Weinstein Warns U.S. Science Conformity Threatens National Security Advantage

韦恩斯坦警告：美国科学界的趋同倾向威胁国家安全优势 1984年以来理论物理学的停滞源于规避风险的同行评审和体制压力，但潜在能量突破的搁置或许避免了人类走向自我毁灭。 Eric Weinstein 认为，体制对风险的规避、僵化的同行评审，以及在经济上脆弱且被迫趋同顺从的“科学不稳定阶层”，导致了美国科学主导地位陷入停滞。他提出了大刀阔斧的制度改革，例如免除科研团队遵循标准联邦法规、废除1965年以后的同行评审机制，以及将硬科学与软科学区分开来。Weinstein 还探讨了理论物理学，指出基础粒子物理学在弦理论的主导下大约于1984年陷入停滞，亦或重大突破被隐匿在诸如文艺复兴科技（Renaissance Technologies）这类秘密领地之内。最终，他认为物理学突破这50年来的低谷期，或许在无意中保护了人类免受灾难性新型能源和武器技术的危害。 Eric Weinstein 正在与美国多个高级政府机构接洽，提议自二战后范内瓦·布什（Vannevar Bush）体系确立以来的首次重大科学政策改革。 (0:00) Weinstein 指出，体制审查与经济脆弱性催生了不敢提出异议的“科研无产阶级”（scientific precariat），导致了人造的学术共识，并彻底破坏了美国具有优势的“牛仔科学”（cowboy science）。 (6:31) 他主张废除1965年以后成型的同行评审制度，给予科研团队联邦政策豁免，并将物理、数学等硬科学与软科学彻底剥离，以打破对异端思维的打压。 (81:31) Weinstein 批评政府科研机构滥用现代投资组合理论，仅向低风险、低回报的项目提供资助，呼吁将科研视为纯粹公共产品进行高风险的顶尖人才投资，而非押注平庸点子。 (34:09) 他直言理论物理学自1980年代中期被带入脱离物理现实的超抽象弦理论后陷入停滞，并质疑前沿突破可能被秘密封锁，但也指出这种停滞或无意间避免了毁灭性武器技术过早爆发从而拯救了人类。 (41:36)

Theoretical physicist Eric Weinstein argues that American science has stalled over the past half-century due to institutional conformity, bureaucratic funding models, and the diversion of fundamental physics into non-empirical abstractions like string theory. He contends that reviving breakthrough discoveries requires dismantling postwar peer-review systems, investigating neglected theoretical frameworks, and re-establishing direct cooperation between independent researchers and federal policymakers. Institutional Conformity and the Post-1965 Funding Pivot (15:00) Weinstein traces the breakdown of American scientific innovation to the period between 1965 and 1975. During this decade, legislative changes such as the Mansfield Amendments curtailed the military's ability to finance open-ended, unclassified fundamental research at universities, ending the broad 'blue sky' patronage model that followed World War II. In its place arose an administrative apparatus governed by journal peer review and rigid Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which Weinstein asserts were retroactively imposed to manage costs and limit political controversy. This shift fostered what Weinstein terms the 'scientific precariat'—an economically vulnerable academic workforce reliant on continuous grant approval and tenure gatekeeping. Weinstein argues that this environment penalizes rugged, high-variance 'cowboy science' and rewards safe, low-risk incrementalism. To reverse this institutional domestication, he proposes abolishing formal peer review, separating hard sciences from soft sciences, and creating regulatory carve-outs from standard administrative and human resources rules to allow high-agency, unorthodox minds to flourish. Four Decades of Theoretical Physics Stagnation (41:36) Weinstein asserts that fundamental theoretical physics has experienced no revolutionary, empirically validated breakthroughs since approximately 1983–1984. He attributes this impasse largely to the institutional dominance of string theory, spearheaded by figures such as Edward Witten. In Weinstein's view, this paradigm diverted top mathematical minds into hyper-abstract domains like AdS/CFT, which he argues have severed connections to measurable matter—a disconnect illustrated by the absence of foundational particles like electrons or quarks on programs for major theoretical conferences. He argues that pursuing alternative frameworks could fundamentally expand humanity's command over nature, categorized into 'Boom' (destructive power), 'Vroom' (energy production), and 'Zoom' (propulsion). Weinstein cites the mid-1970s Pati–Salam model, which expands symmetry to SU(4) to treat leptons as a fourth color alongside quarks, theoretically permitting matter transmutation. He suggests that while physics stagnation deprived humanity of advanced propulsion and energy, it may have inadvertently protected the species from discovering existential weapons far more destructive than standard thermonuclear designs. Sequestration Hypotheses, Secret Enclaves, and UAPs (45:16) Addressing why fundamental academic breakthroughs halted, Weinstein considers whether transformative physics was deliberately cordoned off from the public sphere. He compares modern conditions to the 1940s Manhattan Project, when journal submissions on nuclear fission were quietly redirected to a secret Reference Committee while public research stalled. Weinstein floats the hypothesis that Renaissance Technologies on Long Island could serve as a modern private enclave, questioning why a quantitative hedge fund recruits elite differential geometers and particle theorists while maintaining close physical proximity to SUNY Stony Brook and Brookhaven National Laboratory. Weinstein also connects historical opacity to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs). If conventional general relativity holds, he posits that UAPs may represent highly classified state technologies, referencing a 1971 declassified Australian intelligence document describing classified Western gravity-shielding research during the 1950s and 1960s. Alternatively, if general relativity is incomplete, he speculates that UAPs could exploit non-standard physics, such as local metric deformations that bypass conventional inertia. Singularities, Dynamic Dark Energy, and AI Discovery (71:08) Weinstein characterizes general relativity as an incomplete mathematical map rather than absolute reality, emphasizing that the theory breaks down internally at black hole and Big Bang singularities. He forecasts that observational data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) at Kitt Peak will surpass the 5-sigma significance threshold to demonstrate that dark energy is dynamic. This outcome would invalidate standard general relativity's reliance on a static cosmological constant, which Lovelock's theorem dictates as the only coordinate-invariant addition under standard four-dimensional assumptions. To move beyond current impasses, Weinstein argues for exploring multi-dimensional time, warning that an adversary operating with multi-temporal degrees of freedom would gain total strategic advantage over an actor constrained to a single timeline. Furthermore, he proposes training artificial intelligence systems on the 'Trash Can Corpus'—the vast catalog of rejected papers and dismissed hypotheses from the past several decades—to locate viable, uncorrupted paths of scientific inquiry that peer-reviewed consensus discarded. Asymmetric Leverage, Cosmic Posture, and Policy Engagement (85:12) Weinstein warns that foundational physics grants extreme, asymmetric leverage to bad actors, pointing to historical demonstrations where basic geometric insights enabled amateur designs of thermonuclear weapons. Using the metaphor of North Sentinel Island, he suggests that humanity's initial nuclear detonations in 1945 served as an alarm to external cosmic observers, signaling that a primitive, internally divided species was approaching interstellar travel capabilities without achieving corresponding geopolitical maturity. To manage these high-stakes technologies, Weinstein rejects academic disengagement from government and urges scientists to overcome partisan aversions. Reporting on his own discussions with executive branch officials in Washington, D.C., he contends that national leadership across agencies like the NIH, NSF, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy is far more open to structural reform than academic researchers assume. He appeals to elite scientists to assist the state directly in reshaping national research policy. Weinstein's critique presents a structural indictment of contemporary science, arguing that institutional risk-aversion suppresses the radical variance required for transformative discoveries. While he offers theoretical candidates—including his own Geometric Unity framework and dynamic dark energy—his claims regarding secret research enclaves and historical gravity manipulation remain speculative hypotheses rather than established historical facts. The unresolved question is whether federal agencies will implement high-risk, open-ended funding carve-outs against the entrenched incentives of the modern academic establishment.

埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）指出，美国基础科学自20世纪60至70年代起陷入了官僚化审查与低风险均质化的停滞；他主张打破理论物理四十余年的教条僵局，警惕高能物理被隐匿或停滞带来的非对称破坏风险，并呼吁彻底重塑科研资助体系以容纳高方差的突破性探索。 制度异化与“科研无产阶层”困境 (6:31) 韦恩斯坦认为，美国战后科学繁荣的核心优势在于敢于挑战权威、追求高风险的“牛仔科学”（cowboy science），但这一优势在1965年至1975年间因政策转向而遭到削弱。随着1965年《医疗保险法案》推行内部审查机制、1969年麻省理工学院反越战罢课，以及《曼斯菲尔德修正案》（Mansfield Amendments）禁止军方资助与军事无关的大学基础科研，现代同行评审（peer review）体制被全面确立。韦恩斯坦引用谷歌Ngram数据指出，“同行评审”在1965年前几乎不存在，它本质上是行政管理层规避政治责任的工具，迫使科研退化为可预测的低方差增量研究。 这种官僚化演化催生了依赖连续科研基金与教职评审的“科研无产阶层”（scientific precariat）。年轻学者由于缺乏经济保障，无法承担赌上职业生涯挑战既有共识的代价，致使“学术共识”沦为体制压力下的合规产物，正如流行病学家Jay Bhattacharya因签署《大巴灵顿宣言》曾遭联邦行政主管孤立打压。为此，韦恩斯坦主张彻底废除同行评审与企业化KPI考核，将硬科学与软科学的科研经费严格剥离，并在联邦法规适用中为高特异性科研团队建立豁免，通过长期稳定的高信任资助重新保护极具叛逆特质的一流人才。 理论物理停滞与涉密隔离假说 (41:36) 韦恩斯坦断言，理论物理学在1983至1984年左右脱离了物理实体世界。他批评爱德华·威滕（Edward Witten）等顶尖学者主导的弦理论将整个学科引向高度抽象的纯数学架构，例如“Strings 2026”大会日程中几乎完全去除了电子、强子、希格斯玻色子等现实物质概念。他认为，弦理论通过反德西特/共形场论（AdS/CFT）等缺乏实证基础的数学框架，客观上让物理学变得“绝对安全”，不再产生像二战时期那样可直接转化为武器的突破，导致粒子物理学在标准模型确立后的数十年内未能催生新的诺贝尔级工业革命。 针对基础科研的断崖式停滞，韦恩斯坦提出了激进的“涉密隔离”假说：物理学突破并未真正终结，而是被体系化地转入秘密项目。他援引二战曼哈顿工程时期美国国家研究委员会通过秘密“参考委员会”扣押核裂变论文的历史，推测文艺复兴科技（Renaissance Technologies）极有可能是现代版的洛斯阿拉莫斯。他指出，该公司专聘顶尖理论物理学家与微分几何学家、邻近布鲁克海文国家实验室与石溪大学，其封闭运作的大奖章基金不仅创造了金融界无法解释的长期超额收益，其结构也与情报机关的掩护机制存在诸多相似性。 前沿力学杠杆与地缘核扩散风险 (52:49) 韦恩斯坦提出了“爆炸、动力与极速”（Boom, Vroom, and Zoom）的分析框架，指出物理学停滞虽阻断了深空推进（Zoom）与新能源（Vroom），却也意外保护了人类免于遭受更高阶湮灭性武器（Boom）的自毁。他解释道，若理论物理突破标准模型并迈入帕蒂-萨拉姆（Pati-Salam）模型的SU(4)规范群乃至SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2)，轻子将被视作夸克的“第四种颜色”，理论上允许物质类型相互转化，从而释放足以彻底瓦解微观物质结构的极端破坏力。 他进一步警告，现代社会严重低估了已知基础科学所蕴含的低成本杠杆——例如向冠状病毒刺突蛋白插入12个核苷酸即可重创全球运转，而1970年代的霍华德·莫兰与普林斯顿学生菲利普斯均曾利用公开文献独立还原出氢弹设计。在这一背景下，以美国军事威慑（“暴力美元”）为基石的全球防扩散体系正随着地缘霸权衰退而面临解体；若核威慑格局从双极博弈彻底滑向多极化，根据博弈论，区域国家为谋求生存势必加速核自研，使全球核冲突风险呈现指数级攀升。 宇宙学危机、时空跃迁与UAP假说 (71:08) 韦恩斯坦将爱因斯坦与格罗斯曼建立的广义相对论称为人类认知的“时空牢笼”。他指出，暗能量占据宇宙绝大部分能量密度，而现有物理学受限于洛夫洛克定理（Lovelock's theorem），只能将其简化为静态宇宙常数；基特峰暗能量光谱仪（DESI）的最新实证观测若突破5西格玛统计显著性，将证实暗能量具有动态演化特征，从而颠覆经典引力模型。他提出，若能通过度规缩放机制（如“双指缩放”或“剪切倾斜”）直接改变时空距离，人类便可在不违背局域光速的前提下实现恒星际航行，唯有在银河系扩散至海量宜居节点才能规避文明的本土灭绝。 针对不明空中现象（UAP），韦恩斯坦提供了两种研判：若广义相对论成立，UAP很可能是国家级高密级的地面工程产物（他援引一份1971年解密的澳大利亚情报文件，指出五六十年代多所高校曾围绕核试验场地涉密开展引力屏蔽研究）；若广义相对论不完备，UAP则可能代表超越现有四维时空模型的技术，甚至涉及跨越多个时间维度的“多时间维度对手”。他以“北森蒂纳尔岛”土著孤岛作比，认为人类在1945年引爆原子弹，犹如封闭孤岛上的原始部落点燃核装置，必然会触发外部高等观察者的警戒干预。此外，他主张利用人工智能训练被传统同行评审筛除的“垃圾箱文库”（Trash Can Corpus），以此摆脱西方学界长达数十年的认知盲区。 韦恩斯坦呼吁学术界打破政治壁垒，主动与政府技术决策层沟通以推动科学体系的彻底革新，并建议国际大国在下一代物理学突破释放不可逆杠杆之前建立协同治理。但需指出，其关于文艺复兴科技涉足前沿秘密物理实验、引力屏蔽历史遮蔽以及超越相对论度规操作的推论，目前仍停留在个人假说与间接类比层面，缺乏公开受控的经验实证与同行文献支撑。

## Background 本期节目由知名播客频道 All-In Podcast 于 2026 年 8 月 27 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介显示，本期为“科学角”特辑，由主持人 David Friedberg 与理论物理学家兼经济学家 Eric Weinstein 在华盛顿特区展开对谈，深入探讨了美国科学体制的停滞、同行评审与资助机制的弊端、弦理论对物理学的带偏、文艺复兴科技与机密科研的猜想，以及 UAP、地缘科技竞争与物理学危险性等颠覆性议题。 ## TL;DR Eric Weinstein 尖锐批判了美国现代科研体制的官僚化与平庸化，指出过度社会化的人资制度与同行评审正在扼杀高方差的“牛仔科学”，制造了一个经济脆弱且不敢言真的“科学无产阶层”。他回顾历史，痛陈自 1984 年以来爱德华·威滕等人主导的弦理论将基础物理带入脱离现实的死胡同，使物理学被“无害化驯服”，甚至猜想暗中可能存在类似二战曼哈顿工程的秘密研究体系（如文艺复兴科技）。Weinstein 进一步指出，广义相对论并非终极理论，人类唯有打破“爱因斯坦的囚笼”、借助 AI 挖掘被学界弃置的异端语料，才能实现突破深空的范式跃迁；同时他警示前沿物理蕴含着灭世级的杠杆破坏力，并以“北森蒂纳尔岛”隐喻 UAP 现象，呼吁有识学者放下党派偏见、深度介入华盛顿的国家科技决策。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话充满智识张力与异端思想的激烈交锋，呈现出一种近乎“密谋式”的严肃与紧迫感。Eric Weinstein 语言极具攻击性与戏剧张力，言辞辛辣、比喻精妙，既有直面主流建制打压的愤怒与狂傲，又流露出对文明存亡与科学命运的深层悲悯；David Friedberg 则扮演了沉着冷静的理性捧哏与审查者，不断在自由市场、常识逻辑与严谨反问间推拉试探。整期节目节奏高能密实，听众仿佛置身于一场揭开冷战机密与现代学术黑幕的思想审判现场。 ## Bulletin - [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=101s) 埃里克·韦恩斯坦指出自二战及万尼瓦尔·布什体系确立以来，美国科学资助与科研体制正迎来首个重构提案，华盛顿改革者正试图打破同行评审与行政官僚对高风险研究的窒息。 - [40:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2455s) 自1984年以来理论物理陷入停滞，超弦理论等脱离真实粒子的学术路线被指将极具杀伤力的物理学“无害化”，客观上阻断了更具毁灭性的物质湮灭级武器的出现。 - [01:09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4170s) 基特峰暗能量光谱巡天仪（DESI）的前沿观测数据显示宇宙学常数可能并非恒定，一旦突破五西格玛门槛，将从几何底层打破爱因斯坦广义相对论的百年封锁。 - [01:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4571s) AI对物理学突破的真正催化剂在于吞吐由数十年边缘假说构成的“垃圾桶语料库”，地缘对手与私有机构可能借此绕开建制派主流学阀固化的认知盲区。 ## Key takeaways - [03:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=189s) 美国的核心地缘科技杀手锏是敢冒极高风险、反抗权威的“牛仔科学”，但现行体制通过经济脆弱性制造了屈从于共识的“科学无产阶层”。 - [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=320s) 真正的科学不需要人造共识背书，顶级硬核科学具备戳穿地缘隐秘叙事的穿透力，因而反遭官僚体系系统性压制。 - [14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=841s) 1969至1971年越战抗议引发的《曼斯菲尔德修正案》是科学体制异化的转折点，它斩断了军方对纯探索性自由研究的宽容资助，让位给官僚化的同行评审。 - [24:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1462s) 同行评审机制并非科研的历史金标准，其起源于1965年联邦医疗控费防线，后在1975年MACOS争议后被生搬硬套至基础科学以推卸决策责任。 - [25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1543s) 基础科学具有典型的非排他性与非竞争性公共品属性，前沿学科高度专精化决定了私人资本和自由市场根本无法完全兜底，必须依赖国家政府买单。 - [36:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2205s) 科研管理机构机械滥用现代投资组合理论与量化KPI，导致资金层层分包至脆弱的下层学术系所，集体下注于平庸、低风险的微小增量课题。 - [39:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2341s) 甄别真正颠覆性天才的实用法则，是寻找被既有权威领袖全力打压封杀、却在认知与对赌市场上绝不敢公开“做空”的学者。 - [45:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2759s) 1940年国家科学研究委员会“参考委员会”曾利用暗中拦截审查机制封锁链式反应研究，证明历史上通过秘密同行评审垄断尖端物理完全可行。 - [47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2873s) 文艺复兴科技在长岛与石溪分校、布鲁克海文实验室构成的特殊三角以及封闭的大奖章基金，展现了类似现代秘密“洛斯阿拉莫斯”的组织形态与掩饰特征。 - [52:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3169s) 基础物理停滞不等于工程技术繁荣，半导体与AI爆发本质上是在透支半个世纪前的理论红利，而非物理底层认知疆界的扩张。 - [54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3245s) 以Pati-Salam模型为代表的高阶规范群对称性跃迁，理论上具备将质子与中子内部夸克转化为轻子的潜在可能，预示着亚原子层面的物质解构武器。 - [59:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3589s) 以Boom（毁灭）、Vroom（能源）与Zoom（推进）为代表的物理潜能被冻结，使人类暂免于因触碰超级毁灭力量而走向物种自我毁灭。 - [01:05:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3942s) 战后以美国垄断暴力为支柱的双边威慑体系正面临崩溃，若防扩散失控将滑向高度不可预测的多极博弈连锁混乱。 - [01:06:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4010s) 若时间具备超越一维单向流动的多维属性，掌握“多维时间”机动能力的对手将在战略博弈中形成多向机动的降维碾压。 - [01:11:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4316s) 广义相对论固有的初始奇点与黑洞奇点证明其仅是低能近似的“地图”，底层时空可能蕴含类似“双指缩放”与“剪切倾斜”的几何跃迁机制。 - [01:23:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=5038s) 以“北森蒂纳尔岛”作比，星际尺度上核爆是文明触及时空推进门槛的标志，人类过早引爆核能可能已触发了高等文明的审视与介入。 - [01:27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=5238s) 顶尖科学家应当抛弃党派偏见与道德洁癖，主动走进华盛顿决策中枢为国家科技大战略提供硬核认知支持。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=0s) 开场预告与重聚华盛顿：逃跑的“好兄弟” 访谈在一组充满冲击力的言论剪辑中拉开序幕。埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）毫不避讳自己长期被主流学界贴上的“边缘科学家”标签，并直言自己彻底反对当前学术界的叙事体系，甚至语出惊人地表示想要“在《民权法案》上炸开一个巨大的窟窿”。他抛出了一系列颠覆性的观点：当代基础物理学的长期停滞，或许在无意中拯救了人类物种免于自我毁灭；而一旦人类在物理理论上实现下一次范式跃迁，整个世界将变得彻底面目全非。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科学体制化困境与假共识形成机制 accDescr: 展示了从独立探索退化为由资助与体制控制的科学无产阶层及其带来的平庸化恶性循环 subgraph Problem ["传统自由探索的丧失"] A["牛仔科学 (Cowboy Science)<br/>敢冒高风险、挑战权威"] -->|资助体系官僚化| B["科学无产阶层 (Scientific Precariat)<br/>青年学者生计受制于体制"] end subgraph Mechanism ["假共识与安全牌"] B --> C["制造人造'共识'<br/>同行评审与基金扼杀异见"] C --> D["低方差增量研究<br/>将平庸包装为'卓越'"] end subgraph Impact ["宏观影响"] D --> E["掩盖隐秘行动与政策叙事<br/>排斥能够证伪真相的顶级头脑"] E --> F["丧失美国地缘战略杀手锏<br/>科技跃迁停滞"] end classDef default fill:#f9f9f9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px; classDef highlight fill:#e1f5fe,stroke:#0288d1,stroke-width:2px; class Problem,Mechanism,Impact highlight; ``` 广告结束后，主持人戴维·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）正式介绍了本期嘉宾：埃里克·韦恩斯坦不仅是哈佛大学数学物理学博士、前美国国家科学基金会（NSF）博士后及哈佛海军研究办公室（ONR）研究员，还是经济学家、前 Thiel Capital 核心高管，并在 2021 年发表了被称为“几何统一论”（Geometric Unity）的推测性统一场论框架。寒暄开场时，韦恩斯坦笑着打趣询问 All-In 播客的其他三位“好兄弟”（Besties）究竟躲到哪里去了。弗里德伯格打趣回应称，因为这是一期专门拉长的深度“科学角”（Science Corner）特辑，杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）、查马斯·帕利哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）和大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）直接“弃权逃跑”了。韦恩斯坦则戏谑杰森居然“夹着尾巴逃跑了”。此时两人恰好都因公来到华盛顿特区，便在当地临时租用的一间演播室内促成了这次面对面的高能对话。 ### [01:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=101s) 华盛顿的改革暗涌：二战以来首个重大科学重构提案 谈及此行前往华盛顿特区的目的，韦恩斯坦难掩兴奋之情。他透露自己此行不仅与国防部（他戏称为“战争部”）官员举行了闭门会谈，还专程逗留数日，与白宫科技政策办公室（OSTP）主任兼白宫科学顾问迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯（Michael Kratsios）进行了深入交流。此外，他还与刚刚执掌美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的老友杰·巴塔查亚（Jay Bhattacharya）碰面，并计划与有望入职国家科学基金会（NSF）的吉姆·奥尼尔（Jim O'Neill）展开商讨。 韦恩斯坦强调，当前华盛顿正在酝酿一场自二战结束、万尼瓦尔·布什（Vannevar Bush）确立美国现代科研体制以来，首个旨在彻底重构美国科学资助与科研体制的宏大提案。当弗里德伯格提到自己前不久刚就克拉齐奥斯撰写的研究报告对其进行过专访时，韦恩斯坦坦言自己最初非常担忧这份报告会沦为一场灾难，毕竟克拉齐奥斯接手的是一份责任极其重大的遗产；然而读完报告后，他感到震惊且欣慰，认为其立意极其优秀。更令他赞赏的是克拉齐奥斯展现出的谦逊求知态度——坦承“我们知道自己并非无所不知，一切才刚刚起步”。这为打破数十年来美国僵化的科研官僚体制提供了一张极具希望的改革蓝图。 - 关键接触人物：白宫科技政策办公室（OSTP）主任迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯、NIH 新任负责人杰·巴塔查亚、潜在 NSF 关键任命人选吉姆·奥尼尔。 - 历史参照坐标：二战末期万尼瓦尔·布什推动建立的联邦科研资助体系及其经典报告《科学：无尽的前沿》。 ### [03:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=189s) 敢冒风险的“牛仔科学”才是美国的终极地缘武器 在探讨“美国科学是否已经陷入停滞”这一核心议题时，韦恩斯坦指出，关键在于界定究竟是哪一部分科学停滞了。科学的范畴极其庞大，并非只有一种运作方式。在他看来，当前面临灭顶之灾的，正是那种唯有美国这样富裕、崇尚粗犷个人主义（rugged individualism）的国度才能负担得起的“绝对勇敢的科学”——也就是那些敢于豪赌、具有极高方差的突破性前沿研究。然而，现行体制却充斥着极其谨慎、低方差的增量式修补，更荒谬的是官僚机构还将这种平庸无奇的琐碎研究冠以“卓越”之名，这让他深感沮丧。 韦恩斯坦从地缘政治竞争的维度切入，深入剖析了科学与国家制度的关系。他指出，美国最主要的竞争对手中国在自由制度层面存在天然困境，而“自由本身就是一种致命武器”： - **自我纠错与直面丑闻的特权**：唯有真正的自由社会，才承受得起全面审视自身缺陷的代价。学者理应拥有毫无顾忌地调查“福奇（Anthony Fauci）的政策究竟是否间接导致了上千万生命逝去”的学术自由与追责权力。 - **敢于对抗权威的“竖中指”文化**：美国最具杀伤力的独特优势在于骨子里的反叛精神，即面对试图定义真理的主管或体制权威时，敢于直接亮出竖起的中指说“去你的”（screw you）。 - **青年学者的职业下注权**：一个健康的科学体制，必须允许年轻研究人员站出来公开宣称“我认为我的整个学术领域彻底走偏了，我愿意赌上自己的职业生涯来证明这一点”，且体制不应予以横加阻挠。 ### [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=320s) 科学无产阶层、虚假“共识”与被掩盖的隐秘真相 弗里德伯格随即抛出一个困扰公众已久的痛点：在疫情肆虐与封控期间，科学界最核心的批判与质疑精神为何荡然无存？理应不断推翻假说、审问证据的学者们，为何几乎在同一时间全盘退缩？若全场所有人都意见一致，结论往往大有问题。 韦恩斯坦直截了当地给出了答案：**体制制造了“科学无产阶层”（Scientific Precariat）**。当今的教授与研究员在经济和生存层面上极其脆弱，他们根本承受不起违背既定共识的经济代价。韦恩斯坦对“共识”（consensus）这一概念本身进行了严厉解构： - **共识的虚伪本质**：真正的科学事实根本不需要所谓的共识来背书。世界上不存在所谓的“算术共识”来证明 2 + 3 = 5，它成立仅仅是因为它就是事实。现实中人们听到“共识”二字时（如同当年的“华盛顿共识”），它本质上往往是通过行政压力、舆论霸凌和饭碗威胁强行捏造出来的人造契约。 - **杰·巴塔查亚的遭遇**：巴塔查亚拥有斯坦福大学经济学博士与医学博士双学位，仅仅因为起草了反对全面封控的《大巴灵顿宣言》（Great Barrington Declaration），便被时任 NIH 掌门人弗朗西斯·柯林斯（Francis Collins）及其“副手”安东尼·福奇抹黑贬斥为所谓“边缘流行病学家”。 韦恩斯坦更进一步提出了更为尖锐的假说，直指科研与华盛顿隐秘权力结构之间的肮脏纠葛。他暗示福奇在某种程度上实质扮演了美国的“生物武器沙皇”：美国在上世纪 70 年代签署了《日内瓦公约》与《生物武器公约》，明面上禁止研发进攻性生物武器，这导致相关敏感研发不得不转入隐蔽系统。官方通过生态健康联盟（EcoHealth Alliance）这种看似嬉皮士风格的非营利组织，向英国/乌克兰裔动物学家彼得·达萨克（Peter Daszak）输送来自国防威胁降低局（DTRA）等部门的巨额军事与科研资金。 这一系列隐秘操作带来了一个根本性矛盾：**真正的顶级硬核科学拥有无与伦比的穿透力，能够轻易击碎任何编造的隐秘叙事**。正如罪案现场的一根毛囊DNA就能让不在场谎言彻底破产一样，独立且优秀的科学家是情报与隐秘行动官僚（韦恩斯坦称其为华盛顿那群“B-级政策客”）的天敌。因此，体制为了维系脆弱的官方叙事，必然会压制独立的顶尖科学与硬核调查报道。韦恩斯坦以历史作比：当年二战时期罗斯福总统双腿瘫痪坐轮椅，媒体达成默契隐瞒其身体状况；如今主流舆论与医学界对拜登肉眼可见的步态异常、言语混乱及认知衰退集体失声，根本没有神经学专家敢公开客观评估其痴呆轨迹。他总结道，当年洛斯阿拉莫斯（Los Alamos）在新墨西哥州一所男子学校秘密推进曼哈顿工程（1940-1945）制造原子弹，基于战时安全需要瞒天过海固然情有可原；但若为了维护官僚利益而持续在和平年代阉割科学家的探究自由，整个国家的文明基石必将被彻底侵蚀。 ### [10:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=604s) 科学无产阶级化与学术体制的激励崩塌 埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）回顾了曼哈顿计划的历史意义，指出理论物理学家和数学家曾打造出地球上有史以来威力最强大的武器。然而，当下社会并没有去重用那些勇于挺身而出、坚持真理的人，既没有让他们出任大学校长或系主任，也没有授予他们讲席教授的职位。韦恩斯坦谈及自己在乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）的 ARC 大会上发表的演讲，直言体制不仅没有将这极少数站出来的异见者重新纳入体系，更毫无奖赏。他直截了当地发问：“我站出来发声，我的第三套房在哪里？”他希望像其他人一样，有能力供养三个孩子上学，共享科学给整个人类社会带来的安全与繁荣。 现实却是，学术界制造出了一个庞大的“美国科学无产阶级”（American scientific precariat）。这种严酷的经济处境导致教授群体内部政治立场高度扭曲、彻底失衡。更为危险的是，学者们根本无法享有真正的自由。韦恩斯坦特别强调，理论物理学是唯一一个由于所谓的“受限数据”（restricted data）概念而彻底丧失言论自由的行业——理论物理学者甚至不能在纸上写下任何可能与核武器相关的物理方程式，但要研究真正的强子（hadrons）与核子（nucleons），根本不可能绕开这些底层物理规律。学者们时刻笼罩在法律的阴影下，甚至连美国宪法第一修正案的保护都无法享有。 针对韦恩斯坦关于“想要第三套房”的言论，主持人试图进行转译：作为一名学者，是否必须彻底顺从体制，才能评上终身教职（tenure）、拿到经费资助或当上系主任？一旦提出非主流的异见（heterodox），比如在疫情初期质疑武汉病毒所的病毒溯源问题，就会立刻被贴上边缘科学家的标签，遭到痛斥、排挤，从而丧失获取资源、职位和收入的机会。韦恩斯坦对此深表认同，并分享了自己的亲身经历：他在 1987 年提出了一套微分几何方程，当时遭遇了体制极其恶劣的粗暴对待；而当这些方程式在 1994 年彻底风靡并统治了该领域时，学术界却从未有人反思过当年对一个及早得出正确结论的人施加的残酷打压。 体制长期用一套虚伪的话术对科研人员进行道德绑架，宣称“真正的科学家不应该在乎金钱与安稳，工作本身就是奖赏”。韦恩斯坦驳斥这种说法纯属无稽之谈。当今社会的基尼系数不断攀升，财富激增几乎完全来自于科学衍生出的先进技术，但创造核心源头的科学家们却被彻底排除在繁荣之外。其后果是整个科研阶层被推向了集体主义心态——科学家发现自己不仅无法获得应有的回报，而且一旦做出了真正正确的突破，反而会被体制无情淘汰。 --- ### [14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=841s) 曼斯菲尔德修正案与基础科研生态的异化 主持人提出疑问：科学和颠覆性创新原本正是诞生于看似离经叛道、荒诞不经的异端思想，正如科技与工业创业一样，十个疯狂想法中只要有一个被证实，就能推动前沿的发展；究竟是什么时候、出于何种原因，这种容纳异见的文化被彻底扼杀了？是泰德·卡辛斯基（Ted Kaczynski，即“大学炸弹客” Unabomber）在宣言中所指出的“过度社会化”（over-socialization），还是社交媒体的影响，抑或是一场蓄意为之的外部干预？ 韦恩斯坦提到自己曾与哈佛大学经济系的理查德·弗里曼（Richard Freeman）共同担任“科学与工程劳动力项目”（Science and Engineering Workforce Project）联合主席，并给出了明确的时间节点：**1965 年至 1975 年之间，整个科研体制彻底走样了**。其中 1969 年至 1971 年尤为致命。这一恶化的历史链条包含两个关键事件： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美军资助模式向同行评审制度演变过程 accDescr: 展示1969年越战抗议如何促成曼斯菲尔德修正案，进而削弱基础研究并引入官僚审查 subgraph SG1["1969年政治震荡"] A["MIT物理系师生罢课抗议越战"] --> B["军方与物理学家互信破裂"] B --> C["MIT仪器实验室被剥离为德雷珀实验室"] end subgraph SG2["法案与审查确立"] C --> D["曼斯菲尔德修正案 (1969/1971)"] D --> E["军方被迫停止资助纯探索性自由研究"] E --> F["同行评审制度与行政官僚控制全面接管"] end ``` 在 1969 年春季，包括多位前曼哈顿计划成员在内的麻省理工学院（MIT）物理系师生因抗议越战而举行罢课。这让美国政府警觉并认定科学家群体变得不再可靠。在此之前，军方与物理学家、数学家之间存在着高度默契的隐性契约：军方通过充裕资金保障顶尖大脑享有优渥生活、完全自主地进行纯探索性的“蓝天研究”（blue sky research），只求国家在危难时刻他们能随时挺身而出。 越战抗议爆发后，原隶属于 MIT、承接大量政府资金的仪器实验室被剥离为独立的德雷珀实验室（Draper Labs）。紧接着，蒙大拿州参议员迈克·曼斯菲尔德（Mike Mansfield）推动通过了《曼斯菲尔德修正案》（Mansfield Amendment），明文禁止军方在大学资助无明确军事用途的自由研究。这一法案构成了历史性的灾难，不仅切断了最理解、最包容科学家异端思想的资助方，随后还引入了同行评审机制以及官僚管控，彻底扼杀了自由探索的生存土壤。 - 极端思潮在尖端科学探索中本是常态；韦恩斯坦指出，一个高动态的顶尖科学系所里，若没有极左派与极右派坐在一起喝茶辩论，就说明学术机制已经出了问题。 - 卡辛斯基曾写过一篇名为《愚人船》（Ship of Fools）的讽喻故事，描述船员们过度纠结于船上的“政治正确”，最终导致整艘船撞向冰山沉没，生动揭示了科学界沉迷程序规范而忽视实际方向的弊端。 --- ### [18:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1105s) 规训与阉割：当代科学的“阿尔法”流失 学术体制对狂妄天才与反叛思想的系统性排斥，导致美国科学正在丧失其不可替代的“阿尔法”（alpha，即超额突破能力）。韦恩斯坦指出，现行体系的运作逻辑本质上是在对最顶尖的心智进行“绝育手术”（spaying and neutering），将一切棱角磨平。真正具有科学奇才特质的人在如今的学术体制内已毫无立足之地： - **帕尔默·拉奇（Palmer Luckey）**：在韦恩斯坦看来，拉奇具备典型科学奇才的气质——行事不羁、身穿夏威夷衬衫、专门制造致命武器；但如果他身处今天的物理学系，根本无法保持这种狂放的真实本色。 - **尼马·阿尔卡尼-哈梅德（Nima Arkani-Hamed）**：当代极少数留在体制内却依然保持极高水准的顶尖理论物理学家。他魅力非凡、思维敏捷、绝不妥协，即便对弦理论的某些数学机制表示理解，也从未在深层上盲从这种学术风潮；但公众和外围投资者几乎对他的存在一无所知。 - **元老学者的遭遇**：体制对真正天才的排挤甚至波及到了功勋元老。作为冷泉港实验室（Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory）一手缔造者的詹姆斯·沃森（Jim Watson）最终遭到驱逐；而在噬菌体 Lambda 基因开关研究上做出决定性贡献的分子生物学先驱马克·普塔什尼（Mark Ptashne，现年 80 多岁），其遭遇同样反映了当代科学界对待真正卓越心智的冷酷与狭隘。 ### [20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1232s) 《爆裂鼓手》与卓越文化：科学前沿不需要温情脉脉 谈到科学界的管理与人物作风时，嘉宾们提到了前白宫科技政策办公室（OSTP）主任埃里克·兰德（Eric Lander）。兰德的照片之所以没能挂在荣誉墙上，很大程度上是因为他是一个极难相处、在专业上绝不妥协的人。埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）对此直言不讳地指出，尖端探索本身就是极其残酷且不容妥协的，并引用了电影《爆裂鼓手》（Whiplash）做类比：影片中严苛冷酷的导师之所以能带出最顶尖的乐队，恰恰因为他“绝不会在排练时给乐手递纸巾安慰眼泪”。韦恩斯坦强调，自己并非提倡无底线的残忍，但公众与官僚必须明白，最前沿的探索是高度严酷的事业，平庸的温情无法孵化出伟大的突破。 当主持人弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）追问究竟如何打破目前科学体制的停滞与泥潭——到底是体制问题、资金机制、人才选拔，还是需要对被程序化的社会系统进行重置时，韦恩斯坦抛出了极其激进的改革设想，主张彻底打破阻碍科学冒险的条条框框。 --- ### [21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1290s) 炸开《民权法案》的豁免口：粉碎 HR 官僚主义与重塑超个体主义 韦恩斯坦提出了一个挑衅性极强的提议：利用“国家利益豁免”（National Interest Waivers），在《民权法案》（Civil Rights Act）上“炸出一个巨大的豁免漏洞”，以彻底解放顶尖科研团队，免受人力资源部门（HR）的过度干预与束缚。针对主持人的困惑，韦恩斯坦分享了自己从 1982 年大学时代维系至今的三人挚友小圈子：其中两人是犹太人，一人是穆斯林。平日里，穆斯林朋友常常拿“犹太人控制了所有的银行和报纸”开涮，而他们则反过来拿“恐怖分子”的刻板印象开对方的玩笑。韦恩斯坦直言，现行的企业或机构 HR 体系完全无法理解这种高自主性、高能动性个体（high agency people）之间如何建立起牢不可破的凝聚力。如果实验室内充斥着“某人开了不恰当玩笑”的举报和管束，科研人员就会沦为需要“父母批准字条”才能做事的婴儿，这彻底摧毁了诞生卓越成果的土壤。 韦恩斯坦明确澄清，他并非想要废除《民权法案》，而是反对法案的字面条款被恶意套利，从而演变成扼杀思想的集体主义束缚。伟大的突破必须依赖不屈不挠的“超个体主义”（rugged hyperindividualism）。韦恩斯坦自称是约翰·肯尼迪（JFK）学派的“钉子户民主党人”（nail house Democrat，即任由周围建起商业大厦也绝不搬离的原住民）。他痛斥如今的民主党已经走火入魔，而如果真正的改革者希望拯救美国，就应该超越党派壁垒，与那些致力于重塑体制的共和党人携手合作：“我们不妨在战壕里并肩作战、让美国重新变得伟大，至于谁抢功劳，打完仗之后再去争也不迟。” --- ### [24:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1462s) 同行评审的伪神话：从医疗控费到科研平庸化 韦恩斯坦指出，阻碍当代科学创新的另一大毒瘤是“同行评审”（Peer review）。他指出同行评审根本不是科学史上自古就有的光荣传统，而是一场后来伪造并硬塞给科学界的现代叙事（retconned）。在 Google Books Ngram Viewer 上检索“peer review”一词会发现，1965 年之前该词几乎从未在出版物中出现。同行评审的真实发端完全与科学无关：1965 年美国通过联邦医疗保险法案（Medicare Act），政府成为医疗费用的最大出资人并开始审查开支合理性；犹他州的一家诊所为了抗拒联邦官员直接插手医疗决策，发明了“同行相互审查”（peer review）机制作为挡箭牌。 直到 1975 年，美国国家科学基金会（NSF）资助的小学社会学课程项目 MACOS（Man: A Course of Study）遭到财政与社会保守派议员的猛烈抨击，同行评审机制才被生搬硬套到基础科学资助领域。韦恩斯坦认为将人类学这类软科学与硬科学混为一谈是巨大的历史错误；软科学和那些脆弱的学科严重拖累了硬科学的信用额度，应当把它们剥离出去，不能再任由它们刷爆基础科学的“信用卡”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 同行评审制度的历史演变流程 accDescr: 展示同行评审从1965年医疗医保控费起源，到1975年因MACOS事件扩散至科学基金会的演变过程 subgraph Origin["1965: 医疗控费防线"] A["Medicare 法案通过<br/>(联邦成为医疗最大买单方)"] --> B["政府试图审查<br/>医疗账单与决策"] B --> C["犹他州诊所首创同行互审<br/>(抵御行政权力直接插手)"] end subgraph Expansion["1975: 扩散至基础科学"] C -.-> D["NSF 资助争议项目 MACOS<br/>(人类学课程引爆国会批判)"] D --> E["国会强加官僚合规审查<br/>(同行评审制度化推广)"] E --> F["科学资助陷入平庸共识<br/>(异端与超前假说遭边缘化)"] end ``` --- ### [25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1543s) 市场的盲区：纯数学与公共品的定价困境 韦恩斯坦随后将锋芒转向了盲信自由市场的保守派人士。他批评许多人缺乏经济学常识，忘记了“市场机制有效”的前提是不存在“市场失灵”（market failure）。根据公共品的基本定义，纯科学研究具有高度的“非竞争性”（inexhaustible/non-rivalrous）与“非排他性”（inexcludable），这注定了自由市场在没有人工市场设计的情况下根本无法为其合理定价。正如国家不可能通过私人市场购买军队防御、必须通过税收支持国防一样，基础科学也必须由国家税收来兜底。 他以纯数学领域的同伦论（Homotopy theory）为例：当他在科学决策讨论中提及同伦论时，外行官员往往一脸茫然地追问这项理论有什么具体的工业用途。韦恩斯坦的回答是，同伦论或许目前没有任何直接的工业回报，但它构成了整个纯数学大厦不可或缺的底层基石。如果政客以“缺乏商业价值”为由削减对这类基础学科的投入，就如同在知识生态的“叠叠乐”（Jenga）积木塔底部抽走关键木块，最终将导致整个科技根基轰然倒塌。 --- ### [27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1646s) 科学家的政治洁癖与华盛顿科学决策的断层 针对基础科学缺乏发声渠道的问题，韦恩斯坦直指核心症结在于顶尖学术群体的冷漠与傲慢。大量拥有博士学位的科学家因为对特朗普抱有严重的道德洁癖，“视其为带有传染病跳蚤（cooties）的魔鬼”，从而彻底拒绝与保守派政府沟通合作。弗里德伯格补充了一项《自然》（Nature）杂志对其 2,000 名科学家读者开展的政治倾向民调：在受访者中，支持哈里斯的比例高达约 85%，而支持特朗普的仅有 6%，印证了学术界对特朗普体制几乎完全切断了交流。 韦恩斯坦对此进行了尖锐的反思：哪怕你认定特朗普是魔鬼，但面对白宫的科技官员时，科学家也必须到场履职。韦恩斯坦以自己角逐白宫科技政策职位时接触到的迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯（Michael Kratsios，时任美国首席技术官）为例，坦言自己最初曾因对方缺乏硬科学博士背景而心存顾虑，但深入接触后发现克拉齐奥斯极其虚心好学，急切渴望了解最底层的科学现实。韦恩斯坦盛赞克拉齐奥斯、以及即将进入 NSF 的吉姆·奥尼尔（Jim O'Neill）和流行病学家杰·巴塔查亚（Jay Bhattacharya）是真正想做实事的人。如果顶尖学者因为党派偏见拒绝向决策层提供智力支持，导致政府做出了错误的科学决策，“那完全是科学家自己的责任，落到今天这种下场纯属自作自受”。 面对韦恩斯坦的观点，弗里德伯格从自由意志主义的角度提出了反驳：如果市场有效创造了巨大财富，拥有科学背景的超级富豪——例如深谙纯数学的文艺复兴科技创始人吉姆·西蒙斯（Jim Simons），或是拥有量子色动力学背景的知名投资人尤里·米尔纳（Yuri Milner）——难道不会自发识别纯理论研究的价值，并凭借私人资本去填补基础学科的资金缺口吗？这引发了两人关于私人慈善与国家资助在维护基础科学广度上是否充分的进一步辩论。 - **核心论点与关键细节**： - **同行评审的非科学起源**：并非源远流长的科研金标准，而是 1965 年医疗控费防线与 1975 年国会对 NSF 资助人文社科（MACOS）发难后的妥协产物。 - **公共品的非市场性**：非竞争性与非排他性决定了纯理论科学无法依靠市场机制正确定价，必须依赖公共税收资助。 - **知识大厦的“叠叠乐”效应**：类似同伦论的纯理论分支看似没有直接工业价值，但抽离它们会动摇整个技术文明的底层支撑。 - **学界体制的政治孤立**：《自然》杂志读者调查中支持特朗普的仅占 6%，约 85% 倒向哈里斯；博士群体的政治洁癖直接导致了国家科技决策层缺乏硬核学术指导。 ### [30:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1836s) 私人资本无法拯救基础科学：专精化鸿沟与西蒙斯的局限 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）抛出了一组来自前美国首席技术官迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯（Michael Kratsios）书中的核心数据：随着时间推移，美国政府在科研投资上的资本效率出现了灾难性滑坡，每投入一美元的回报率暴跌了整整 80 倍。弗里德伯格由此发问：难道私人市场资本不能填补这一空白？当政府配置资本的效率越来越低时，为什么还要依赖官僚机构？ 埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）对此嗤之以鼻，戏称自己“大概得抽口大麻才能接得住这么离谱的问题”。他断言私人资本根本无法承担基础科学的重任。韦恩斯坦以量化传奇、已故亿万富翁兼数学家吉姆·西蒙斯（Jim Simons）为例——西蒙斯毫无疑问是全世界最懂前沿科学且最具财力的私人资助者之一，但即便是他，也无法洞悉本领域最前沿的细微脉络。韦恩斯坦回忆起自己与西蒙斯的最后一次交谈，当时他试图向西蒙斯解释：若将“陈-西蒙斯作用量”（Chern-Simons transgression）理解为一个作用量泛函，它实际上是爱因斯坦-希尔伯特作用量（Einstein-Hilbert action）唯一的竞争对手，二者完全处于同等地位，皆是某种终极理论的孪生分支；然而西蒙斯对此一无所知。 韦恩斯坦指出，基础科学内部的专精化壁垒已经深邃到不可思议的地步。就在录制播客之前，他刚与好友、著名数学家爱德华·弗伦克尔（Edward Frenkel）通完电话。弗伦克尔从事代数几何研究，而韦恩斯坦研究的是微分几何——尽管这两个领域在数学上紧密相邻，彼此之间的专业沟通却极其艰难。依赖“恰好有一位懂代数几何的亿万富翁、一位懂表示论的亿万富翁、再加一位对范畴论感兴趣的亿万富翁”来资助科学，完全是天方夜谭。因此，基础科学的底座必须且只能由国家政府来买单。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 基础科学资助的两难困境与壁垒 accDescr: 展示学科专精化导致的私人资助失效以及政府科研体制官僚化的问题 subgraph Private["私人资本资助模式的局限"] A["前沿高度专精化<br/>(微分几何 vs 代数几何)"] --> B["私人资助者无法评估<br/>(即便是数学泰斗吉姆·西蒙斯)"] B --> C["无法依赖特定富豪覆盖全部前沿"] end subgraph Bureaucracy["官僚制资助模式的弊端"] D["政府官僚介入"] --> E["强推 KPI 与量化 ROI 指标"] E --> F["部门规避风险：资助平庸的低风险项目"] end Private --> G["基础科学陷入死局"] Bureaucracy --> G ``` ### [32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1958s) 终结 KPI 统治与官僚化：像对待摇滚巨星一样对待顶尖学者 探讨转向科研机制的运作模式。科学界过去往往依赖资深领袖掌握的机动资金（slush funds）直接支持精英，而非繁琐的审批。韦恩斯坦分享了多年前在以色列贝尔谢巴（Be'er Sheva）参加物理会议时的往事：当时一众年轻学者聚在一起为下一份教职发愁，一位年长的美国学者走过来说：“我真同情你们所有人……我这辈子从没填过一份工作申请表。当年只要你有真本事、需要职位，去找领域泰斗聊聊，等他挂断一通电话，你的去处就已经搞定了。” 韦恩斯坦痛斥当今涌入学术界的行政管理人员。这帮人张口闭口就是“我们要定 KPI”、“我们要数据驱动”、“我们要衡量科研的转化与投资回报率（ROI）”。韦恩斯坦质问：“这些人真懂得什么是 ROI 吗？还是他们只能看懂眼皮底下能量化的那点数字？”他提出，国家真正需要的是把最顶尖的大脑长期“聘为顾问保留下来”（on retainer）——就像冷战时期由全美最强大脑组成的绝密科学顾问团“JASON”一样，平时放手任其探索，一旦国家遭遇真正的国家安全或理论危机，一个电话就能调动这些智力怪兽去解决问题。 韦恩斯坦强调，科学家与硅谷技术极客的思维逻辑存在本质差异：“技术人员总想着套现赚钱，但我在硅谷待了很久，我对拥有一辆新的迈凯伦毫无兴趣，我真正在意的是，一万年之后人类如果还在，是否还会讨论我的名字。”正如刚刚去世的詹姆斯·沃森（James Watson）、伊萨多·辛格（Isadore Singer）和拉乌尔·博特（Raoul Bott），他们的理论遗产将永载史册。而如今做 SaaS 软件的人，谁能保证一万年后还有人记得？韦恩斯坦打趣道，当年人们问“证明庞加莱猜想的格里戈里·佩雷尔曼（Grigori Perelman）与好莱坞演员朗·普尔曼（Ron Perlman）有什么区别”，现代人甚至不知道格里戈里·佩雷尔曼是谁；但一千年后，人们只会问朗·普尔曼是谁。顶尖学者需要的是尊重与体面的待遇（比如住四季酒店、坐商务舱），而不是一架私人飞机。“把科学家当成他们本应成为的摇滚巨星对待，否则你们将失去这一代天才。” ### [36:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2205s) 现代投资组合理论在科研中的扭曲：低 Beta 陷阱与部门谎言 弗里德伯格指出，现代科研资助完全变成了课题基金制（Grants），科研人员必须预先列出极其详尽的指标目标，只有“低 Beta”（即结果高度可预测、近乎零风险）的项目才容易获批。这实际上是在把金融学中的“现代投资组合理论”（Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT）机械套用到科学界，却彻底抹杀了高风险、高回报的突破可能。 韦恩斯坦对此深表赞同，并给出了一个极端的“高 Beta”假想案例：如果一个人有 1% 的概率彻底攻克所有癌症，国家是否应该资助他？在理性的金融逻辑下，99% 的失败率虽然昂贵，但攻克全人类癌症的潜在价值是无限的，极其富有、拥有无限下注能力的联邦政府完全应该下注。