"... When I went to Dirac's course." Just kind of throws it out there. I mean, he's Penrose, but still neat hearing him say that.

So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize. One of the greatest minds.

It seems like Roger Penrose understands what Spinors are.

I came here knowing nothing about spinors, I left knowing even less.

There are four different definitions of a Spinor: 1)Physicists use spinor to mean a representation of the Spin Group 2) Mathematicians use spinor to mean a smooth section of the Spinor Bundle 3) Both will use the term loosely to refer to any number of objects associated to the Spin group 4) When asked by a layperson, everyone will say a spinor is something which somehow magically changes when rotated a full 360 degrees. And then they demonstrate a system made up of two parts, a rigid body and a ribbon, and when the rigid body rotates but not the ribbon the ribbon gets a twist. Every single time I want to point out that if you rotate the WHOLE system, including the ribbon, of course it would be unchanged. So if we don't understand Spinors, it's at least partly by choice. If you can't be bothered to distinguish 1) and 2) above, then you have no chance of getting started. If you refuse to look at dimension 2 where Spin Structures are Theta characteristics, which have been studied since the 1840s, you're trying to make things harder then they need to be. People just love doing the stupid cup dance, and they love lying and saying "some things aren't invariant if you rotate them by 360 degrees". Because it sounds like magical thinking.

Great setup for a podcast. The lighting is perfect, the mics sound crisp, and the chairs look comfy.

I love the fact that, the very next thing that came after "people won't understand *that*" was an explanation involving taking the square root of a klein bottle.

EW got me into the blues. I have no idea what these gentlemen are talking about but I watched the whole thing. Why? Because EW got me into the blues. So I will continue to watch...listen....and maybe something will stick.

Let the man speak damnit, in the end he was going to explain it

good comment at start - spinor dimension in terms of the spacetime it is in's dimension, d --> spinor_dimension = 2^( d / 2), so a 2-d spacetime would have a 2-d spinor, a 4-d spacetime would have a 4-d spinor, a 10-d spacetime would have a 32-d spinor, a 100-d spacetime would have spinors with 1,125,899,906,842,624 dimensions, and so forth.

Watch the videos of EigenChris to start understanding spinors, he explains them very well, of course not the higher dimensions ones these two are sometimes talking about, its a good introduction.

The way Rodger said that, I finally understand.

It is the most interesting conversation which i couldn't understand much of it.

Although I'm sure virtually none of us would understand anything, I would love to see Sir Roger and Ed Whitten have a long form conversation.

The Philippine wine glass trick is actually a method of concentration exercise taught in Pentjak Silat King fu.

The flagpole analog is interesting. It gives a connection with geometric algebra. Definitely, we have to understand what is spinning. If it is not the particle it can be that our spacetime itself is spinning.

Definitely not gonna tell the Dirac scissors joke at the next party.

Thanks for this video. I can't do the math you guys do, but am fascinated by what qm theories mean. I am constant running into weird things like dirac's belt trick - despite carefully attempting to follow examples, I can never make it work. I am glad to see that professionals find this all confusing as well. Does anyone have references about spinors for non mathematicians?

Does anyone have or know a link to the video Eric mentioned at 7:12? Would very much appreciate it ✌️🙂👍 Edit: nvmd someone put it in the comments 😂

I was on a Zoom call recently with Sir Roger Penrose. This is the world's greatest mathematical physicist, but he is so incredibly modest - as you will see here - even though he was just awarded a Nobel Prize. I loved hearing him reminisce about working with Einstein, Dirac, and his most famous student, Stephen Hawking. I mention his modesty because, in this video, he is forced to carry on a conversation with possibly the world's greatest ego. Take note that Sir Roger never goes to the outer limit of obscure mathematical phraseology, but that he gets his point across, even while dealing with the constant interruptions. Weinstein (pronounced like "Einstein" he always reminds us), goes constantly to his storehouse of verbal obfuscation with highbrow mathematical terminology. As the English would say: these two are "like chalk and cheese!"

At this part it seems to me that spinners are or some type of knotted feature of SpaceTime or quantum fields that give rise to particles?

