fields such as electrons and quarks. Then you have the Spin 0 Higgs field equation which was based on the Klein-Gordon equation which gives some stuff mass. All of which can be thought of as different Ranks of Tensors in a state of quantum superposition on the 'Observed" that is the Ehresmannian manifold Y⁷·⁷ which has been turned into a principal fiber bundle from which the 'Observer' that is our X¹·³ space-time is recovered from that gauge group of U(64, 64) describing all phenomena as a section, kinda like a slice of American cheese from the stack McDonald's keep to make their cheeseburgers out of. So, presumably the Higgs part is square rooted into the mass-momentum part of the RHS of the field equation which would ordinarily be the stress-energy-momentum tensor multiplied by a scalar to diminish the effect a large mass had on the neighboring curvature of space-time described by the LHS of the equation R ‎ ‎ – ½Rg ‎ ‎ + Λg ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎= ‎ ‎8πG · T ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ → ‎ ‎ S ‎ = ‎ T ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎μν ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎c⁴ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎μν ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ω ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ω‎ Maybe this is what Eric is going for. However, it is based on a lot of inferences. Essentially, he wants a 14D description of the final single unified field omega from the point of view of it on Y and in looking at it in that 14D context you see it with all of its symmetries, which includes fields for Dark Matter. This makes the resultant equation a lot simpler than Einstein's Field Equations. Yet, this hides that it is 196 equations (14x14 dimensional Observerse) rather than 16 equations (4x4 dimensional space-time). I have come across a paper recently which suggested this idea was viable, however it is even more complicated to make sense of than Geometric Unity "This condition is also of interests due to its connection to the theory of Yang-Mills equation." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01429.pdf#page=2 Either you tolerate someone earnestly trying to unify incompatible laws of physics or ignore what I regard as a worthy endeavour. Eric Weinstein is generalising Einstein beyond the restrictive set of dimensional measures he selected for General Relativity and then argue that the universe would use an unrestricted set of dimensional measures to chart its 4D manifold, otherwise you have to explain "Why that choice of parameterisation?" and then this gives you 14 rather than 10 to play with, which allows for a Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) solution for a Quantum Field Theory of U(64, 64) Weyl spinors which is non-chiral, so it breaks no symmetries, and it includes Dark Matter fields which explains the rotation of galaxies. This 14 has to be complexified and then decomposed into this split signature, but complex numbers are common throughout Quantum Field Theory so this step seems reasonable. Geometric Unity basically falls out of being very very hands off about the design of the universe and letting it determine its own constraints, by not prematurely selecting something okay for defining gravity, but leaving no headroom for any other phenomena to be attached to those extra implicit dimensions. It could all be nonsense, but I don't see why String Theory should get to be the only game in town. Feel free to ignore Geometric Unity, but I don't see it justified that there is this intense hate for its very existence, or for Eric proposing it. I suspect those writing such comments are stuck in academia frustrated that they can't work on their own pet theory until they secure tenure. Something which looks less likely as their professor's health remains strong so their seat isn't vacated. I just thought people would find this interesting. I don't have a blog, so I am putting it here as it seems like a good place to elicit interest in this unification through Yang-Mills square root approach. Reply @roryisatall1 1 year ago Can you post links to the videos you put up plz! 🙏 Reply @AnakinSkywalker-zq6lm 1 year ago I noticed that Noether’s Theorem is listed as notice in the time stand. 😮 Reply @vtrandal 4 years ago (edited) At 9:10 the arrows being discussed represent the strength of the gravitational field along the road which is locally Euclidean [(the Minkowski space you guys talked about earlier and refer to as "flat"). Careful: at 9:55 you say the vector potential changes (including a change of direction as you tilted your right hand). It does NOT change. What changes is the cars’ up and down motion causing them to lose and gain momentum to the gravitational field as Matt said in the video clip shown previously. Despite these little snags your video is great. Even Matt O'dowd could be more careful when he includes the center of the earth in his local gauge invariance explanation. I would expect to be weightless at the center if the earth. No balls would roll. They would float. Okay: at 17:30 those pins are called railroad spikes (the taste of sodium saccharin, but you’re talking about the distance between the rails, the gauge). In physics we mean gauge as in temperature gauge; the temperature is the same regardless of the scale. But you knew this per your Gauge Invariance talk at 22:22 . 1 Reply @Airsofter4692 4 years ago For a source on gauge theory/Yang Mills, I would also recommend looking at David Tong's notes on Gauge Theory. In fact his notes on everything are great (especially GR and QFT), he basically has enough notes to cover most of a Physics degree at this point 7 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @finnjake6174 3 years ago Thank you for the recommendations at the end! :D 1 Reply @timberfinn 4 years ago Started reading the paper after you guys put it on Twitter, finally starting to understand yang mills somewhat lol. Thanks for the video and for suggesting that resource los eigen bros 3 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @KaliFissure 3 years ago Charge related components, charge electrical magnetic, are curves or bends in membrane, gravity is density of membrane. Reply @esb1874 4 years ago So happy I just found this podcast! I'll be tuning in for here on! Thanks from a fellow physicist! 