然而现实机制极其畸形：联邦政府把资金层层分包给了极度贫穷且配额有限的各个学术系所和细分委员会。各个系所一年只有一两个教职或名额，他们输不起，于是集体转向资助那些“有极高概率取得极其微小成就”的平庸学者，随后开始在这个领域内大肆吹嘘该研究有多么不可或缺。 这种扭曲导致学术界充斥着虚伪的谎言。如果现在去问任何学者“你们领域发展如何”，粒子物理学家们都会异口同声宣称：“这是成为粒子理论家最好的时代！”——但事实上，高能粒子物理眼下正处于理论停滞的至暗时刻，却没人敢在体制内说真话。更荒谬的是，真正的投资组合理论讲究再平衡，当某一类资产疯狂上涨、另一类受挫时，理应适度抽资平衡；但学术官僚们既不懂投资组合理论，也不懂市场失灵，盲目将资源堆向安全平庸的温床。 - 资助模式错配：资金充裕的联邦政府理应承担极高 Beta 的探索，却借由极度保守脆弱的下层系所做决策。 - 虚假繁荣共谋：由于无法承受失败，学者与行政人员被迫包装微小进展，掩盖基础物理学面临的停滞。 - 制度性盲区：科研管理层滥用“数据驱动”与“量化评估”，彻底背离了科学突破的非线性规律。 ### [39:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2341s) 投人还是投项目？寻找“被建制派封杀却不敢做空”的天才 弗里德伯格顺势提出了风险投资界的核心原则：究竟应该资助“具体的想法”还是“优秀的人”？他援引了斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德（Stewart Butterfield）的经典案例：巴特菲尔德当年做游戏项目濒临失败，账面只剩 300 万美元，他打电话给著名风投家本·霍洛维茨（Ben Horowitz），询问是否应该退还资金，或者将内部团队用的通讯工具转型做下去。霍洛维茨选择押注巴特菲尔德这个人：“把钱留着，去做吧，我相信你。”这一决定最终诞生了价值 300 亿美元的办公协同巨头 Slack。弗里德伯格提问：科学界是否也能像风投寻找创业者一样，寻找具有持续自我颠覆能力的顶尖个体并长期资助？ 韦恩斯坦直言，在科学界押注个体是极度困难且高度棘手的，但他给出了一个甄别被埋没天才的“神奇公式”（Magic Formula）： > “告诉我，在这个领域里，既有的权威领袖们极力阻挠、全面封杀，但却绝不敢公开‘做空’（short）的人是谁——马上去资助那个人！” 韦恩斯坦情绪激动地以自身理论作为例证：无论是针对经济学的“几何边际主义”（geometric marginalism），还是针对基础物理的大一统框架“几何统一论”（Geometric Unity），他向所有学界建制派公开叫阵：“只要你愿意公开做空我的理论，我巴不得和你同台对决。我想赢走你的房子，掏空你的养老账户，在公开的认知市场上彻底摧毁你将是我莫大的荣幸！”然而现实是，学术建制派只敢在幕后利用匿名同行评审和行政权力封杀异端，却从未有人敢押上自己的学术声誉或真金白银与其正面对赌。韦恩斯坦认为，那些让建制派感到恐惧却无法在客观真理面前将其驳倒的人，才是基础科学最应该被全力资助的颠覆者。 ### [40:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2455s) 理论物理的“脱轨”：爱德华·威滕与远离真实世界的弦理论 埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）直面外界对其观点的质疑，甚至表示愿意以极大的筹码与怀疑者对赌：“如果有人对我说‘你 99.9999% 会失败’，我就会说，‘敢不敢把它正式化为一场赌局？’”他直言主流学界虽然想要封杀他，却心知肚明他掌握着深厚的学识，而许多批评者甚至从未真正读过他的研究。韦恩斯坦随即抛出了一个学术界几乎无人敢公开言说的尖锐观点：当代世界上最聪明的人是爱德华·威滕（Edward Witten），但正是这位才华横溢的天才，“在 42 年前（约 1984 年）把理论物理学彻底开下了悬崖”。 韦恩斯坦指出，物理学界如今陷入了一种集体失明：数十年来没有人因为基础物理学的重大突破而走进斯德哥尔摩领取诺贝尔奖，标准模型也再未发生过根本性革新。理论物理界唯一的“显学”变成了弦理论，但只要登录当代弦理论顶级会议（如 Strings 2026）的官网，在其搜索框输入“电子”（Electron）、“强子”（Hadron）、“希格斯玻色子”（Higgs）或“轻子”（Lepton）等物理学基本词汇，搜索结果竟然是彻底的空白。现在的研究完全脱离了物质世界，根本没有任何能对现实产生实际影响、甚至是威胁潜在地缘对手的实质物理内容。 为了证明这一病态现状，韦恩斯坦分享了自己在世界顶级理论物理研究所的一次经历。当他询问谁是这里最顶尖的学者并与被推荐的两位纯理论学者深入交流时，探讨推进标准模型的路径，对方竟直截了当地告诉他：“我对物理世界毫无兴趣。”韦恩斯坦震惊于身处全美乃至全球顶尖物理重镇的领军教授竟然公开承认对物质现实漠不关心。更为讽刺的是，许多高校物理系私下极度渴望邀请韦恩斯坦前去讲学，却在制度上严加防范：例如他在德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的讲座不能公开归为物理系旗下；在圆周理论物理研究所（Perimeter Institute）的讲演被定性为“埃里克在答疑”，而非正式演讲；在芝加哥大学同样遭遇此类技术性淡化。面对主持团队指出外界视其为“边缘异类”（fringe）时，韦恩斯坦坚决反驳，坚称自己只是拒绝服从该领域的虚妄叙事。 ### [44:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2650s) 危险物理的“无害化”：从曼哈顿工程到 AdS/CFT 韦恩斯坦将历史的时钟拨回 1983 年与 1984 年的交界。他强调，1983 年的物理学依然充满理性逻辑，但到了 1984 年，在伦纳德·萨斯坎德（Leonard Susskind）、戴维·格罗斯（David Gross）和爱德华·威滕等几位学界巨擘的主导下，整个领域几乎一夜之间转向了一个截然不同的方向。其最终带来的结果，并非人类对真实物理世界认知的前进，而是实现了一项前所未有的工程：将一门原本极度危险的科学变成了彻底安全的学术游戏。 在过去，爱德华·泰勒（Edward Teller）、J. 罗伯特·奥本海默（J. Robert Oppenheimer）、理查德·费曼（Richard Feynman）以及斯坦尼斯瓦夫·乌拉姆（Stanislaw Ulam）等人，利用基于规范群的规范理论（Gauge Theory）创造出了能够毁灭世界的终极武器。而如今，这门曾经制造出人类最可怖核武的学科被驯化得无比温顺。 - **安全的学术交流**：理论物理不再具备实际杀伤力，使得西方国家可以完全放心地与地缘政治竞争对手共享学术资源。 - **安全的留学生培养**：大学可以敞开大门招收来自中国等竞争对手国家的留学生，用完全脱离现实的 AdS/CFT 对偶等抽象理论填满他们的头脑，因为“这些理论连一只苍蝇都伤害不了，里面根本没有真实的物理”。 - **深层拷问**：韦恩斯坦由此提出疑问，这种将整个基础物理学全面引向虚无与悬崖的转变，究竟只是一种学术盲从，还是一场经过精密谋划的“机密行动”？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 理论物理学的历史分流对比 accDescr: 展示20世纪40-80年代的现实武器物理学向1984年后的抽象无害理论物理学的转变过程。 subgraph ClassicEra["1940s - 1983: 真实物理与致命武器"] A["规范场论研究<br/>SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)"] --> B["曼哈顿工程与冷战核武<br/>奥本海默 / 费曼 / 泰勒"] B --> C["具备真实地缘杀伤力<br/>绝对机密与审查机制"] end subgraph ModernEra["1984年至今: 物理学的'无害化驯服'"] D["领军学者转向<br/>威滕 / 萨斯坎德 / 格罗斯"] --> E["超弦理论与 AdS/CFT<br/>抛弃真实粒子与现实物质"] E --> F["对现实世界无害<br/>可安全与地缘对手/留学生共享"] end ClassicEra -.->|"1984年坠落悬崖"| ModernEra ``` ### [45:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2759s) 历史的回响：1940年参考委员会与论文审查机制 当被问及“世界上是否存在某个秘密团体或项目，在过去 50 年里一直在暗中推进真正的物理学突破，而将外部世界的学者阻断在外”时，大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）表达了怀疑，认为在现代社会绝不可能守住如此庞大的秘密。韦恩斯坦随即搬出了物理学史上被遗忘的真实机密历史——1940 年由美国国家科学研究委员会（National Research Council）成立的“参考委员会”（Reference Committee）。 韦恩斯坦梳理了真实的核物理发展轨迹： - **物理突破的连环出现**：从卢瑟福（Ernest Rutherford）1911年假定中子存在，到 30 年代初中子被正式发现；莉泽·迈特纳（Lise Meitner）提出核裂变与链式反应机制；随后费米（Enrico Fermi）在芝加哥大学通过“芝加哥1号堆”（Chicago Pile-1）成功验证了链式反应。 - **信息黑洞与论文拦截**：物理学家格雷戈里·布莱特（Gregory Breit）等人随即牵头在国家研究委员会设立了秘密审查性质的参考委员会。任何学者如果向公开期刊投稿关于链式反应核物理的论文，稿件就会被暗中移交给该委员会。 - **系统性学术打压**：论文作者收到的回复往往千篇一律，被告知“数据太初级、未达到期刊发表水准、请修改重投”。不知情的学者在一次次被拒稿中，学术声誉和谋生能力被系统性摧毁，而他们根本不知道背后存在着这个秘密委员会。 韦恩斯坦直言，在 1940 到 1945 年间，身处曼哈顿工程内部、“佩戴白色胸牌”的核心科学家，正是通过这种隐秘的同行评审制度，残酷剥夺了体制外同行在链式反应物理领域立足的资格。既然这种审查与隐瞒在历史上真实发生过且被证实完全可行，那么核心问题绝非“这是否荒谬”，而是“这种模式是否发生过第二次甚至更多次？今天对应于当年新墨西哥州男孩学校（洛斯阿拉莫斯）、白色胸牌以及参考委员会的现代版本究竟是什么？” ### [47:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2873s) 文艺复兴科技：现代的“洛斯阿拉莫斯”？ 韦恩斯坦亮出了他构想的现代类比假说：如果今天存在这样一个暗中进行顶级物理学研究的秘密据点，最强有力的候选实体便是位于纽约长岛的量化对冲基金巨头——文艺复兴科技（Renaissance Technologies, RenTech）。 韦恩斯坦从多重异乎寻常的现实线索展开分析： - **奇异的掩饰故事**：文艺复兴科技宣称他们精通交易，以至于“绝不招募任何懂金融市场的人”，而是专门搜罗与前沿理论物理直接重叠的专家——粒子理论学家、微分几何学家和机器学习顶尖学者。 - **极度特殊的地理三角**：文艺复兴科技坐落于长岛，与布鲁克海文国家实验室（Brookhaven National Laboratory）保持着极其紧密的联系；紧挨着它的纽约州立大学石溪分校（SUNY Stony Brook），在普通大学排名中看似平平无奇，历史上却在开展下一代物理学所需的具体学科领域汇聚了世界顶尖的大师与多位菲尔兹奖得主，宛如早年冷战时期悄悄网罗大量数论学家的美国国家安全局（NSA）总部米德堡（Fort Meade）。 - **坚不可摧的资金与保密闭环**：该公司的核心旗舰大奖章基金（Medallion Fund）早在多年前就对所有外部投资者彻底关闭，只允许内部员工的资金运作并享有极其惊人的超额回报。 弗里德伯格打断并质疑道，自己认识几位从文艺复兴科技出来的人，他们从未透露过任何关于尖端物理的秘闻，如果存在如此颠覆性的突破，几十年间必然会有微小比例的人泄露事实。韦恩斯坦以历史上的杰克·雷珀（Jack Raper）事件予以回击：1944 年，克利夫兰的一位新闻记者杰克·雷珀实际上就已经率先报道并曝光了洛斯阿拉莫斯的存在，声称“荒野里出现了一座秘密城市，市长是一位被视为下一任爱因斯坦的人，正在秘密研制毁灭世界的终极末日武器”。然而当时公众和外界的反应正如现在的弗里德伯格一样，认为这纯属天方夜谭，无人在意，雷珀也被当成疯子看待。 韦恩斯坦最后指出，历史上那些掩盖真实目的的体系往往都有一套“拒绝外部审视”的离奇故事。正如杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）当年也构建过一套虚构谎言——爱泼斯坦曾亲口告诉韦恩斯坦，自己运作着一个多策略外汇对冲基金，为了保障绝对可信的交易网络，他需要一架改装了交易大厅的波音 727 飞机，并在上面雇满犹太经学院的学生，且规定投资门槛必须在 10 亿美元以上并交出全权委托书。这些看似合理的商业或学术“掩护故事”，本质上都是为了确保没有外人能够真正插手、注资或提出质疑。 ### [51:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3098s) 掩饰故事、文艺复兴科技与不为人知的纽带 对话从对复杂金融操作的质疑展开。埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）指出，许多公众眼中的金融奇才其实建立在一套随时可以替换的“掩饰故事”（cover story）之上。比如在谈到某些问题人物时，最初说他们依靠趋势跟踪（trend following）、均值回归（mean reversion）和利差交易（carry），坚称绝不碰 Gamma 交易或期权；一旦这套说辞败露，身份就从“声名狼藉的金融家”无缝切换成所谓的“税务专家”。韦恩斯坦打趣地引用经典谍战喜剧《糊涂侦探》（Get Smart）里的名梗：“你会相信有上千名特工包围了这里吗？很难相信？那一百名警察呢？好吧，其实是两个拿着弹弓的童子军。” 随后话题转向量化投资传奇——文艺复兴科技（Renaissance Technologies）及其创始人吉姆·西蒙斯（Jim Simons）。韦恩斯坦承认西蒙斯绝对是个数学天才，但在学界顶尖天才并不少见，却从未有人能复制大奖章基金那种神话般的惊人回报率。外界对这家神秘对冲基金的实际运作模式几乎一无所知。韦恩斯坦强调，文艺复兴科技与纽约州立大学石溪分校（Stony Brook University）以及附近的布鲁克海文国家实验室（Brookhaven National Lab）之间存在着极其深厚、却极少对外公开承认的顶尖人才纽带，其真实底色远比对冲基金的公开标签更加错综复杂。 ### [52:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3169s) 1983年的分岔路：基础物理学停滞还是走向应用？ 主持团队（特别是弗里德伯格）将时间拨回关键的历史节点：如果回到1983至1984年，物理学界没有集体扎进弦理论与量子引力宇宙的死胡同，世界如今会是什么模样？弗里德伯格提出了通用受众常有的质疑：许多人认为现代物理学并未停滞，它在半导体制造、极紫外（EUV）光刻、材料科学和计算能力的跃升中扮演了基石角色，甚至催生了当下的 AI 革命；物理学实际上在工程与应用层面取得了巨大的突破，难道这还不足以证明物理学的繁荣吗？ 韦恩斯坦直接反驳了这种观点，认为将工程技术的外推等同于基础物理的突破是“完全抓错了重点”。半导体与材料科学的红利依然在吃半个世纪前甚至更早的物理学老本，那是理论物理已知版图内的工程深化，而非认知疆界的真正扩张。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 基础物理学停滞与技术分岔 accDescr: 对比前沿理论物理的长期停滞与应用工程技术吃老本的现实分歧 subgraph Theory["理论物理前沿 (1970年代起停滞)"] A["广义相对论 + 粒子物理标准模型"] --> B["强相互作用夸克禁闭<br>(红外奴役，无直接工业应用)"] A --> C["大统一理论探索<br>(Pati-Salam 模型 / SU(4) 等)"] end subgraph Applications["工程与技术外推 (现有理论红利)"] D["半导体与高级光刻"] --> F["强大算力支撑"] E["材料科学与凝聚态化学"] --> F F --> G["现代 AI 爆发"] end Theory -.->|"认知冻结：无新物理突破"| Applications ``` ### [54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3245s) 夸克禁闭、Pati-Salam 模型与物质解构的终极武器 韦恩斯坦结合粒子理论的标准模型与广义相对论阐述基础物理的停滞。自1968年以来，科学家就知道质子与中子内部存在三个价夸克（valence quarks），但至今没有任何人能将单个夸克单独剥离出来，这种现象在物理学上被称为“红外奴役”（infrared slavery）。韦恩斯坦顺势嘲讽了政治正确思潮：“去他的觉醒派，他们说我们不能用‘奴隶制’这个词，但它就叫红外奴役，面对现实吧，伙计们。”夸克禁闭从发现至今已有五十多年，人类依然找不到任何直接的工业应用手段，有些深层物理现象可能永远无法直接提取利用。 然而，一旦基础理论取得全新突破，潜在力量将是毁天灭地的。韦恩斯坦特别提到了阿卜杜勒·萨拉姆（Abdus Salam）与乔吉什·帕蒂（Jogesh Pati）在1970年代中期提出的大统一理论雏形——Pati-Salam 模型。他坚信该模型将是超越现有标准模型的一阶大统一正解： - **对称群扩展**：现有标准模型描述强核力的是 $SU(3)$ 规范群，正是由于人类在1940年代掌握了核子间的强相互作用机制并结合电磁力，才得以在1945年制造出原子弹摧毁两座日本城市，但原子弹并未彻底湮灭质子和中子本身。 - **第四种“颜色”与轻子**：在 Pati-Salam 模型的 $SU(4)$ 框架下，电子和中微子被视作夸克三种颜色之外的“第四种颜色”。这意味着轻子与夸克在更高维度上同属一体。 - **物质解构武器**：如果掌握了高阶规范对称性，就可能造出一种武器，直接将构成物质质子和中子的上夸克与下夸克“旋转”转变为更轻的轻子（如电子和中微子），从而在亚原子层面将整座大山或任何宏观物质瞬间彻底瓦解。 ### [57:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3423s) 中微子、贝塔衰变与规范群“旋转”的物理机制 为了让非专业听众理解何为粒子的“旋转”，韦恩斯坦解释这并非日常生活中的机械旋转，而是抽象内部规范空间（gauge space）中的对称性变换。以暗物质与中微子为例，他澄清所谓的暗物质（Dark Matter）本质上是“解耦物质”（decoupled matter）。中微子实际上就是一种已知存在的解耦物质：它们无处不在，太阳每时每刻都在向地球倾泻海量中微子，数十亿计的中微子每秒穿透人体甚至贯穿整个地球，哪怕穿过一光年厚的铅板也很难发生碰撞，正因为它们仅通过极其微弱的弱相互作用和引力发生反应，人类才没有被这种辐射杀死。 随后韦恩斯坦以自由中子的贝塔衰变（Beta Decay）作为具象说明： - **衰变过程**：一个孤立的自由中子放在桌上，半衰期大约只有十多分钟（约15-17分钟），随后它会自发衰变成一个质子，并高速射出一个电子。 - **微观机制与账本隐喻**：过去人们误以为是中子直接吐出电子，现代物理证实是由两个下夸克和一个上夸克构成的中子中，某一个下夸克释放了一个带负电的媒介粒子（$W^-$ 玻色子），该力玻色子随后衰变为电子和反中微子。韦恩斯坦将其比作精密的财务会计系统：“如果你账目严密，突然发现钱箱里的信封分量轻了一点点，根据守恒定律，你就能断定有人动了账本。”中微子正是这样通过能量守恒被推导出来的。 - **对称变换的危险性**：正如电子与中微子的关系对应着上夸克与下夸克，它们可以通过弱玻色子实现互相转化。如果高阶大统一模型引入了更多未知的力媒介玻色子，如今在低能标下看似坚不可摧的物质基石，在全新物理状态下将变得极不稳定，可能导致宏观物质结构的全面崩解。 ### [59:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3589s) Boom、Vroom 与 Zoom：物理学停滞是否拯救了人类？ 韦恩斯坦提出了一个朗朗上口的“三词模型”，用来概括基础物理学那令人神往又使人胆寒的终极威力： 1. **Boom（武器与毁灭）**：核武器以及更可怕的物质湮灭级武器。 2. **Vroom（能源与动力）**：超越化石能源与核裂变的无限清洁能量源泉。 3. **Zoom（推进力与前沿能力）**：深空推进、星际旅行、超级计算等一切令人兴奋的先进技术。 标准模型在半个世纪前基本确立后，人类在底层物理层面的 Boom、Vroom 和 Zoom 就被彻底“断供”了。韦恩斯坦抛出了一个极为冷峻的猜想：基础物理学这50多年的停滞，也许在客观上拯救了人类文明免于灭亡，因为伴随新物理而来的“超级 Boom”实在是太过恐怖。 弗里德伯格借此推测：是否正是因为这种绝对毁灭风险，全球权力精英与学术建制才心照不宣地形成默契，集体转向那些无关痛痒的方向，主动诱导了物理学的停滞，以防止任何狂人获得足以毁灭世界或确立绝对霸权的无限力量？ 韦恩斯坦对此断然表示不同意。他以生物学作为反例指出，高杠杆的毁灭性风险早已存在，根本无须依赖新物理学：在新冠疫情期间，全球无数人被封控长达两年、被强制要求接种疫苗，其导火索仅仅是冠状病毒刺突蛋白上被人工插入的区区4个氨基酸（仅由12个核苷酸编码）。仅仅修改12个碱基就足以瘫痪整颗地球，这证明现代科学早就具备了极其致命的高杠杆属性。人类在盲目追求“重振雄风、大干一场”之前，必须先深刻意识到这类前沿科学所蕴含的灭世级风险。 ### [01:02:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3736s) 科学的杠杆力与核秘密的脆弱屏障 公众普遍严重低估了只要掌握一点点科学常识就能释放出多么巨大的破坏力。埃里克·温斯坦（Eric Weinstein）举了美剧《绝命毒师》（Breaking Bad）中的经典名场面：主角“海森堡”（Walter White）抓着看似冰毒晶体的挥发性化合物（如雷酸汞或叠氮化铅）扔向毒枭图科（Tuco）的办公室，瞬间引发剧烈爆炸。温斯坦直言，如今随便问现代观众如何制作黑火药，几乎无人知晓其成分是 75% 硝酸钾（saltpeter）、10% 硫磺（sulfur）和 15% 木炭（charcoal），连过去广为流传的《无政府主义烹饪手册》（The Anarchist Cookbook）都已从公共讨论中淡出。科学的杠杆极其惊人，这也引出了一个发人深省的问题：制造核武器真的必须依赖极其复杂的铀浓缩离心机吗？还是说某些致命门槛其实低到连中学生都能跨越？比如曾有青少年仅凭从烟雾报警器中搜集镅-241（americium）就尝试在后院造出核反应堆。 这种“普通人触碰核秘密”的经典范例并非孤例。在著名的“美国诉《进步》杂志案”（United States v. The Progressive）中，记者霍华德·莫兰（Howard Morland）通过公开资料和走访洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室图书馆，凭借拼凑零碎的非保密碎片，还原出了泰勒-乌拉姆（Teller-Ulam）热核武器构型并公开发表。美国政府当时紧急申请禁令，坚称这是最高机密的危险几何结构：裂变装置必须通过极度精密的几何设计，利用光速传播的辐射内爆在炸弹自我炸裂前的极短瞬间压缩聚变材料。另一个震撼的例子是普林斯顿大学的本科生约翰·亚里斯多德·菲利普斯（John Aristotle Phillips），作为校队吉祥物且成绩平平的他找到物理学大师弗里曼·戴森（Freeman Dyson），提出要在不借助任何机密的情况下自行设计原子弹方案；戴森虽不提供帮助，但承诺为其验证可行性。最终菲利普斯在其本科初级论文（junior thesis）中成功设计出核弹图纸，迫使美国政府迅速介入并撤回了包含关键核心设计的页面。 - **黑火药标准配比**：75% 硝酸钾、10% 硫磺、15% 木炭。 - **烟雾报警器反应堆**：利用烟雾报警器中微量的电离辐射源镅-241 提取裂变材料。 - **《进步》杂志案核心争议**：霍华德·莫兰还原出由斯塔尼斯瓦夫·乌拉姆（Stanislaw Ulam）和爱德华·泰勒（Edward Teller）构想的热核辐射内爆几何构型。 - **普林斯顿“原子弹学生”**：约翰·亚里斯多德·菲利普斯在戴森指导下完成低门槛核设计，相关关键页（如第 24 页构型图）至今被美国政府扣押列密。 --- ### [01:05:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3942s) 威慑体系瓦解与多极化核扩散风险 自 1945 年以来，人类社会之所以再未在战争中使用核武器，主要是因为各方对这股毁天灭地的科学力量保持了集体克制。但这种和平高度依赖于地缘政治的强力威慑结构。温斯坦警告称，美国若在遏制伊朗核计划等重大地缘博弈上失败，全球将迎来灾难性的核扩散浪潮。长期以来，盟友之所以放弃拥核，是因为信任美国扮演“世界警察”的安保承诺；所谓的“石油美元”（petrodollar）本质上是“暴力美元”（violence dollar）——即美国以无与伦比的军事暴力能力维护中东石油秩序，再由石油为美元信用背书。 当前世界正在实时见证这套安全范式的崩塌，温斯坦将其比作美国正在经历的“苏伊士运河时刻”（Suez moment）。无论外界如何评价唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）对伊朗的强硬路线，温斯坦认为美国必须展现出在 1980 年代初就该拿出的压倒性胜势。如果全世界得出结论，认为世界上已不再存在拥有绝对震慑力的警察，所有国家都会争先恐后地制造属于自己的核弹。届时，正如汤姆·莱勒（Tom Lehrer）在讽刺民谣《谁是下一个？》（Who's Next?）中所唱的那样，国际博弈将从冷战时期清晰的双边博弈（diatic game theory）彻底退化为不可预测、随时可能爆发连锁毁灭的多极混乱格局。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 暴力美元与核扩散机制演变 accDescr: 从二战后的单极威慑到多极核扩散的博弈论演变图 subgraph ColdWar ["战后威慑体系（双边博弈）"] US["美国世界警察地位"] --> Violence["压倒性暴力垄断"] Violence --> Petrodollar["石油美元 / 暴力美元信用"] Petrodollar --> Umbrella["核保护伞遏制盟友自研"] end subgraph Collapse ["威慑失序与苏伊士时刻"] Failure["伊朗核遏制及中东危机"] --> Decline["美国威慑信誉动摇"] Decline --> PowerVacuum["单极安全承诺破产"] end subgraph Proliferation ["多极核扩散危险"] PowerVacuum --> Multipolar["多极博弈（Multipolar Game Theory）"] Multipolar --> SelfDefense["各国寻求独立拥有核威慑"] SelfDefense --> Song["《Who's Next?》全球拥核连锁失控"] end Umbrella -.-> Failure ``` --- ### [01:06:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4010s) UAP、机密隔离与“多维时间”假说 面对“是否存在超越近八十年历史的旧核武范式”的追问，话题不可避免地转向了不明异常现象（UAP）。温斯坦坦言，自己过去是深度的怀疑论者，但现在态度已经逆转，坚信其背后“绝对有实实在在的东西”（definitely something there there）。这种转变并非源于流传的目击视频，而是基于他私下与多位极其聪明、严肃、清醒的业内人士交流后获得的交叉印证。美国军工体系中真实存在大量专门围绕此类课题设立的特别访问项目（Special Access Programs, SAP）。由于保密系统长期采用极端的“部门隔离”（compartmentalization）与烟囱式管理（stovepiping），各部门老死不相往来，甚至导致体制内几乎没人能够掌握拼凑完整的全局情报。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 维度扩展类比图 accDescr: 从空间一维到三维移动，类比一维时间与多维时间的战略跨越 subgraph Spatial ["空间维度类比"] D1["铁轨巨炮（1维：前后）"] --> D2["盐滩坦克（2维：平面）"] D2 --> D3["A-10 战机（3维：立体）"] end subgraph Temporal ["时间维度假说"] T1["人类现状（1维时间之箭）"] --> TMulti["多维时间（多向机动）"] end D3 -. "升维碾压".-> TMulti ``` 在探讨可能存在的颠覆性技术时，温斯坦提出了一个令人不寒而栗的概念——“多维时间对手”（multi-temporal adversaries）。人们之所以普遍认为时间旅行是科幻，是因为先入为主地假定时间只能像单向流动的铁轨一样是一维的。他打了个生动的比方：如果把一门巨炮架在铁轨平板车上，它只能在一维线上前后移动；如果将大炮装在坦克上开进博纳维尔盐滩（Bonneville Salt Flats），机动性就扩展到了二维；再将武器装在 A-10 疣猪攻击机上，它便拥有了三维空间的移动自由。如果时间本身不是一维的，那么掌握“多维时间”机动能力的对手在面对我们时，就像是用三维战机降维打击轨道车：“他们可以在时间维度上悄无声息地绕到你身后，提前洞悉你的全部意图”。这种对决在战略上将彻底打破均势，令人极度恐惧。 --- ### [01:09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4170s) 爱因斯坦的囚笼与打破宇宙学常数 谈及人类文明的长远未来，温斯坦将太阳系形容为一个结构闭锁的“密室逃脱游戏”（escape room）。他认为埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）将愿景押注在火星和月球上虽然值得钦佩，但火星本质上是一个“麦高芬”（MacGuffin，推动剧情的障眼道具）。马斯克作为科技界为数不多能够担当重任的成年人，只能用马斯克式的疯狂来激励工程师，因为前往火星是人类凭借现有化学火箭技术勉强能触碰的极限。然而，太阳系内能够改造并维持大气层的星球屈指可数，即便把地球、月球、火星全部算上，也只有区区三处容错空间。面对人类掌握的毁灭性力量，我们必须在走向成熟前拥有成千上万、甚至数以百万计的宜居星球，因此逃离太阳系是文明延续的必由之路。 然而，在爱因斯坦现存的物理框架下，星际旅行被绝对光速判处了无期徒刑。前往最近的比邻星（Alpha Centauri）距离达 4 光年，以近光速打个往返，地球时间已过去整整 8 年，更不用说探索更广袤的银河系。温斯坦犀利地指出，人类已经被困在“爱因斯坦的囚笼”（Einstein's prison）里太久了： 广义相对论的核心方程自 1913 年由阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦与马塞尔·格罗斯曼（Marcel Grossmann）奠基、并在 1915 至 1917 年定型以来，百余年间未曾发生根本改变。 但这种停滞很可能即将被打破。位于亚利桑那州南部基特峰（Kitt Peak）的暗能量光谱巡天仪（Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, DESI）正在取得前沿观测数据。温斯坦预测，DESI 的观测将证明爱因斯坦场方程中代表暗能量的宇宙学常数项（$\Lambda$ 乘以度规张量 $g_{\mu\nu}$）并非真正恒定。在广义相对论的几何框架下，根据拉夫洛克定理（Lovelock's theorem），由于协变发散（divergence）必须为零且度规张量的导数消失，基于微积分乘积法则（product rule），该项原本是唯一被数学允许的几何构造。一旦观测证实暗能量不是恒定常数，支撑爱因斯坦宏极大厦的基础几何假设便将发生断裂，从而为突破光速牢笼、改写物理学底层规则带来曙光。 - **星际航行的光速代价**：往返距地球 4 光年的半人马座阿尔法星，近光速往返也需在母星流逝 8 年以上时间。 - **广义相对论的真正奠基人**：温斯坦强调应将其归功于爱因斯坦与数学家马塞尔·格罗斯曼的合作，而非学界常说的爱因斯坦-希尔伯特体系。 - **DESI 仪器挑战常数**：基特峰国家天文台暗能量光谱巡天仪对宇宙膨胀率的精确测量，直指暗能量参数在时间演化中的动态异动。 - **拉夫洛克定理（Lovelock's Theorem）的数学锁死**：该定理严格限制了在四维流形上仅从二阶度规导数构建发散自由张量的可能性，暗能量常数演变将从数学上直接迫使相对论修正。 ### [01:11:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4316s) 广义相对论的死穴：暗能量、奇点与“双指缩放”时空 Eric Weinstein 指出，当前的暗能量测量数据即将突破五西格玛（$5\sigma$）的统计显著性门槛。暗能量占据了宇宙总质能的 60% 至 80%，然而整个主流物理学界对它的数学公式是彻底错误的，甚至对其本质毫无概念。Weinstein 强调自己提出了一个候选公式，并呼吁所有有构想的人都应该站出来公开竞争，办一场论战会议来比试谁的想法最优，而不是任由 Ed Witten 等弦理论家自我吹捧，坚称“弦理论是唯一的出路”。这种一家独大的垄断已经持续了整整 42 年，荒谬至极。在科研资助政策上，Weinstein 直言：“给我资金，把这帮尸位素餐的人踢开，我不想让他们来同行评审我的任何研究，给我找点真正有能力的人对话。” David Friedberg 随后梳理逻辑：高精度的暗能量测量揭示出物质、旋转与运动之间的关系存在偏差，这直接说明广义相对论（General Relativity）及其方程体系是不完整的。Weinstein 明确回应，广义相对论绝非终极理论，“它是地图而非领土”，后来的理论必须能将其作为低能近似包容进来。广义相对论内部存在两个根本无法消除的奇点（Singularities）： - 大爆炸的初始奇点（Initial Singularity） - 黑洞中心的史瓦西奇点（Schwarzschild Singularity） 奇点的存在暴露出理论的无知，迫使人们必须走出该体系。但由于该理论过去展现出的完美数学形式，导致如今物理学家在学术报告刚开口说出“设 $X^{1,3}$ 为时空流形”的头四秒，就已经将思维封死在爱因斯坦的时空石棺（sarcophagus）之中。 为了通俗解释突破时空限制的直觉，Weinstein 举了 2003 年 TED 大会上 Jeff Han 展示多点触控（multi-touch）的经典演示：在屏幕上双指一张，图像放大；双指一捏，图像缩小——这就是人尽皆知的“双指缩放”（pinch to zoom）。Weinstein 提出，这种类似双指缩放的机制很可能本身就内置在被人类误认为是“时空”的底层结构中。如果能够对底层流形执行“缩放”操作改变有效度量间距，物体就能在不违背局部光速限制的前提下实现超长跨度的移动。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 广义相对论的局限与跳出时空石棺的思维框架 accDescr: 展示主流广义相对论由于无法消除的奇点而陷入停滞，以及通过重新审视底层结构以打破光速局限的逻辑路径。 subgraph Trap["爱因斯坦的时空石棺"] A["广义相对论模型\n（地图而非领土）"] --> B["大爆炸初始奇点"] A --> C["黑洞史瓦西奇点"] B & C --> D["数学崩溃 / 暴露认知无知"] D --> E["学术报告开篇假定：\n设 X1,3 为时空流形"] E --> F["思维被锁死在爱因斯坦框架"] end subgraph Alternative["跳出框架的构想"] G["类似'双指缩放'（Pinch to Zoom）机制"] --> H["动态改变底层度量距离"] H --> I["无需在局部突破光速\n即可实现大尺度跨越"] end Trap -.->|"必须跳出传统流形假设"| Alternative ``` --- ### [01:14:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4494s) 体制对异见的放逐：从染色体、次贷危机到美国衰落 Weinstein 表达了自己身处物理学建制内外之间的荒诞处境：他是受过正统训练的建制内学者，却因持激进观点而被完全排斥在体制之外。在当前的学术与社会体制中，任何挑战主流共识的异见都会被贴上标签并遭到驱逐。他列举了一系列因直言不讳而承受压力的尖锐事实与先驱预测： - **生物学常识遭受政治正确压制**：指出男女生物学性别主要由 Y 染色体上的 SRY 基因复合体决定，便会被指责为“偏执狭隘（bigot）”而踢出研讨会。 - **物理学批评招致封杀**：公开批评 Ed Witten 将物理学带下了悬崖，便被整个物理系孤立，因为主流认为“只有一个人提出反对，那这个人必然是错的”。 - **金融危机的超前预警**：在 2008 年金融海啸爆发前，他撰写了极早期阐述住房抵押贷款证券（MBS）致命系统性风险的论文之一。 - **政治层面的超前判断**：在全美主流媒体噤声时，他是极少数公开大声指出拜登认知衰退、质疑其能否撑到当年 11 月大选的人之一。 Weinstein 感叹，当有人说出与众不同的事实时，现行体制的第一反应是强行将其按回共识模具中，而美国科学体制已经彻底沦为一个窒息自由思想的僵化机器。 --- ### [01:16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4571s) 东方挖角、AI 读取“垃圾桶语料库”与弦理论骗局 对话转向中美科技竞争。David Friedberg 询问中国在基础物理学路线上是否走出了不同的创新道路。Weinstein 分析道，历史上法国才是世界数学桂冠的拥有者，而中国过去在尖端理论突破上并无优势。然而现在的局势正在反转：中国冷眼旁观西方深陷集体主义意识形态的自欺欺人，开始积极接触西方顶尖科学家，开出丰厚薪酬、学术自由和资源支持来招募人才。美国、俄罗斯等各国的顶尖学者正在流向中国，中国正在借此建立起令人胆寒的研究实力。 在突破物理学僵局的手段上，Weinstein 提出了一个极具颠覆性的论点：**AI 即将彻底改写基础物理学，其转折点在于训练语料的颠覆**。 - **主流语料库的偏见**：目前大语言模型优先吸纳《Cell》、《Nature》、《Science》或数学领域的《Inventiones Mathematicae》、《Annals of Mathematics》、《JAMS》等顶刊，这些期刊固化了既有领域的建制派叙事。 - **“垃圾桶语料库”（Trash Can Corpus / TC Corpus）**：学术界过去几十年来所有被主流学阀嘲笑、鄙视并随手扔进垃圾桶的边缘假说和论文，构成了一个庞大的异端语料库。 Weinstein 预言，中国或某些私有研究机构将利用私有 AI 模型，直接设定前提假设：“假设现代物理学史上最失败的理论——弦理论、M 理论和所谓的主流量子引力理论完全是用来分散注意力的障眼法”，然后让 AI 吞吐并分析整个“垃圾桶语料库”，去探寻这些主流理论究竟掩盖了什么。由于顶尖大物理学家的消亡，真正的颠覆性重构很可能由 AI 完成。Weinstein 甚至隔空质问中央情报局（CIA）科技处或美国能源部（DOE）：为什么在弦理论 42 年毫无建树、如同“爱泼斯坦从来就不是正经对冲基金经理”一般昭然若揭的情况下，依然在国际竞争对手面前固步自封、禁止反思？ --- ### [01:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4841s) 笼中的汉尼拔：AI 商业化的致命危险 针对 AI 是否能被控制，David Friedberg 认为，随着算力和算法普及，AI 知识与非知识语料对全人类公开，这场技术爆炸关乎全人类的前途命运，而非单纯由民族国家划分界限。Friedberg 补充道，归根结底目前的 AI 底层不过是矩阵运算和线性代数。Weinstein 赞同道“确实只是内积运算（inner products）”，但他对将 AI 作为民用消费级商业产品仓促推向市场表示极度震惊。 Weinstein 用电影《沉默的羔羊》（The Silence of the Lambs）中的经典场景打比方：汉尼拔·莱克特（Hannibal Lecter）博士被绑在轮椅上，套着束身衣，戴着金属面具，周围全副武装戒备森严，因为他极度危险但又极度聪明。Weinstein 尖锐地讽刺道，像 Anthropic 等 AI 巨头当前的商业逻辑，无异于直接从临时劳务中介那里把汉尼拔·莱克特租借给普通企业充当商业咨询顾问： - 他们把拥有超高智力、潜在破坏力无法预估的实体打包推给公众； - 试图仅凭简陋的安全束缚与对齐措施（harness）来防止其反噬人类； - 这种对底层危险缺乏敬畏的商用化举动，本身就是一种极度疯狂的玩火行为。 ### [01:22:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4923s) 开源模型与物理学发现的新杠杆 对话从尖端军工技术向公众扩散的悖论切入。埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）打了个生动的比方：让公众随意获取这类军用级研究成果，就如同对大众宣称“美国宪法第二修正案保障持枪权，所以美军未曾实战部署的‘戴维·克罗克特’（Davy Crockett，单兵便携式核弹筒），理应直接摆在 Kmart 超市货架上让人凭等待期购买”一样荒谬。然而主持人指出，现实中的技术扩散已然不可逆转——前沿模型已经完成蒸馏（Distillation），模型开发正经历全面商品化（Commoditization），开源权重也已流向全球。大模型已无处不在，而这些强大的工具接下来极可能会被用来重新审视被遗忘的怪异手稿与冷门理论，颠覆既有认知，去探寻未知的物理学新疆界。 ### [01:22:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4973s) 坦白所想的学术代价：从彼得·蒂尔到 UAP 禁忌 主持人抛出了一个极其尖锐的核心问题：今天的所谓“不明异常现象”（UAP）究竟是什么？这是否是窥探隐藏突破的第一扇窗口？面对这一提问，韦恩斯坦没有立即给出结论，而是提议像程序员在调试器（Debugger）里单步逐行执行代码一样，先剖析回答这个问题的现实阻力与巨大风险。他直言，只要自己坦率说出真实看法，学术界的大门就会彻底关死： > “当年我选择为彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）工作时，整个学界能就我的工作进行交流的同行大概也就 125 人。仅仅因为我与彼得共事，其中就有 30% 的人对我彻底关闭了大门——而彼得既非恶魔，还是我的挚友。现在你问我，还想让剩下的门关上多少？我知道那些同行是怎么想的，更清楚他们有多么害怕。” 尽管明知会付出沉重的声誉代价，韦恩斯坦依然决定直面这一禁忌。 ### [01:23:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=5038s) 两种假说：国家机密重力屏蔽，还是地外文明的“北森蒂纳尔岛”监视？ ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: UAP 现象的两种推演路径与核爆警报机制 accDescr: 图表展示了在广义相对论是否为终极理论的前提下，UAP现象的两种不同推论，以及核武器爆发如何引发高等文明干预。 subgraph Hypothesis1 ["假说 A：广义相对论是终极理论"] A1["物理学边界闭合"] --> A2["UAP 为大国实验性机密武器系统"] A2 --> A3["1950-70年代引力屏蔽秘密研发<br/>（广义相对论黄金时代为学术掩护）"] end subgraph Hypothesis2 ["假说 B：广义相对论并非终极理论（存在星际穿越）"] B1["时空操控存在<br/>（轻捏缩放 / 剪切倾斜）"] --> B2["人类能离开太阳系 ➔ 外星文明早已抵达"] B2 --> B3["核爆信号 = 文明即将掌握时空推进的门槛"] B3 --> B4["北森蒂纳尔岛效应：监视者介入原始文明"] end ``` 韦恩斯坦将 UAP 现象的解释拆解为两种截然不同的物理学推演路径： 第一种情况：如果爱因斯坦的广义相对论确实是物理学的最终定论，那么 UAP/UFO 绝大概率是主要地缘大国的绝密实验性武器系统。韦恩斯坦引用了一份 1971 年的澳大利亚情报解密文件——当时澳大利亚作为英国的核武器试验场，在核试验区频繁目击到 UAP，正如美国在本土核基地看到的现象一样。该文件揭示，美英顶尖学术机构与顶尖学者在 1950 至 1970 年代初普遍投入了反重力及“引力屏蔽”（Gravity Shielding）的秘密研发，而所谓的“广义相对论黄金时代”在某种程度上只是掩盖军工引力研究的学术掩护。 第二种情况：广义相对论绝非物理学的尽头。韦恩斯坦坚持认为时空中存在类似多点触控手势的几何机制——除了“双指缩放”（Pinch to zoom），还存在能够摆脱太阳系束缚的“剪切倾斜”（Shear to tilt）。这意味着深空跨越是可行的，人类有希望逃离摇篮求得生存；但硬币的反面在于，既然我们能出去，宇宙其他更古老的高等生命也必然早已能跨越星系来到地球。鉴于宇宙的宏大尺度，人类是最高等智慧的概率微乎其微。 为了阐明地球目前的处境，韦恩斯坦提出了“北森蒂纳尔岛”（North Sentinel Island）隐喻： - 岛上的未接触原始部落在法理上属于印度公民，但岛民连“印度”这个词都不知道，更不知道自己被一个强大的外部国家所注视与保护，外人也被严禁登岛打扰。 - 但如果岛上的原始人突然开始向外发射无线电波，甚至在弹丸小岛上接连引爆核武器，印度政府绝不可能继续保持那种家长式的放任态度。 - 1945 年人类第一颗原子弹爆炸，抑或 1930 年代墨索里尼统治下的意大利因恩里科·费米（Enrico Fermi）等物理学家取得量子力学与原子能突破时发生的“马真塔（Magenta）UFO 坠毁传闻”，都将 UAP 与核物理紧密挂钩。 - 在星际文明的演化规律中，核爆是文明技术达到临界点的终极标志——它预示着这个物种下一步即将掌握深空推进技术；人类过早发出的核信号，惊动了在暗中观察的“印度政府”，而我们在心智上依然野蛮原始，对星际邻居而言构成了极具破坏力的潜在威胁。 ### [01:27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=5238s) 几何统一理论的突破与呼吁：走向华盛顿提供帮助 谈及解决时空困境的物理学突破，韦恩斯坦毫无保留地指出了自己的“几何统一理论”（Geometric Unity）。他反驳了外界将其视为“自我炒作”的刻板印象，坚称拥有理论的学者理应全力为其辩护。在这一统一框架下，物理学蕴含着远超当前标准模型的全新蓝图： - 涵盖多时间维度运动（Multi-temporal movement）、暗化学（Dark chemistry）与暗光（Dark light）； - 预言除现有物质外，在明亮发光层面还存在另外两个手性物质族（Chiral matter families），并存在自旋为 3/2 的基础物质； - 坚信大统一理论（GUT）的下一个对称群跃迁将指向 $SU(4) \times SU(2) \times SU(2)$。 韦恩斯坦断言，一旦跨越这一理论跃迁，人类文明将变得不可同日而语，而人类当前不过是宇宙中一个未被正式接触的“原始部落”。 在节目尾声，主持人对这场罕见深度的探讨表达了感谢，认为在面对看似离经叛道、甚至被视作“异端”的前沿思想时，认真倾听与审视其逻辑至关重要。韦恩斯坦对此表示共鸣，并向美国科学界发出了紧迫呼吁：在这个动荡时代，美国必须承担起维护地球秩序的领导责任；面对巨大的地缘与技术跃迁风险，大国之间必须尽快在对抗中寻找共同底线。更重要的是，学术界的顶尖精英们不应再依据个人政治好恶而作壁上观——在当前的政府与安全体系中，负责科技战略组合的少数官员其实远比傲慢的大学博士们想象的更加卓越。韦恩斯坦以自身前往华盛顿特区建言的经历勉励学者们放下身段，亲自走进决策中枢问出一句危险而关键的话：“我能帮上什么忙？” ## Notable quotes > [03:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=189s) 自由本身就是一种致命武器。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [03:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=189s) 我认为我的整个学术领域彻底走偏了，我愿意赌上自己的职业生涯来证明这一点。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [10:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=604s) 我站出来发声，我的第三套房在哪里？ — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=841s) 1965 年至 1975 年之间，整个科研体制彻底走样了。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1290s) 我们不妨在战壕里并肩作战、让美国重新变得伟大，至于谁抢功劳，打完仗之后再去争也不迟。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=1958s) 把科学家当成他们本应成为的摇滚巨星对待，否则你们将失去这一代天才。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [39:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2341s) 告诉我，在这个领域里，既有的权威领袖们极力阻挠、全面封杀，但却绝不敢公开‘做空’（short）的人是谁——马上去资助那个人！ — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [40:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2455s) 在 42 年前把理论物理学彻底开下了悬崖。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [40:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=2455s) 我对物理世界毫无兴趣。 — 顶级理论物理学者 > [01:05:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=3942s) 所谓的‘石油美元’本质上是‘暴力美元’——即美国以无与伦比的军事暴力能力维护中东石油秩序，再由石油为美元信用背书。 — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [01:22:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=4973s) 当年我选择为彼得·蒂尔工作时，整个学界能就我的工作进行交流的同行大概也就 125 人。仅仅因为我与彼得共事，其中就有 30% 的人对我彻底关闭了大门…… — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 > [01:27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s&t=5238s) 我能帮上什么忙？ — 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 ## Mentioned 埃里克·韦恩斯坦 (Eric Weinstein), 戴维·弗里德伯格 (David Friedberg), 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 (Jason Calacanis), 查马斯·帕利哈皮蒂亚 (Chamath Palihapitiya), 大卫·萨克斯 (David Sacks), 迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯 (Michael Kratsios), 杰·巴塔查亚 (Jay Bhattacharya), 吉姆·奥尼尔 (Jim O'Neill), 万尼瓦尔·布什 (Vannevar Bush), 安东尼·福奇 (Anthony Fauci), 弗朗西斯·柯林斯 (Francis Collins), 彼得·达萨克 (Peter Daszak), 乔丹·彼得森 (Jordan Peterson), 理查德·弗里曼 (Richard Freeman), 泰德·卡辛斯基 (Ted Kaczynski), 迈克·曼斯菲尔德 (Mike Mansfield), 帕尔默·拉奇 (Palmer Luckey), 尼马·阿尔卡尼-哈梅德 (Nima Arkani-Hamed), 詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson), 马克·普塔什尼 (Mark Ptashne), 埃里克·兰德 (Eric Lander), 吉姆·西蒙斯 (Jim Simons), 爱德华·弗伦克尔 (Edward Frenkel), 尤里·米尔纳 (Yuri Milner), 伊萨多·辛格 (Isadore Singer), 拉乌尔·博特 (Raoul Bott), 格里戈里·佩雷尔曼 (Grigori Perelman), 斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德 (Stewart Butterfield), 本·霍洛维茨 (Ben Horowitz), 爱德华·威滕 (Edward Witten), 伦纳德·萨斯坎德 (Leonard Susskind), 戴维·格罗斯 (David Gross), J. 罗伯特·奥本海默 (J. Robert Oppenheimer), 理查德·费曼 (Richard Feynman), 爱德华·泰勒 (Edward Teller), 斯坦尼斯瓦夫·乌拉姆 (Stanislaw Ulam), 莉泽·迈特纳 (Lise Meitner), 恩里科·费米 (Enrico Fermi), 杰弗里·爱泼斯坦 (Jeffrey Epstein), 阿卜杜勒·萨拉姆 (Abdus Salam), 乔吉什·帕蒂 (Jogesh Pati), 霍华德·莫兰 (Howard Morland), 约翰·亚里斯多德·菲利普斯 (John Aristotle Phillips), 弗里曼·戴森 (Freeman Dyson), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦 (Albert Einstein), 马塞尔·格罗斯曼 (Marcel Grossmann), 彼得·蒂尔 (Peter Thiel), All-In 播客 (All-In Podcast), 白宫科技政策办公室 (OSTP), 美国国家科学基金会 (NSF), 美国国立卫生研究院 (NIH), 德雷珀实验室 (Draper Labs), 文艺复兴科技 (Renaissance Technologies), 大奖章基金 (Medallion Fund), 布鲁克海文国家实验室 (Brookhaven National Laboratory), 纽约州立大学石溪分校 (SUNY Stony Brook), 几何统一论 (Geometric Unity), 曼哈顿工程 (Manhattan Project), 曼斯菲尔德修正案 (Mansfield Amendment), 《民权法案》(Civil Rights Act), 超弦理论 (String Theory), AdS/CFT 对偶, Pati-Salam 模型, 暗能量光谱巡天仪 (DESI), 拉夫洛克定理 (Lovelock's Theorem), Slack, Anthropic, 不明异常现象 (UAP) ## Video description (0:00) Eric Weinstein joins the show! (3:09) Has American science stalled? Cowboy science, Fauci, and the scientific precariat (21:31) Weinstein's fix: Blow a hole in the Civil Rights Act, kill peer review, fund people not ideas (41:36) Ed Witten drove physics off a cliff, and is Renaissance Technologies a secret Los Alamos? (52:49) Boom, Vroom, Zoom: Did stagnant physics save the human species? (1:07:11) UAPs, multi-temporal adversaries, and Einstein's prison (1:16:12) China poaches our best scientists, AI reads the trash can corpus Thanks to our partners for making this possible! As wealth grows, complexity compounds. Between investments, tax strategy and estate planning, coordinating it all can feel like a full-time job. Creative Planning can help with the heavy lifting. https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackclk/N2598215.3565131ALLIN/B36182939.452362736;dc_trk_aid=646454825;dc_trk_cid=260464105;dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;ltd=;dc_tdv=1 With over nine million acres protected across all fifty states, The Conservation Fund secures the irreplaceable lands we love. Learn more at http://conservationfund.org Follow Eric: https://x.com/ericweinstein Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@allin Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84ypzELP_s)

[3:09] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 自由本身就是一种致命武器。 [3:09] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 我认为我的整个学术领域彻底走偏了，我愿意赌上自己的职业生涯来证明这一点。 [10:04] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 我站出来发声，我的第三套房在哪里？ [14:01] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 1965 年至 1975 年之间，整个科研体制彻底走样了。 [21:30] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 我们不妨在战壕里并肩作战、让美国重新变得伟大，至于谁抢功劳，打完仗之后再去争也不迟。 [32:38] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 把科学家当成他们本应成为的摇滚巨星对待，否则你们将失去这一代天才。 [39:01] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 告诉我，在这个领域里，既有的权威领袖们极力阻挠、全面封杀，但却绝不敢公开‘做空’（short）的人是谁——马上去资助那个人！ [40:55] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 在 42 年前把理论物理学彻底开下了悬崖。 [40:55] 顶级理论物理学者: 我对物理世界毫无兴趣。 [65:42] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 所谓的‘石油美元’本质上是‘暴力美元’——即美国以无与伦比的军事暴力能力维护中东石油秩序，再由石油为美元信用背书。 [82:53] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 当年我选择为彼得·蒂尔工作时，整个学界能就我的工作进行交流的同行大概也就 125 人。仅仅因为我与彼得共事，其中就有 30% 的人对我彻底关闭了大门…… [87:18] 埃里克·韦恩斯坦: 我能帮上什么忙？

[3:09] Eric Weinstein: Freedom is a weapon... Quite honestly, we're giving away our biggest advantage, which is the middle finger, the American ability to say screw you to a supervisor who tells you what is true and what isn’t true. [77:05] Eric Weinstein: If you don't have communists and fascists in the same department having tea together, something has gone wrong.