Complex issue! In simple terms, Spinors are a linear representation of rotations in n dimensions. Complex numbers rotate when we multiply by them (e.g. multiplication by i rotates a vector 90 degrees) so two-component complex column vectors (i.e. and spinor) works similarly. Spinors were first applied to describe the interaction of the spin of a particle with anelectromagnetic field by Pauli (1927) and later by Dirac (1930). Pauli used "spin matrices" (3 2x2 complex matrices with i, -i, 1 or 0. Spinor works when we want to represent combinations of sequential rotations and manipulate them using an algebra (e.g. SO(3) etc). They are really hard to understand in higher dimensions

You can tell eric and roger both have a mind that sees mathematics in a clear and more broad view than most and how all great mathematicians do and it ranges alot with some much more advanced in their ability to see and visualize the fundamental dynamics of the problems they're solving. I have a feeling they can literally visualize and graph equations in their head without having to work it out on paper.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Im fascinated by spinors. Glad he did this discussion. Found Dirac’s book on Spinors at the UC library. Very thin blue book, but heavier than the Sun when it comes to the knowledge. Blew me away. Edit: UC as in University California. They might have digitized it by now. Also has a quick review in Garrett Sonczyk book.

Thankyou

The "look behind you" problem - you can either look over your shoulder, and the world is still upright, or you can look between your legs, and the world is upside down! Two answers for the 'same' motion. (strong similarities to gimbal lock and quaternions)

Got it ..

these two men sit down to talk and I know I'm not going to understand at least half of what they are discussing but I still know I will learn something

I am starting to think that I was taught the cliff notes on spinors.

I just assume its just a double angle relationship between physical space and (abstract) state space.

Are spinors 720 degrees of rotation due to 360 in the electric and magnetic fields making it 720 degrees before returning?

Yes

Imagine you could see and hear Newton arguing with, let’s say, Leibniz. We always (I, for one) complain from this age. But it’s a wonderful age, in its own way.

I wish my brain worked at this level

Penrose has wonderful images and analogies. When Weinstein speaks, I understand nothing.

So are they talking about DMT objects?

I think a better description would be lensing of an image. One must focus the image in a lens before it can become coherent to an observing body the focus is a contrast of a positive and negative image of the same object in two inverse subjective and abstract representations if taken individually they are incomplete. If you go too far out of focus it inverts itself instead of a singular focused image it becomes a multiplicity of singularly distorted representations of the same object. Whereas these multiple singular distorted representations become separated by 99.9% space. For example if you want to see an atom in the scale of perceptible vision, one is in effect expanding a pebble to the size of the Moon. You cannot do this without introducing 99.9% space and all the points scattered within that space are equally a holographic representation of the original singular image distorted in one way or another by angle and dimensional magnitude at a distance of perceptional observation. It would be wise for one to not forget this reality of the subject at hand or they will get lost in their own projection. A black hole is just a barrier of a sense receptor, your eyes are black holes leading to your mind triangulating (squaring) the information into a 3d cubed comprehended form, spread across time. This is done by reflecting on the light of its own being. It's own light of which you can't see directly, the light you see is only that of everyone else, along with your ancestral light which is information processed into a functional formal analysis. You don't know your own light you can't see it until you compare yourself and your reflection to everything else and eliminate the contradictions. From this you can define the subject as it's difference from something else, one would be wise to recognize the definition is just an inverted functional analysis and not the truth of its being. By definition the thing is in name it's difference, which is only a symbol to express differentiated meaning in communicable terms and not it's whole truth, yet realizable in another intelligent being recognizing a shared experience. Once you realize darkness doesn't exist, because nothing can't exist therefore space can't exist except as expressed in the reflective processing of the functional self comparing it to its current and ancestral received not self. Darkness becomes the journey and is the process of finding one's own light. By connecting all the stars in the sky and tracing them back to its own body. The perfect form is a sphere which is an idealized body of two lenses in cooperative oppositional comparative analysis expressed as intelligence. You can't know the truth by studying the thing itself, it only becomes clear when compared to something else such as a fiction of itself. In the comparison by eliminating contradictions it creates a depth of understanding of a more accurate picture of that in which it observes and that for which it experiences. It's not an accident that all bodies in outer space and of a certain magnitude are spherical the perfect form is a circle the perfect shape in two dimensions collapsing into a single pole of cooperative opposition as a vortex, focusing into a singular point that can be reprojected and reflected in time as an inverted reimagined representation of itself simultaneously interacting with the multiplicity of distorted selves. Some of this may be incoherent, though it's all the time and effort I wish to freely give of myself on a KZfaq comment. Though I've already given so much of myself, for those who only seek to deny me every step of the way.