1 Reply @BboyKeny 4 years ago 20:00 "For me this put a nail in the coffin" For me this put a gauge between the rail track. Great video, thanks!!! 1 Reply @LukePluto 3 years ago (edited) Just found this channel. Surprising to hear some bros talking about gauge theory and differential geometry, will have to subscribe and go through your vids. Hope u keep making videos! I recommend trying out a video on Ricci Flow; not sure how common it is in physics, but it's an interesting area explored more in pure math 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @johnrowson7639 4 years ago Thanks. Why didn’t you return to the equations you showed at the start, and relate the understanding of the theory arrived at? ( It would have helped me anyhow). 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @moosehead4497 3 years ago How come the highest quality podcasts like yours have only 5k subscribers? 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @riggmeister 3 years ago This is a very engauging topic! 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @ibrahimshehata7286 4 years ago Does anybody know the name of the channel explaining Schrodinger wave equation 1 Reply Eigenbros · 3 replies @nightwng1207 4 years ago Yang-Billz baby 4 Reply @KaliFissure 3 years ago This closely maps onto that Wolfram Physics Project. Reply @peterd5843 3 years ago man i wish this stuff made more money. I'd study it for sure :( 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @Grandunifiedcelery 4 years ago I enjoyed! Next, could you tackle the Grand Unified Theory? I subscribed your channel 8 Reply Eigenbros · 3 replies @R.U.READY. 3 years ago (edited) Hey guys love your channel but one suggestion: you guys need to invest in some different mic’s👍🤓 Reply @Bullypulpit 4 years ago If you collect your Universal Basic Income, you'll be required to work at one of the Yang Mills, in theory. 6 Reply @penbunny9078 3 years ago The theory of Railroad gage-gage Symmetry; Reply @chadgregory9037 3 years ago quantum physics be like "wtf we do bout quadratic variation" Reply @양익서-g8j 11 months ago 결국은 우리는 우리의 설계도와 아이디어를 깨닫고 선택을 하겠죠....죽음도 삶도 넘는 그 너머의 삶 Reply @____uncompetative 1 year ago 50:16 continued Edward Witten collaborated with Nathan Seiberg and came out with Seiberg-Witten theory. Eric Weinstein makes no claim on that, but says that the Seiberg-Witten equations or invariants were essentially the same as his work and recognised as having been originated by him when Witten wrote them on the blackboard at MIT. This doesn't mean Witten stole Eric's idea. It might be that Taubes knew Witten had been similarly inspired by Donaldson's work and/or the Uhlenbeck book and had equations very like what Eric was planning on making the subject of his thesis and may have been told some bullshit false reason why it wouldn't work because Witten was working on using them to develop his theory with Seiberg. So you might have The Origin of Species scenario where Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the theory of evolution before Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell urged Darwin to publish first to gain priority. This didn't happen, but the scenario could provide a template whereby Witten is the Darwin and Weinstein is the Wallace and history attributes the equations to Witten and Nathan Seiberg, improperly. Of course, I wasn’t there. I can’t corroborate this story. I have no reason to doubt Eric’s account, but it is possible there may be more to it so it could have seemed like theft and actually been Eric being put on a non-conflicting path when if he was left alone he would have got the credit for a significant pair of equations. Were this to be the case then Eric would have had his ideas suppressed by Clifford Taubes and that is inexcusable as Eric would have come out with his version of these equations in his PhD in 1992 years before Witten came out with anything similar (even if they independently arrived at the same result, as does happen in science). I think Eric would have been okay with this being that Witten happened upon the same thing as him, but it was painfully obvious that everyone who knew he had done this work and wasn't prepared to speak up about it, presumably because they did not want to be excluded from Witten's seminars, and have it affect their academic career advancement, were cowards and I think Eric did the right thing in leaving physics and it hasn't actually made any progress in the intervening years without him. String Theory has made no predictions which can be refuted by experiment. Sir Roger Penrose says it isn't physics. Had Eric stayed on in academia he would have become a string theorist and wasted his intellect on inconsequential mathematical fluff and less interesting conversations. Consequently, Eric pursued a career in finance whilst working on his speculative ideas in his spare time. These aren't complete, and haven't been through a process of academic peer review, but to make up for this there are a couple of email addresses on the first page eliciting constructive general and technical feedback from anyone who wants to provide it. I asked him if the Ship In A Bottle operator was bidirectional when he phoned me up, he said it was. I didn't have reason to make any further constructive criticisms beyond minor nit-picks about typesetting, such as a spurious '4' on the corner of the first page which has no reason being there. So, I don't see that there is a lot of point in emailing him about spelling mistakes, as others will probably have done that. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to help him reconstruct the formal definitions for the Ship In A Bottle operators which he says in the draft paper that he promises to reconstruct from scratch if necessary. I bought F. Reese Harvey's book on Spinors and Calibrations and the relevant sections seem to be on page 190-194 and 233-237 although the whole of Chapter 12 is probably relevant from its discussion of split-signatures to twistor fibers. Now, I can't see how any of this math is relevant to his informal definition of a Ship In A Bottle operator which is intended to "kill off the Weyl curvature contribution to recover Riemannian geometry’s ability to form Einstein tensors for gravity in such a way as to preserve Ehresmannian gauge covariance". Presumably this takes an extension of the Yang-Mills equation to 14D rather than the 8D Eric demonstrated was possible in his cited PhD thesis, and then applies the same strategy as Paul Dirac did to obtain a relativisitic equation describing the momentum of the electron from the Klein-Gordon equation, where to get rid of the squares wasn't mathematically possible with an actual square root operation, so his solution was to square his work in progress Dirac equation and leave the Klein-Gordon alone. This led to the terms of the latter being put on the ascending diagonal of a 4x4 table, to represent time and the other 3 spatial dimensions of space-time comprising the electron's momentum. Dirac multiplied his (equation)(equation) with itself to square it, and that led to a 4x4 table of results of that distributative multiplying out of every term with every other term in those ( )s. Then he cancelled every off-ascending diagonal term with its counterpart, recognising that matrices were involved. He then had two ascending diagonals to have his D-squared be defined by KG. Then all he had to do was actually root the terms of his D-squared, which was mathematically legitimate, and he had his Dirac equation. Eric is of the opinion this same technique can be used on the Yang-Mills curvature equation, I think after extending it to operate in 14D, and then "square root" it to obtain one for what would be Weinstein Field Equations (plural) in 14D, although due to the (Weinstein)(Weinstein) this would probably involve 196 equations (14x14) and require the use of software for manipulating tensor algebra (which exists). All this is merely pencilled in in his provisional draft paper in Equation (12.10) which is not mathematics, let alone physics, but should be viewed as a placeholder/reminder for outlined future work to be done in subsequent versions of his Author's Working Draft: ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ _______________________________‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ Einstein-Dirac = √ Yang-Mills-Higgs-Klein-Gordon https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf#page=58 Reply @osemudiame123 4 years ago Hey, what are your full names? 2 Reply Eigenbros · 2 replies @robmorgan1214 4 years ago We're got a serious linguistic and notation problem (we need Leibnetz2.0). Most physicists can't talk to each other let alone a mathematician or layperson... and the mathematicians in my experience are not able to manipulate let alone solve these kinds of equations or even complete an analytical (toy) calculation let alone a full numeric computation necessary to make a prediction or analyze REALISTIC data. We have compounded this mathematical tower of babble by naming things in very misleading ways that further confuse people and screw up everyone's ability to build intuition or explain these concepts to people with a "normal" (ie non mathematically overload) mental dictionary... FFS, we call the most USEFUL number system that we've devised to ACCURATELY REPRESENT ALMOST EVERYTHING* A MODERN HUMAN IS LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER IN EVERYDAY REALITY: "IMAGINARY"... it doesn't any more messed up than that. (waves, fluids, simple harmonic oscillators, e&m, aerodynamics, fourier transforms, spherical harmonic cows, simple circuits, QM, SR, QFT, WTF ...etc) 3 Reply @clintross7274 4 years ago Peanut butter pancakes Reply @StephenPaulKing 4 years ago (edited) fractal Calculus, dude! Think of what has to be done to do calculus on a Koch curve. :-P So long as we can string the local derivatives and (dually?) the functions together to span the curve we are analyzing, we should be OK. After all, we should be able to play with manifolds that are not smooth because of the computational complexity of the decision problem of whether or not a a pair of manifolds have a smooth diffeomorphism between them (ala a theorem by Markov). Reply @AMGOSUK 3 years ago Thanks for avoiding the MATHS for at least for the first 2 minutes. BUT -- you lost me after that. My observation takes me back to 1978 - when I chose to study engineering rather than physics because I could not get my heads around (or visualise) pure maths or the maths I would have to be awesome at if I were to seek to study physics after high-school. Since retiring I have watched a lot of lectures on cosmology and physics - but as soon as the likes of Suskin starts to speak almost 1-second after he starts we are deep into the Maths and I am lost. My ask is for a simple explanation based on our lived reality FIRST and then yes please explain the relevant math and evidence. 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @jamesbra4410 4 years ago Yeah we get it it's an 11 dimensional projection of a periodic fundamental period eigenmanifold of a spherically harmonic oscillator with quantum mechanical moment generating hypersurface rotations and a metric signature correcting for curvature variations. I take poops harder than this. Reply @clintross7274 3 years ago Peanut butter pancakes Reply