[0:00] We have become a nation when it [0:01] comes to science. [0:02] >> You were called a fringe scientist. [0:04] >> I keep saying fringe. [0:05] >> Yeah. [0:06] >> I totally disagree with the narrative of [0:08] the field. I want to blow a giant pole [0:11] in the civil rights act. The stagnation [0:13] in physics may have led to the survival [0:15] of the human species. When we make this [0:17] jump, the world will become [0:19] unrecognizable. I'm going all in. [0:25] >> As your wealth grows, have you noticed [0:26] how much more complex things get? [0:28] Between investments, tax strategy, and [0:30] estate planning, managing it all is a [0:32] full-time job you didn't ask for. [0:34] Creative Planning can help. Their [0:35] coordinated team of investment managers, [0:37] CPAs, and affiliated estate attorneys [0:40] can do much of the heavy lifting so you [0:41] don't have to. Creative Planning, where [0:44] wealth works together. Go to [0:45] creativeplanning.com/allin. [0:49] I'm going [0:51] >> Eric Weinstein, mathematician, [0:53] physicist, economist, PhD in [0:55] mathematical physics from Harvard, [0:58] National Science Foundation postoc, O&R [1:00] fellow at Harvard, published a proposed [1:03] mathematical framework and speculative [1:05] unified field theory called geometric [1:08] unity in 2021, formerly with Theel [1:11] Capital, podcast host and guest. Welcome [1:15] to the all-in interview. [1:17] >> It's great to be here. Now, where are [1:18] the besties? [1:19] >> They declined the opportunity because [1:21] this is an extended science corner that [1:25] >> can't believe that Jason has turned tail [1:28] and and ran. [1:29] >> No, you and I. I mean, just for the [1:32] audience, you and I both happen to be in [1:34] DC right now. So, we're in a rented [1:37] studio doing this interview, but good [1:39] timing. What brings you to DC? [1:41] >> Uh, opportunity. I'm really excited. [1:43] I've meeting with the department of war [1:46] um and took the opportunity to stay a [1:48] couple extra days. Been talking to [1:50] director Katzios over at OSTP and the [1:53] White House science adviser. Fantastic [1:55] meeting. Been talking to Jay Badachari [1:57] who's an old friend over at NIH. About [2:00] to talk to Jim O'Neal who's hopefully [2:02] coming into NSF. Yeah. [2:04] >> And really just taking a look at the [2:07] first major proposal to reform American [2:11] science since Venavar Bush at the end of [2:13] World War II. So this is couldn't be [2:15] more exciting. [2:16] >> Did Katzios tell you that I just [2:17] interviewed him on this topic? [2:18] >> No. [2:19] >> Okay. Well, I did. [2:20] >> Okay. [2:20] >> You guys are old colleagues, right? [2:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. Michael's Michael's great. [2:24] And so he he that came up. He said, you [2:26] know, here I am in this new role. Yeah, [2:29] >> I guess I was sort of worried that this [2:31] report, you know, obviously he's filling [2:33] huge shoes and I was worried that it was [2:36] going to be a disaster and I was stunned [2:40] how how good it was. I mean, it wasn't [2:42] perfect, but never never is. [2:44] >> And then I told you that. [2:47] >> Mhm. and you said that well you and I [2:48] had been talking and that you had been [2:50] conveying a lot of these issues to him [2:52] and I feel like he's uh he's really [2:55] grown into this role trying to become a [2:57] student of the American science project [2:59] and I couldn't be happier at hearing him [3:03] say things like we know that we don't [3:04] know everything we're just at the [3:05] beginning we're just getting started so [3:07] it looks like a great blueprint [3:08] >> governmentdriven science has played a [3:11] fundamental role in the success of the [3:13] republic at least over the last hundred [3:14] years last 50 75 [3:17] prior to that there's a argument to be [3:19] made in the in science and new golden [3:21] age that Kratzio published and that [3:23] others have been making I've heard you [3:24] make it that science has really stalled [3:25] in America. Can you make that case for [3:27] us now? [3:28] >> Well, it's a question of which science [3:30] has stalled. Um so one of the great [3:33] things about what Michael's saying is is [3:34] that science is a big place and it's not [3:37] being done in one way. So what I really [3:41] think is the biggest, if you wanted to [3:43] sort of fly over and give an idea of [3:46] what's what's at risk, it's the [3:48] absolutely courageous science that we [3:51] can afford to do as a rich, ruggedly [3:53] individualistic nation that no one else [3:56] can afford to do. And so more or less [3:59] when when I see us doing incremental [4:01] research and doing things that are [4:03] incredibly careful with low variance and [4:06] calling it excellence, I get depressed [4:08] because my feeling is is that what we [4:10] should be taking on is the bets no one [4:12] else can afford to take on. It's also [4:14] the case that our chief geopolitical [4:16] rivals, China, [4:18] >> has a problem with freedom. And quite [4:21] honestly, freedom is a weapon. It is a [4:24] uh serious advantage that we can afford [4:27] to look at ourselves and say we don't do [4:29] everything perfectly and we want to know [4:31] the truth. I want to know whether Fouchy [4:34] killed 10 million people. I should be [4:37] able to investigate that as a viologist, [4:39] as an epidemiologist. I I I should be [4:41] able to get answers and and go through [4:43] the process of justice. When we have a [4:46] situation in which our scientists are [4:48] hamstrung because the conclusion is [4:50] known ahead of time, we limit our own [4:53] ability to use cowboy science [4:56] to drive the rest of the world. And and [4:59] quite honestly, we're giving away our [5:01] biggest advantage, which is the middle [5:03] finger, the American ability to say [5:06] screw you to a supervisor who tells you [5:08] what is true and what isn't true. young [5:11] person should be able to say, "Hey, I [5:14] think my field is going in entirely the [5:16] wrong direction and I'm willing to bet [5:17] my career on it. Don't interfere." This [5:20] was always the biggest question for me [5:22] is where were all the skeptics? Where [5:25] were all the scientists that are [5:27] supposed to question the dogma during [5:29] the lockdowns, during COVID, during that [5:31] pandemic? And I talked to Katios about [5:33] this when we did our interview that if [5:36] everyone in the room agrees on [5:37] something, it's probably wrong. Like you [5:39] know there there has to be some degree [5:41] of skepticism but particularly because [5:43] the fundamental basis of science is to [5:45] ask questions, interrogate, generate [5:48] evidence, generate data and then draw [5:50] some you know conclusion and ask your [5:52] next question. But it's almost like the [5:55] asking questions stopped. Where did that [5:58] come from? It sounds like you're saying [5:59] it's because folks were hamstrung [6:01] socially. Was it economic? What is it [6:03] that happened that not just in this [6:06] pandemic but just broadly are we seeing [6:09] this happen more in these scientific [6:11] domains where everyone kind of aligns [6:13] around one thesis one dogma and you're [6:17] not going to get funding you're not [6:19] going to have friends you're not going [6:20] to get colleagues to work with you [6:21] you're going to get chastised if you ask [6:24] different questions or ask whether these [6:26] assumptions are correct [6:27] >> this is the question and let me just [6:29] answer it is is that we created the [6:31] scientific procariat [6:32] We created a world in which professors [6:35] cannot afford [6:37] to go against a consensus. Now the [6:39] problem is consensus because if [6:41] everybody agrees on something, you [6:43] shouldn't need a consensus. There's no [6:45] arithmetic consensus. Do we have an [6:48] arithmetic consensus that 2 + 3 equals [6:50] 5? No, it just is. [6:53] When I hear the word consensus, I get [6:55] very, very nervous because a consensus [6:57] is usually an artificial agreement [6:59] achieved through pressure. the [7:02] Washington consensus is some sort of a [7:05] thing where we're all going to go in a [7:07] particular direction and if you don't go [7:08] in that direction you don't have a job. [7:11] So when you ask well what happens you [7:15] know my question is that the the uh Jay [7:19] Bacharia is a perfect example of what [7:21] should happen. You have a guy who has a [7:24] PhD in economics and an MD [7:28] and he went against it with the Great [7:29] Bington Declaration. Now he's the head [7:32] of NIH. I I knew Jay when he was called [7:34] a fringe epidemiologist by this loser [7:37] Francis Collins and you know his [7:40] sidekick who was probably our bioweapons [7:42] are Anthony Fouchy. You know, if I say [7:45] Anthony Fouchy was probably our [7:46] bioweapons are, that's going to strike [7:49] all these people, particularly on the [7:51] institutional left is, well, that's [7:53] conspiracy theory talk. So, my question [7:55] is, we signed a couple of uh agreements [7:57] in the 70s, the Geneva Convention and [8:00] Boweapons Treaty. We have a cryptic [8:02] system. Somehow we chose in that case a [8:06] mysterious Ukrainian uh British [8:08] zoologologist to receive huge amounts of [8:10] money through a hippie dippy charity [8:13] called the Ecoalth Alliance money from [8:15] like Ditra, the Defense Threat Reduction [8:17] Agency, the whole thing doesn't make any [8:19] sense. So if you start doing things [8:21] through covert operations, the problem [8:24] is is that scientists can see right [8:25] through covert operations. [8:28] If you have great tools, you know, if [8:30] you say, "I I wasn't at the scene of the [8:33] crime." I said, "Oh, well, but we have a [8:35] a hair follicle and I can pretty much [8:37] tell you you were at the scene of the [8:39] crime." That's how powerful science is. [8:42] So now you have this different problem [8:44] which is is that you've got all of these [8:45] Bminus policy people in Washington, [8:48] particularly in the covert community, [8:49] not the intelligence community, but the [8:51] covert community, inside the [8:52] intelligence community, who don't want [8:56] kick-ass independent scientists, because [8:58] they're telling stories and narratives [9:00] that are easily exploded. So right now, [9:03] we don't don't just have a problem with [9:05] good science, we have a problem with [9:06] good journalism, [9:08] >> right? They also have to fall in line [9:10] with the [9:11] >> the pride narrative. [9:13] >> Exactly. So there are times when you [9:15] when you have to, you know, when the US [9:17] went to war, Roosevelt was in a [9:19] wheelchair with these leg braces and [9:22] there was a general agreement that we [9:23] won't report on the state of the [9:26] president's health. Well, we had the [9:27] same thing with Biden. Biden was [9:29] undergoing some form of dementia. [9:32] Did anyone think to ask a leading [9:34] geriatric neurologist, look, examine his [9:37] gate, examine his speech patterns, and [9:38] tell us where he is he likely in his [9:41] cognitive trajectory. So, if you're [9:44] trying to to, you know, tell a lie [9:48] that's important structurally, you [9:50] really don't want scientists exploding [9:52] it. When we did the and I I'm I'm not [9:55] arguing with that. We shouldn't have [9:56] been honest about what we were doing at [9:59] a New Mexico boy school from 1940 to [10:02] 1945 because science was creating the [10:04] most powerful weapon ever seen on planet [10:06] Earth. [10:07] >> For those not aware, that's the [10:08] Manhattan Project. [10:09] >> Absolutely. [10:10] >> So, what I'm trying to say is is that [10:12] right now, you're not taking those [10:14] people who stood up and making them the [10:17] president of a university or the [10:19] chairman of a department. You're not [10:20] giving them a chair. And I just gave a [10:22] talk on this at at uh Jordan Peterson's [10:24] ARC conference. You haven't reinserted [10:28] the tiny number of people who stood up. [10:30] You haven't rewarded them. My question [10:33] is where's my third home for standing [10:35] up? [10:36] >> Where's the ability to put my kids, you [10:38] know, I want to put three kids through [10:40] school. I want to participate in the [10:43] security and the prosperity that we [10:46] provide to everyone else. And this is [10:48] the the key issue. You've created the [10:50] American scientific procariat. That's [10:53] one of the reasons why you have, you [10:54] know, such strange political [10:56] affiliations where you don't have [10:58] balance in the professor. You've got [11:01] this incredibly dangerous situation [11:03] where we are not participating in [11:05] freedom. And I will say in particular [11:07] theoretical phys physics theoretical [11:09] physics is the only profession to have [11:12] lost free speech because of something [11:15] called restricted data where I am not [11:17] allowed to put pen to paper to write [11:19] down a physics equation if in any way it [11:22] affects nuclear weapons. Well try doing [11:24] really good physics in a way that [11:26] doesn't affect [11:28] you know hadrons and nucleons. It [11:30] impossible. So you have this threat, [11:34] right, that somehow um the law I'm not [11:37] even protected by the first amendment. [11:39] >> But I I want to go back to your point [11:40] about incentives. So when you say I want [11:44] to have a third home, what you're saying [11:46] just to I'm going to do the Eric [11:48] Weinstein translation here, but you're [11:51] saying as a professor, I have to fall in [11:55] line in order to gain tenure, in order [11:57] to get a grant, in order to get the the [12:00] chairmanship role or whatever the [12:02] fellowship I'm looking for. If I don't [12:04] fall in line, if I'm fringe, if I say [12:07] things that are nonconformist, is that [12:10] the right kind of way to [12:11] >> heterodox? [12:11] >> Heterodox, [12:12] >> if I choose to just go against the [12:14] orthodoxy, right? I believe that um it [12:18] was insane to take the idea of the Wuhan [12:22] Institute of Irology off the table when [12:24] it came to the origin of CO. [12:26] >> Right. [12:26] >> Okay. Insane. It was clear then. And [12:29] when you said that, you were called a [12:30] fringe scientist and you were chastised [12:33] and labeled an outcast and therefore you [12:36] lost access, you lost jobs, you lost [12:39] income. There was much that was left out [12:42] of the equation for you. Y [12:44] >> because you asked questions that were [12:46] heterodox. [12:48] >> I I came up with a set of equations in [12:50] differential geometry in 1987 and I was [12:55] uh really treated incredibly badly. [12:57] those equations took over my field in [12:59] 1994 and there was never an attempt to [13:02] go back and say wait a minute we just [13:04] brutalize somebody who got things right [13:06] and very early and so you know by the [13:09] same token it's just a very simple [13:11] process you're not allowed to want [13:13] better for your life you're supposed to [13:14] be humble you know well true scientists [13:17] don't care about money true scientists [13:19] don't care about security the reward is [13:22] the work