hello friends

Spinors = duality! There are two of them. Quantum superposition = duality. Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions. Communistic (convex, convergence, syntropy, Bosons) is dual to individualistic (concave, divergence, entropy, Fermions). Convex hulls are dual to concave hulls -- topology. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Generalization (waves) is dual to localization (particles). Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- Dirac equation. Spinors are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Saw them perform "Ghetto Child" once.

Don't know what the fuck they're talking about . But I like it .

Interesantno

kid: "mom whats the easiest thing we learn in school?" mom: "geometry son" *GEOMETRY* :

An 89 year old man at the time - unreal.

Yes yes....I see what they are saying here....

I looked up the term 'spinner'' in the Urban Dictionary and realised that the conceptualisation problem is due to an object being defined by its potential to perform an action (or to have an action peformed on it) and not whether it actually performs this action (or has the action perform on it).

I know you both would hate this but don't spinors hint at least one a hidden dimension at the small scale? Which what sets bosons and fermions? Spinnors exist in two inseprable dimensions other than the four dimensions.

Whats your thoughts on vortex maths ?

Is it possible that spinors rotate 720 due to 360 in the electric and magnetic fields?

He may say he is in awe of Edward Witten, but I think Roger is a pretty close 2nd.

A second spinor, making an 8 shape seems to complete the picture :))

Loved the part about the klein bottle

It's more simple stop thinking in objects start thinking in waves at certain wave length it takes 2 turns to get the top wave in original position again. Why this wave length.. what's the diameter of the surface it travels through. It's to connect two sides of a field nah just making that up but the wave is easier next is the what it achieved.

I can usually keep up with topics like this, to a laymen's degree, but this discussion I have no idea.

I watched an hour of Richard Behiel's video on spinors before I watched this. It's fair to say spinors are weird. I would like to just work with SO(3) but I guess fermions dont.

String theory isn’t finished

Why doesn't someone ask Edward Witten?

Eric seems to really want to show Penrose that he understands, and Penrose couldn't care less.

very interesting, eric ! can you teach us more about this please ? (spinors part) maybe w brian keating? thanks

Tweakable mathematical models featuring arrangements of circles are awesome at matching measurable phenomena. Epicycles, the Fourier transform, spinors and more. None of these mathematical models have anything useful to say about mechanism … about how existence actually is. Geocentricism had to be escaped to understand why epicycles worked. Likewise, atomism and chronocentricim have to be escaped to understand why current (century old) mathematical models can be tweaked and embellished to fit experimental outcomes. But I must admit, the latest 3D twisted spirograph renderings of the maths get really pretty ;)

4:55 This is one of the worst moments in science journalism when Weinstein almost speaks over Penrose's eloquent discussion of spinors using Dirac/Wiel's two-cone analogy. And he just cuts away, doesn't react or engage with that idea, which is sad to me. There is something really strange about spinors and this particular behavior, and here Penrose is talking about that, in a very substantive way, using a beautiful analogy, and he effectively ignores it. A huge, missed opportunity, in my opinion.

Is hard maths real or are they making it up?

Says a great deal for Dirac that Penrose loves to name-drop him so much.

Thank you Eric and Roger this elucidated many concepts to me. 🙏❤

You don't want them adding two and two together and getting one

What is the square root of a geometrical object? oO

When is Eric going to address Nguyen's concerns about geometric unity?

Ahhh yes, indeed indeed.

Use the audio cortex noob.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.

E = m c fucking squared. You take the square root of vector algebra because of c^2. E = mc^2 is a geometrical formula for quantum mechanical objects.

A strange interview, Eric wants to go deeper while Roger stays on the surface of the issues.

Gears fit the rule. Zero G swimming too.