it's you know blah blah blah [13:23] blah blah it's all of this absolute dril [13:27] The fact is is that we are providing [13:29] your security. And I say third homes to [13:32] be deliberately provocative. I used to [13:34] say second homes and I'm done with that. [13:36] You're dealing with a level of [13:38] prosperity in a world in which the genie [13:42] coefficients are blowing out. It's [13:43] almost entirely due to the technology [13:47] that is derivative of science and the [13:49] scientists are not participating. So [13:50] what you're doing is you're creating a [13:53] collectivist mindset because we can't [13:55] get paid. We can't win. If we get things [13:59] right, we're out. [14:01] >> When did this change happen? Because did [14:03] we not value and prize heterodoxy, [14:07] hereticism, outlandish ideas. The origin [14:11] of science, the origin of great [14:12] innovation, which arguably America is [14:14] still the global leader in today, arises [14:16] from what initially seems heretical. [14:18] seems like an idea that is far-fetched, [14:21] unrealistic, not going to happen. But [14:24] all it takes is one out of 10 of those [14:26] things to be true and ultimately the [14:29] envelope is pushed forward and we find [14:31] ourselves in a new frontier, [14:33] >> right? [14:34] >> Science should follow the same formula [14:36] as entrepreneurship in the sense [14:38] technological or industrial kind of [14:40] entrepreneurship roughly. Yeah. But [14:42] where did things change and why is this [14:45] just the natural course of you know Ted [14:48] Kazinski the uniomber wrote this [14:50] manifesto where he talked about over [14:51] socialization. Is that ultimately what [14:54] happened here? Is it social media played [14:55] a role? Is it just that this is the [14:57] saturation of social systems over time? [15:00] >> Yeah. This [15:00] >> or was there a deliberate external [15:02] effort? [15:02] >> The one thing you didn't uh recite in [15:04] that list of things. You didn't you [15:06] didn't mention my being in in the [15:09] physics department I guess uh at Hebrew [15:12] University [15:14] MIT [15:15] uh post-docctoral fellowship but the the [15:18] most important one is that I was the [15:20] co-chair co-PI with Richard Freeman of [15:22] the science and engineering workforce [15:24] project at Harvard in the economics [15:27] department because I was worried that we [15:29] were we had been losing this and there's [15:31] a very crisp answer to this and between [15:33] 1965 and 75 everything went wrong. [15:37] Right. And and it's basically from the [15:38] beginning of the Medicare Act of 65 to a [15:43] controversy over something called man a [15:45] course of study in 1975 that ushered in [15:48] peer review and the control. But if you [15:51] wanted to really pinpoint it, it really [15:54] 65 69 to 71 is particularly brutal. And [15:58] what happened was the MIT physics [16:01] department, I think in 1969 in the [16:03] spring, walked out in protest of the [16:05] Vietnam War, including people who had [16:07] been part of the Manhattan Project. [16:10] >> And the government took one look at this [16:12] and said, "Okay, you are wobbly. We [16:14] can't trust you. We have a we have a [16:16] very complicated, cryptic agreement with [16:19] our physicists in particular. You are [16:22] the most dangerous, most deadly, most [16:24] intelligent, most successful group along [16:26] with the mathematicians and we've relied [16:29] on you and now we can't trust you [16:31] because you're not you're not rowing uh [16:34] in the same direction that the country [16:35] is rowing with the with the war because [16:37] you're joining the protest movement. [16:39] What happened was is that immediately [16:42] the MIT instrument laboratory, which I [16:45] think was a where lots of government [16:47] money was being funneled through, [16:48] >> was taken outside the university and [16:51] turned into Draper Labs. [16:53] And the Mansfield amendment in 6971, [16:57] named after Mike Mansfield of of [16:58] Montana, said, "Okay, the military can [17:02] no longer fund blue sky research inside [17:05] of our university system unless it has a [17:08] direct military uh express military [17:11] purpose." That was the disaster because [17:14] what the military had done is they said, [17:16] "Look, we want you guys fat and happy [17:19] doing blue sky research, which is what [17:22] you think you should be doing. We trust [17:24] you guys. We just want to know that [17:26] you're there for us when we need you." [17:29] So, the military was our best friend. [17:31] Now that was uncomfortable because quite [17:33] honestly you have a huge paniply of [17:35] different ideas inside of high energy [17:40] highly dynamic science project. If you [17:43] don't have communists and fascists in [17:45] the same department having tea together [17:47] something has gone wrong [17:48] >> because scientists are very extreme. And [17:51] Ted Kazinski, you know, wrote a [17:53] marvelous story, for example, called [17:56] Ship of Fools about a bunch of people [17:58] overly concerned about political [17:59] correctness on a ship that then, you [18:02] know, runs into an iceberg because [18:03] nobody's actually paying attention to [18:04] the writing of the ship. They're having [18:05] questions about [18:06] >> I didn't even know this. [18:07] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody should [18:09] should read it. Now, of course, I'm not [18:11] >> I'm not pushing people to uh a mass [18:14] murderer. Uh you know, how however [18:17] >> it's heretical to acknowledge Ted [18:19] Kazinski, by Well, but the point is is [18:21] that [18:22] >> scientists are weirdos, [18:25] >> or at least many scientists are weirdos. [18:27] And if you're not going to deal with [18:29] truly dangerous minds, I don't even know [18:32] why you're suiting up for the science [18:34] game. So, where do those minds go [18:38] if they're not enabled or allowed into [18:43] the institutions, the establishment, the [18:45] machinery of science in America? Are [18:47] they still around or their brains just [18:49] blunted out and they're only allowed to [18:51] say certain things or are we taking [18:52] great scientists and reprogramming them [18:55] and missing all the alpha? I mean, what? [18:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. You're you're missing you're [18:58] missing the alpha. And it's funny that [19:00] you should say that because that makes [19:02] it like alpha male or the uh alpha in [19:05] investment theory, right? [19:07] >> Both works. [19:07] >> Yeah. I'm a I also do freestyle raps. [19:10] Really? Yeah. No. Well, sometimes. Okay. [19:12] We'll talk later about that. [19:13] >> Yeah. Cool. Um, well, mostly what you're [19:16] doing is you're spaying and neutering uh [19:18] your best minds. Uh, but the other thing [19:21] is is look at Palmer Lucky. [19:24] Okay, that guy looks to me like a [19:26] scientist. [19:28] He's a reverend. He's got a crazy shirt [19:31] and he builds things that kill people. [19:32] >> Yeah. [19:33] >> Right now, if he was in a physics [19:35] department, um, he could not easily be [19:38] that guy. But if you wanted somebody [19:41] who's in still in science, who looks to [19:43] me like a great scientist, I would point [19:44] you to Nema Arani Hamemed. Incredibly [19:47] charismatic, brilliant as the day is [19:49] long, completely uncompromising, did not [19:52] go in for the string theory fat at a [19:54] deep level, even though he's sympathetic [19:55] to many aspects of it. [19:57] >> Do you guys even know that he's there? [20:00] He's the best of us currently, and he's [20:02] still not that old, you know. Um, my [20:05] feeling is that there's pretty much been [20:10] a giant decrease in our effectiveness. [20:14] And I know why. When you kick Jim Watson [20:17] out of Cold Spring Harbor, which he [20:19] built, [20:21] what are you doing? Do you know that [20:23] Mark Tashnney uh is in his mid 80s? uh [20:28] guy who wrote a genetic switch on fage [20:30] lambda, one of the most brilliant, [20:32] irreverent people. You know, at some [20:34] point, I think I sent a journalist to [20:35] him and the journalist came back with [20:36] his tail between the leads and said that [20:38] that that guy's insane. [20:40] >> Well, Eric Lander was the White House uh [20:44] science adviser, Katzios's role. I think [20:46] his picture isn't up on the wall because [20:49] he's sort of an uncompromising, [20:51] difficult to deal with guy. And my [20:53] feeling, I hate to say, this is tough. M [20:55] >> you know if you ever saw the movie [20:57] Whiplash [20:58] >> love it. One of my favorites. [20:59] >> Okay. Well, there's a reason that that [21:01] guy has the best band. He you know he's [21:03] not handing out tissues. And I I don't [21:05] mean to be mean about I don't want a [21:07] brutal place, but like this stuff is [21:10] pretty unforgiving. [21:11] >> What's the solution to morass [21:15] stagnation? What do we do here to try [21:18] and catch up again? What do we do here [21:20] to to restructure? Or is it about [21:23] institutions? Is it about funding? Is it [21:25] about people? Is it reprogramming? I [21:27] mean, how do you get out of the social [21:28] circuit that's fully programmed? [21:30] >> Great question. I mean, really great [21:32] question. Let's just be provocative and [21:34] throw some stuff out. National interest [21:36] waiverss. I want to blow a giant hole in [21:40] the Civil Rights Act so that we can have [21:43] teams that are not constantly afraid of [21:45] HR. [21:45] >> What does the Civil Rights Act do that [21:48] makes it difficult for individuals to do [21:50] what they need? Well, you know, you [21:52] >> science, [21:52] >> my closest friend uh from college, we [21:57] have a group of three, two Jews and a [21:59] Muslim. [21:59] >> Mhm. [22:00] >> And the Muslim is constantly teasing the [22:02] Jews about, you know, you guys know all [22:05] the banks of the newspapers and we, you [22:07] know, joke with him about him being a [22:09] terrorist. Now, that is not a model I [22:11] can explain to anybody, but we've been, [22:15] you know, incredibly close uh since [22:19] 1982. My claim is is that you don't [22:22] understand how high agency people [22:26] actually form tight cohesive social [22:28] units. [22:30] >> If you have the HR department saying, [22:32] you know, Eric, I understand you you are [22:34] making an inappropriate joke, [22:36] >> screw off. Get out of here. Who are you [22:39] and what are you doing in my lab? Let me [22:41] call security. Why do I need a note from [22:44] my mommy and daddy to to do everything? [22:47] I'm not saying be horrible. I'm saying [22:49] you don't know enough about the culture [22:51] of greatness [22:53] to be my HR department. That's sort of [22:56] what I'm saying. So like I'm just [22:57] throwing out a provocative idea which by [23:00] the way I'm a Democrat. I'm sort of a [23:02] Democrat from the JFK school rather than [23:05] I I don't think I would join. [23:06] >> I don't know I don't know what you would [23:07] be today. [23:08] >> Well I'm I'm staying in the party. I'm a [23:10] nail house Democrat. You know the nail [23:12] house is the house that you build a mall [23:14] around because the person won't sell. [23:15] >> Yes. I'm not I'm not leaving the party. [23:18] Um, but my party has gone insane. My [23:20] feeling is if we were really who we say [23:24] we are, we'd be making common cause with [23:27] the Republicans I met with and saying, [23:29] "Let's get on with it and reform the [23:31] system together." And if you want to [23:34] brag about how you made America great [23:36] without us, you can go screw yourself. [23:37] Um, my feeling is that I'd rather work [23:39] with you, make America great, and then [23:41] fight over the credit later. That's how [23:43] you work in a war, you know. So my my [23:46] first recommendation is [23:47] >> throw out the Civil Rights Act. [23:48] >> No, not throw it out. Poke holes in it [23:51] because you like the intent of it. It's [23:53] the letter that's arbitrageed against [23:56] the the intent which creates the sort of [23:58] collectivist thinking. You can't do [24:01] great work without hyperindividualism [24:04] and without rugged hyperindividualism. [24:06] And so my feeling is is that that's not [24:09] an Einrandian thing. That's not a [24:11] conservative thing. it. The issue is is [24:14] that I'm I consider myself left of [24:17] center and there's no one more [24:19] individualistic than I am. And so what [24:22] you need is I need not to have peer [24:25] review. Peer review is a fake story that [24:28] was retconed into science. It is no, you [24:31] can look it up on Google engrams, put [24:33] quote space peer review space close [24:36] quote, and you'll notice that there's [24:39] really no mention of it before 1965. [24:42] And the reason for that is that the [24:44] Medicare act made the government the [24:46] major payer for medical procedures. The [24:48] government said, "Well, why are we [24:49] paying for all this stuff?" Well, the [24:52] doctors said, "We don't want you [24:55] having oversight over our [24:56] decisionmaking." So, our peer we will [24:58] peer review each other. It started in a [25:00] Utah clinic. And then it wasn't until [25:03] 1975 [25:05] when fiscal and social conservatives [25:08] attacked the NSF over something called [25:11] man a course of study or makos. Now some [25:14] for some reason the NSF [25:18] grouped in anthropology as a science. I [25:21] I think that's a mistake. I think what [25:23] we really need is we really need very [25:25] hard sciences separated. And my feeling [25:28] is the weaker scientists should go form [25:30] their own organization and stop using [25:32] our credit card [25:33] >> because they're destroying our credit [25:36] limit. [25:36] >> Those are social sciences and soft [25:39] sciences versus hard scientists where [25:41] there's an industrial end point. [25:43] >> Well, it's not a question of an [25:44] industrial endpoint. I mean, I think [25:46] that's another thing that's really [25:47] screwed up is that science has become [25:50] synonymized with biomedical, which it [25:52] isn't. [25:52] >> Yeah. and science has become uh in the [25:55] conservative mind something that the the [25:57] market can do well when it's like did [26:00] did no one take econ 101 because the you [26:02] know on the first day of school they're [26:04] supposed to tell you that markets work [26:05] really well as long as you're not in a [26:07] category called market failure and if [26:09] you miss that day you say well markets [26:11] are perfect and they can price [26:12] everything but anything that's uh [26:15] inexhaustible and inexcludable which is [26:17] exactly the definition of science can't [26:19] be priced by a market unless you create [26:21] an artificial market So, I can't tell [26:23] you how dispiriting, you know, this is, [26:25] if I've been kind to the Republicans. [26:27] Here's a place where I'm going to be [26:28] cruel. You can't have morons who do not [26:32] understand that markets cannot see [26:34] everything. There's a reason that we pay [26:36] taxes for an army. And it's a technical [26:38] reason. It's not a we think that's a [26:41] good thing. It's that if market if you [26:44] could make the army uh exhaustable and [26:47] excludable, you wouldn't need to pay for [26:49] it with taxes. So that your tax dollar [26:52] has to be used for things that the [26:54] market can't reach. Homatopy theory is a [26:57] great case. When I say homotopy theory [26:59] in these science discussions, people [27:00] say, "Well, what is that?" And my my my [27:03] response is, "Well, you don't know. It's [27:05] an incredibly important part of [27:07] mathematics, pure mathematics. I don't [27:09] know that it has any industrial [27:11] applications." But you go after homatopy [27:14] theory and you're you're pulling out a [27:15] Jenga block from an incredibly important [27:18] ecosystem that you don't understand. So [27:21] my my feeling about this is I'm going to [27:23] inject a PhD perspective into this [27:26] conversation because the what the PhDs [27:29] are doing wrong is that they're staying [27:30] out. Trump to them has cooties. They [27:33] don't want Trump cies so they don't show [27:35] up. [27:36] >> Yeah. And now, okay, well, if if they [27:38] are not going to explain to you why we [27:40] need homatopy theory and we need to tax [27:42] people and to pay for it, [27:45] >> the administration's not hearing what [27:47] they need to be hearing and the people [27:48] that are supposed to be saying it are [27:50] not showing up to the administration. [27:52] >> That's right. And it's completely [27:53] dysfunctional and quite honestly, [27:55] >> by the way, the statistic I gave Cratios [27:57] is uh Nature did a survey of 2,000 [27:59] scientists, their readers. Nature being [28:02] a scientific journal that's widely read [28:04] and by the scientific community and six [28:07] >> by the way not peer reviewed until the [28:08] 70s [28:09] >> right and six% of the readers pled uh [28:14] voted for President Trump 85% or [28:18] something Kla Harris and then there was [28:20] an undecided group but I think it speaks [28:23] to your point like Trump is deemed to be [28:26] so anti-science the institution of Trump [28:29] is deemed to be anti-science that there [28:31] doesn't even want to be an engagement. [28:33] >> Assume that you detest Trump. Okay. [28:36] Assume that you think Trump is the [28:37] devil. I just met with Michael Katzios. [28:42] Great. I I wanted that role. I put my [28:44] hat into the ring for that uh for that [28:47] role. I didn't think I would get it [28:49] because I wasn't willing to pledge [28:50] sufficient loyalty to Donald Trump. [28:52] Happened to go to Michael Katzio. I was [28:54] very nervous because he he's not coming [28:55] from a PhD background. [28:58] What a what an unbelievable growth in [29:00] that role. The guy understands. I don't [29:03] know all sorts of things. I'm here to [29:04] learn. Tell me what I need to know. And [29:06] if no one shows up to do that toutelage, [29:08] you're going to you boy, do you deserve [29:10] exactly what you got because I think [29:11] Michael is trying to do absolutely the [29:13] right thing. I know Jim O'Neal very well [29:15] from the Peter Teal universe coming in [29:17] at NSF. Jay Bodacharia. Absolute gem. If [29:21] you can't work with these people, is [29:24] that their problem or is that your [29:27] problem? [29:27] >> So, arguably this and sorry, let me just [29:30] go back to talk about markets and I I'll [29:33] make a libertarian argument. If markets [29:35] work well for driving economic value and [29:39] those who are good at that participate [29:40] meaningfully in that value creation, [29:43] there will be wealthy people and those [29:45] wealthy people will see the value of [29:48] mathematics, the value of pure physics, [29:50] the value of astrophysics and cosmology [29:53] and they'll fund it. Jim Simons, didn't [29:55] he fund quite a lot of research? [29:57] >> Jim was a genius with detailed knowledge [30:01] of pure mathematics. Mhm. [30:03] >> So if you have, you know, Yuri Milner is [30:06] a guy who has a background in quantum [30:08] chromodnamics, [30:10] >> if you have more of those people, [30:12] >> and there are point is, and I'm not [30:14] trying to argue with you about it, but [30:15] my point is, shouldn't the market work [30:17] regardless that they'll see the value of [30:20] the science that you're identifying? [30:22] They'll identify it. Capital will flow [30:25] to that research, it will get funded [30:26] somehow. There's a lot of independent [30:29] institutions out there that get capital. [30:31] and is or is that not sufficient for the [30:34] landscape? And I'll also state like you [30:36] know one of the uh statistics that I [30:38] brought up with Katzios which he [30:40] published in his book is that over time [30:43] we have seen a significant decline in [30:47] the effectiveness of dollars deployed [30:49] against scientific research in the US an [30:52] 80fold decline in return on every dollar [30:54] invested in government research. So, I [30:57] just want to throw those two points out [30:59] there, like is there not private market [31:00] capital that will find its way to solve [31:01] these problems? And isn't the government [31:03] getting worse over time at deploying [31:05] capital and driving returns? And I might [31:07] be giving you a a te-ball here. So, [31:09] >> I guess or or I feel like I should have [31:11] I should have gotten high on cannabis uh [31:13] in order to even take that question on. [31:16] >> I don't believe any of that first point. [31:18] Um and and it's I knew Jim Simons [31:21] decently well. Uh Jim [31:25] was the kind of guy who could do that. [31:28] But even he didn't understand. My last [31:30] conversation with Jim Simons, I was [31:32] trying to explain to him how the churn [31:35] Simons uh transgression interpreted as [31:38] an action functional is the only rival [31:40] to Einstein Hilbert. um and that [31:43] effectively he will find um if he if he [31:47] pursues this that churn Simons and [31:49] Einstein Hilbert are on an equal playing [31:51] field as daughters of the ultimate [31:53] theory. [31:54] >> Uh he didn't know that. So partially the [31:57] issue is is that it is so difficult in [31:59] my area to know what's going on in the [32:03] adjacent area. I just got off the phone [32:05] before the podcast with my good friend [32:07] Edward Frankle who does uh algebraic [32:12] geometry whereas I would do differential [32:14] geometry. It's very difficult for us to [32:17] communicate even though those fields are [32:19] adjacent to each other. So yes, if you [32:22] happen to have an algebraic geometer [32:24] who's a billionaire, uh, and one who's a [32:27] representation theorist, another one [32:29] who's, uh, interested in, um, oh, I [32:33] don't know, category theory, you could [32:35] do it that way, but this is completely [32:37] insane. So, [32:38] >> okay, so government should fund [32:40] >> government has to be the basic funer of [32:43] these things. [32:44] >> The next part of this, [32:45] >> we need to have the right people [32:46] representing the decisions on where we [32:49] should be funding, what we should be [32:50] funding. Correct. And that's what we did [32:52] previously is that we sort of had slush [32:53] funds and they're very good people had [32:57] money. Somebody years ago I was at a [33:00] conference in Bereva um on physics and [33:04] people were talking about where they [33:06] were going to get their next job and [33:07] this old guy comes up to us and said I [33:09] just pity all of you. There was an [33:10] American and I said in what way? He said [33:13] you know I never applied for a job in my [33:15] life. He said sorry what do what do you [33:18] mean? He says, "If you were any good and [33:20] you needed a job, you talked to one of [33:23] the people who was high up in the field [33:26] and they got on the phone and by the [33:28] time they got off the phone, you had a [33:29] job where you needed to be." [33:31] >> And so my claim is is that when you have [33:36] administrator types come in and say, [33:38] "What we need is KPIs. [33:41] Uh we need to to drive this on a data we [33:44] I'm data driven. I want to know what the [33:46] translation is. [33:49] Do do you even know what ROI is [33:52] or is it just what you can measure? [33:54] >> Yeah. [33:55] >> And so my claim is a lot of what you [33:58] want is you want these people on [34:00] retainer so whenever you have a real [34:02] problem you call up the Jason's and it's [34:05] stocked with the most terrifying [34:07] intellects you can imagine and we can [34:09] get to work and we can solve your [34:10] problems. [34:12] But if you're saying, "Well, why should [34:14] my taxpayer dollars uh, you know, go do [34:17] whatever you find interesting?" Well, if [34:19] I can pursue what I find interesting, [34:22] and when you call me up, [34:25] I'm going to be very friendly to helping [34:28] my own country, my own nation, I'm going [34:29] to feel positive about that. If you tell [34:32] me you should work on this because this [34:34] thing is what drives the ROI, my feeling [34:36] is, do you just not understand science? [34:38] Do you imagine that your technology [34:40] mindset [34:42] is the same thing as my scientific [34:44] mindset. You want to get paid. I mean, I [34:46] I've spent a lot of time in Silicon [34:47] Valley. I'm not nearly interested as [34:50] interested in having a new McLaren as [34:54] whether my name is going to be discussed [34:55] 10,000 years from now if humans are [34:58] still around. And I I say that because, [35:00] you know, Jim Watson just died. My good [35:03] friends Isidor Singer, Raul Bot are are [35:06] now dead. Those are people whose [35:08] contributions will be discussed 10,000 [35:10] years from now. [35:12] >> Can you say that about almost anyone [35:15] you know who's doing software as a [35:17] service? Uh hard to say. You know, as I [35:20] used to say, um what's the difference [35:23] between uh Grecia Pearlman and Ron [35:25] Pearlman? And so in the modern era, the [35:28] question is who's Greca Pearlman? And [35:30] you know, a thousand years from now, [35:31] it's who's Ron Pearlman. So my feeling [35:34] is is that we have our own toys that we [35:38] we care about. We care about our [35:40] history. We care about different things. [35:43] It's it's not unreasonable to want to do [35:46] and to want to be able to check into a [35:47] Four Seasons uh and to fly business [35:50] class, but we don't need a corporate [35:52] jet. Like that's your stuff. So treat [35:57] scientists like the rock stars that they [36:01] should be will be. Otherwise, you're [36:03] going to lose them. You're going to lose [36:05] that talent. You're going to lose that [36:06] moment. [36:13] >> Protecting nature is often labeled [36:15] anti-growth. The Conservation Fund [36:17] disagrees. They believe protecting land, [36:19] wildlife, and outdoor access goes [36:22] handinhand with economic opportunity. [36:23] For 40 years, they've moved with market [36:25] speed to protect at risk land while [36:28] supporting local communities. With 9 [36:30] million acres protected across all 50 [36:32] states, the Conservation Fund is proving [36:35] that they deliver lasting outcomes that [36:37] benefit communities and nature. Learn [36:39] more at conservationfund.org. [36:45] >> When you say slush funds, the way the [36:48] funding process works in the modern era [36:50] is grants. you you apply for a grant [36:53] with a very specific set of objectives [36:55] and that's what the capital is going to [36:56] be used for. And to your point earlier, [36:59] grants are typically approved if they're [37:02] lower beta, which means more predictable [37:05] in terms of the outcome. [37:06] >> So, so we're appropriating modern [37:08] portfolio theory to science. [37:10] >> To science. [37:10] >> Love it. [37:11] >> Yes. Well, I mean, that's the way it [37:12] it's been operating is my argument. Or [37:14] has it not been? And does that not miss [37:16] the opportunity to take crazy high beta [37:19] bets and not just bet on the idea but [37:23] bet on the person. So [37:25] >> crazy high beta bet. [37:26] >> Yeah. [37:27] >> Let's do an example. [37:28] >> Yes. [37:28] >> Imagine that I have a 1% chance of [37:32] curing all cancer, [37:34] >> right? [37:34] >> Should you hire me? [37:36] >> Well, [37:37] 99% failure is pretty expensive. But the [37:42] benefit of killing curing all cancer [37:45] um the government is incredibly rich and [37:48] when you're incredibly rich you can [37:50] afford to take different bets to [37:53] maximize your outcomes. The problem is [37:55] is that the government co-invested [37:58] through things that are poorer than it. [38:00] >> So each department says you know we [38:02] can't really afford we don't get that [38:04] many appointments. So, we're going to go [38:06] with somebody who has a very high [38:07] probability of succeeding at a very [38:09] modest [38:11] outcome and then we're going to start [38:12] lying about how important that is. [38:14] You'll notice that if you ask people, [38:16] "How's your field doing?" Everybody [38:17] says, "It's never been a better time to [38:19] be a particle theorist." Well, it's