It sounds like you want to find your own spinner by studying anothers

What an utter joy to see this oldtimer with the spark or even cheekiness in his eyes of a ten-year old, yet still being very much on top of his game. Such a delight to see in todays world where the public is so quickly led into self-destructive fear and hate. And indeed it is good to hear top physicists / mathematicians again speak in terms of (tangible) geometric structures with fields, momentum and oscillations, instead of matter-void bla bla of pure math. So spinors...Never delved deep into the subject, but I think i stumbled over the actual application, namely I think you can find what you call 'spinors' in the effect that (spinning) micro singularities have on longitudinal continuum fieldlines. Super computer simulations cleary show how the straight fieldlines (lets call them spacetime fieldlines in this tenure) get folded and the fold is next dragged around the singularity into a double lined orthogonal EM spiral arm. These windings, from our oblique ST viewpoint, will be interpreted as 'quanta' of energy distanced windings by us. The rounded ends of these folds thus get wound up clockwise and anti clockwise in an oscillating manner. Upon reaching their furthest wound-up phase, the rounded end induces a temporary double intersection 'point' with our ST continuum again , which we call 'electrons'. So all we have to do is to assume this 'spinor' concept is actually a micro-singularity which we call atom, and you have a reliable tangible application in the form of the correct atomic model. electron orbits are nothing but collections of equal energy distanced stroboscopic double discharges of an wound up EM fieldline, which orthogonally leads to a net contraction f the ST fieldline, the effect we know as 'gravity. Spin wise you could say an atom bound photon takes a u turn getting a spin form 1 to 0 to 1 again, averaging 1/2. The inverse or orthogonal spin of this effect (the contraction of the ST fieldline) would be 1 / 1/2= spin 2 . And indeed this spinor effect we also see on galaxy level...hope it helps...For the record; the Max Planck Institute has photographed these double sided electron discharges at each side of He atoms, without linking it to the physical concept of a rounded fold of an EM fieline, intersecting with our ST continuum before heading off to the other side of the atom to do the same...

The only man to truly understand Spinors, is the man who invented the Spinor. And he is the guy who played Data in Star Trek TNG.

Anyone who's taken a basic course on the subject understands spinors perfectly well. It's not remotely the most complicated topic in physics.

Dr cat and soul wide open no fear that Mr too many of the time and soul and current situation in which a day yes eat and current and intermittent rain check for me to tell you are not distressing of this meadeato moderator and have to Waite to you. Did you get that .

Penrose: Discovers the equations of a black hole. Invents the Penrose triangle. Inspired M.C. Escher. Is one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. Eric: 2d = (2^d - 1)/2

Scientific gibberish is fascinating. 😂😂

DMT entities brought me here.

maybe they can inject some video graphics to enhance the visual explanations.. although i enjoy watching them interact. plain-spoken humility is important for scientific analysis and discoveries, although i enjoy the passionate observation of the irony, in the way we interpret the universe, as depicted by Weinstein.

Thats 300 IQ on the screen

square root of a vector? are we trying to guess the passcode like 1111, shit - 1112, shit - 1113, shit?

ah yes very interesting

This is a good example of how academia are blind to knowledge outside their financially supported system. There is a person who has a great theory about this, but he's not working for any university. Once again money causes division and ignorance.

If he just stopped interupting all the time....

Because physics is mum and dad teaching the children mathematics isn't it

Electron Flood theory will tell y'all what you wanna know. Spinors and strings are wrong.

that and somehow the fermions have three generations of mass

According to Penrose, Dirac, in his lecture, illustrated a spinor. The illustrations usually involve a tethering of the rotated object to a reference object. Could we admit that a fermion is somehow tethered to a reference object? Two of the tethered rotated objects would potentially tangle in a way that nature would not allow. Apparently, bosons are not tethered like that?

🙋🏽‍♂️

Roger Penrose is like.. "God this guy is full of shit." 😄

So a spinor is basically a Torus?

Okay...No matter how much I would like to understand these minds its not gonna happen. I will come back and listen to them again when I won my math Phd..lol

Spinors? Shouldnt that be pronounced SPY-NOOORS? If they were(as the scientists are saying it) surely it should be spelt Spin-nerz?

Imagine being on an intellectual level of Penrose and having to endure the effects the ravages of time have on the brain. Maybe it's release from perpetual noise, or maybe it's the lifes passion slowly slipping through your fingers and there's nothing you can do to stop it. I mean we all experience it to some degree, but these guys have to suffer the diminishing of intellectual capacity on a whole other spectrum....

Last