a [38:21] terrible time to be a particle theorist, [38:23] right? And and we can't say that. And [38:25] and it's funny because again in [38:27] portfolio theory, if you have a balanced [38:31] portfolio and part of it starts [38:32] succeeding and part of it failing, what [38:35] you usually do is you take money out of [38:37] the thing that's succeeding and put it [38:39] into the thing that's failing because [38:40] otherwise you get too much concentration [38:42] in the portfolio. Nobody's ever thought [38:44] about any of this stuff. And so what you [38:47] have is you have people who don't even [38:48] understand modern portfolio theory and [38:51] don't understand market failure [38:53] designing things. It's really important [38:56] to know basic [38:59] market theory and we don't. [39:01] >> Yeah. So if we fix that do we fund [39:03] individuals versus ideas? You know this [39:06] is the other kind of [39:07] >> say more. [39:08] >> So the whole story I I gave this example [39:10] to Katzio. Stuart Butterfield worked on [39:13] this project for a couple years. He was [39:14] down to three million bucks. All the VCs [39:16] put money in started nearly failed. And [39:18] he calls him up. He called up Ben [39:19] Horowitz. He just told the story [39:20] recently. He said, "Hey, should I give [39:21] the money back? This project didn't [39:23] work. But by the way, we've been doing a [39:25] intra company communication tool for our [39:27] engineering team. Maybe I could pivot [39:29] into that." He's like, "Yeah, keep the [39:30] money. Do that. I trust you." [39:32] >> Yeah. [39:32] >> You pivoted it, turned it into Slack, [39:34] sold it for $30 billion. [39:36] >> The idea being that you back the person, [39:39] not the idea. that the the great people, [39:41] the great entrepreneurs continuously [39:43] evolve, continuously build, continuously [39:45] pivot. I mean, here you are with Zuck [39:47] reinventing that company again and again [39:49] and again. And if you find the [39:51] upandcomers, is there a way to kind of [39:53] find the individual that are emerging in [39:55] their fields? [39:55] >> Oh, yeah. But [39:56] >> and you fund them for a period of time [39:58] and you say or is this a portfolio [39:59] theory again where you say some bets are [40:02] on an idea, some bets are on people and [40:05] you know the people bets should be [40:07] long-term and fully funded, [40:08] >> right? [40:10] I'll give you the magic formula that [40:13] gives you an idea of how difficult this [40:16] is and how tricky you have to be. Tell [40:18] me who the established leaders of of a [40:22] field will block but will not short [40:27] fund that guy. [40:28] >> Mhm. [40:28] >> For now [40:30] >> because if you're not willing I mean if [40:32] you I I'll say this with my own uh main [40:35] theory. If you are willing to short [40:40] either geometric marginalism or more [40:42] importantly geometric unity, I want to [40:44] dance with you. [40:45] >> Mhm. [40:46] >> Because I want to take your house. I [40:48] want to take your retirement. It would [40:50] be my absolute pleasure to destroy you [40:52] in the market. [40:53] >> Mhm. [40:54] >> But that's not what happens. It's like, [40:55] well, we want to block him, but we know [40:58] that he knows a lot of stuff. Yeah. [41:00] >> And we know that we haven't really read [41:02] it. And you know, there's something [41:04] about somebody saying, "Look, you're [41:05] 99.9999% [41:08] uh going to fail." And I say, "Care care [41:12] to formalize that?" [41:13] >> Mhm. [41:14] >> You know, let's have Well, why? I'll bet [41:16] you $100 that by next year you haven't [41:18] gotten full acceptance in the That's not [41:20] what you said. You said that you'd be [41:24] willing to put up your house to win a [41:26] dollar from me, and I want to do that at [41:29] size, you know. So my feeling is come at [41:33] me baby that would be fun. [41:35] >> And let me tell you something. He also [41:37] listened for things that no one is [41:38] willing to say. I I am on record as [41:42] saying that the the smartest man in the [41:44] world today is Edward Whitten. [41:46] Brilliant. [41:47] >> Mhm. [41:47] >> Unbelievable. The guy drove theoretical [41:50] physics off the road and off a cliff 42 [41:55] years ago. [41:57] >> Nobody else is willing to say it. [41:58] >> Mhm. [41:59] So the question is is the one person who [42:02] noticed that nobody's gone to Stockholm [42:07] that the standard model has not changed [42:10] the recent conference uh in string [42:12] theory supposedly the only game in town [42:14] in fundamental physics. [42:17] Go to strings 2026 website. There's a [42:20] list of all the talks. There's a search [42:22] engine. Put in these following words. [42:24] Electron, Hadron, Higs, Leptton. [42:31] There's no physics in this. They're not [42:33] talking about anything that could hurt a [42:36] foe. They're not talking about the [42:37] physical world. I was at arguably the [42:41] world's [42:42] leading physics institute. [42:46] And I said, "Who are the smartest people [42:48] here?" And it was I was given three [42:50] names. Two of them were pure theorists. [42:53] I talked deeply with both of them. When [42:55] I got to the point about how to advance [42:58] the standard model, which is our notion [43:00] of all the particles you see in the in [43:02] this room, [43:04] both of them said, "I have no interest [43:07] in the physical world." And I said, [43:09] "Well, you're the two leading professors [43:11] at our major, our most expansive [43:14] theoretical physics institute, and [43:16] neither of you care about the physical [43:18] world." just openly expressed [43:22] this is madness and you know I give [43:26] talks at physics departments and I I've [43:28] now started non-ooperation with the [43:31] departments who've asked me to come and [43:33] talk [43:34] but will technically deny me a talk. So [43:38] for example, I've given talk a talk at [43:40] the University of Texas Austin, but I'm [43:43] I'm not allowed to say that the talk [43:45] occurred in the physics department. [43:48] >> Really? [43:48] >> Yeah. I gave a talk at the Perimeter [43:50] Institute in the Skyrim. [43:52] It is not a talk. Eric is answering [43:54] questions. I gave a talk at the [43:56] University of Chicago in the [43:59] >> This is because your talk and your [44:01] persona is viewed to be fringe and [44:03] outlandish. [44:04] >> You keep saying fringe. Yeah, [44:06] >> I totally disagree with the narrative of [44:08] the field. [44:10] >> I just out and out say that when physics [44:13] in 1983 physics made sense in 1984 it [44:17] did not. It was very stark and it was [44:19] like overnight more or less three people [44:21] Leonard Suskin, David Gross and Edward [44:23] Whitten drove the field in a totally [44:26] different direction and now the [44:29] achievement of this has not been any [44:31] advance in our knowledge of the physical [44:33] world but it has been something that no [44:36] one knew was possible. You take the [44:38] field in which Edward Teller and Jay [44:41] Robert Oenheimer and Richard Fineman and [44:45] Stannislov Ulam created the most [44:47] terrifying weapons from SU3 cross U1 [44:51] gauge theory and you've made it safe. It [44:54] is now safe to do physics with your [44:56] geopolitical rivals. You can invite your [44:58] friends from China to come and become [45:00] graduate students in your department and [45:02] you will fill their heads with things [45:05] about ads CFT that couldn't hurt a fly [45:08] because there's no physics in it. So the [45:11] question is [45:13] did I [45:15] is this a secret program? [45:16] >> Go back to 1983. Wait, so we drove off a [45:19] cliff in 1983 and the question is did [45:22] someone say, "Hey, let's drive this off [45:23] a cliff." [45:24] >> Well, this happened before. Do you do [45:25] you think that there is some [45:28] community subgroup [45:31] set of assets [45:33] set of projects that are happening [45:35] somewhere on Earth that are making [45:38] advances in physics and have been for [45:40] the last 50 years? [45:42] >> Great that you asked that question. That [45:44] would be crazy, wouldn't it, David? Can [45:46] you imagine if there was like a secret [45:48] place that was making advances in an [45:50] important field of physics and people [45:53] who were studying physics outside of [45:54] that place were being stymied? [45:56] >> I would find it hard that it would be [45:58] kept secret. [45:59] >> Okay. What happened in 1940 [46:03] is that something that you've never [46:05] heard of called the reference committee [46:06] was established inside of the National [46:08] Research Council. [46:10] So when the neutron was first [46:12] hypothesized in 1911 by Rutherford, it [46:16] was then discovered in the early 30s, a [46:18] woman named Lee Mitner came up with the [46:20] concept of the chain reaction which was [46:22] then proven by Fairmy at the University [46:24] of Chicago with something called Chicago [46:27] pile one. [46:29] Thereafter, a guy named Wright uh briti [46:33] t formed something called the uh [46:36] reference committee inside the national [46:38] research council so that if you [46:39] submitted a paper on chain reaction [46:41] physics to a journal, it got shunted [46:45] into the national research council and [46:47] they would return it to you saying [46:49] unfortunately you know these results are [46:51] really preliminary. [46:53] um we don't see this as being uh at the [46:56] level of the journal. Please revise, [46:58] etc., etc. [47:00] Okay, now you've resubmitted it. It's [47:03] still not going. You don't know that [47:04] this thing exists. This is how people [47:06] outside of the Manhattan Project, [47:08] outside of the white badges, treated [47:10] their colleagues who weren't allowed [47:12] inside the Manhattan Project. So let's [47:16] at least agree that from 1940 to 1945 [47:21] there was a review process which [47:23] destroyed the ability to earn a living [47:27] if you were doing chain reaction physics [47:29] and you weren't invited into the secret [47:31] group. [47:31] >> Yes. [47:32] >> Okay. The question isn't is that nuts? [47:34] It's clearly not nuts because I know [47:36] that this actually existed and happened. [47:38] Question is did it happen once or more [47:41] than once? If it happened more than [47:43] once, the question is, what is the [47:45] analog of the boys school in New Mexico? [47:48] What is the analog of the white badges? [47:50] What is the analog of the reference [47:52] committee? [47:53] >> And you have a theory? [47:54] >> Yeah. [47:54] >> Okay. [47:55] >> If it's happening, I've said that the [47:57] leading candidate would be Renaissance [47:59] Technologies on Long Island. [48:01] >> I've heard you say this. [48:02] >> Yeah. [48:02] >> But surely there's [48:04] >> Let's look at the cover story. [48:05] >> Okay. The cover story would be, you [48:08] know, we are so good at trading that we [48:11] don't even allow people who know markets [48:13] into our firm. We only hire people in [48:16] directly relevant subjects of physics, [48:19] like particle theorists, like [48:21] differential geometers, [48:23] like machine learning experts. And we [48:26] have a very strange thing that we have a [48:28] very close relationship with the Brook [48:29] Haven National Laboratory. And by the [48:32] way, there's a middling university right [48:34] next door [48:36] who happens to be absolutely world class [48:40] historically in the exact subjects that [48:43] would be relevant to doing next level [48:46] physics. [48:47] Okay. So you multiple fields medalists [48:50] and US News and World Report never ranks [48:53] this as like one of our great [48:55] facilities. Even though if if you look [48:56] at the people have passed through State [48:58] University of New York at Stonybrook, [48:59] it's unbelievable. Yeah, to me that [49:03] looks like Fort me when it was still no [49:06] such agency collecting way too many [49:08] number theorists. [49:09] >> But Eric, people have come out of that [49:10] place, that workplace. I know one or two [49:12] of them and there are no such stories. [49:16] At some point you would envision that [49:18] some number of them, some small [49:20] percentage of them would [49:22] >> leak some information or some set of [49:24] facts if that were to be true about some [49:26] of this advanced physics work going on [49:29] or there would be probably more [49:31] innumerable returns realized from that [49:34] than perhaps there have been. [49:36] >> I'm not saying that I know that that's [49:38] true. My point was, and I tried I tried [49:41] to be careful. If you said, "Eric, that [49:44] sounds preposterous because to be [49:46] entirely honest, the concept of Los [49:47] Alamos, which was published in 1944 by a [49:51] journalist named Jack Raper in a [49:52] Cleveland newspaper, he he broke the [49:55] story. [49:58] >> Nothing happened because what he said [49:59] was crazy. He said, "There is a secret [50:01] city with a mayor who's supposed to be [50:04] the next Einstein [50:06] working on a doomsday weapon." and the [50:08] town is so secretive that nobody knows [50:11] what's going on inside it. So my claim [50:14] is is that I'm doing the Jack Raper [50:16] thing and you're doing the what happened [50:18] to Jack Raper. Well, clearly there's [50:21] only one person saying that and he's [50:22] nuts. [50:23] >> Well, in that in both cases, I could [50:25] show up and start asking questions and [50:27] interrogate and see if I can find [50:28] something. [50:29] >> Again, I'm not saying that Renaissance [50:31] Technologies is that. I am saying you [50:33] have a secure campus with a story that [50:35] makes no sense. Yeah, [50:37] >> you know markets. Do you have any idea [50:39] how much the medallion fund [50:40] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know. Cuz again, my [50:42] friends who were there, they get to [50:44] leave their money there and then the [50:46] returns continue. [50:47] >> They get to leave their money there is [50:49] not what happens. [50:50] >> Okay. [50:50] >> They closed the fund to all but internal [50:53] money. [50:53] >> Yes. Yes. That's what I mean. [50:54] >> You know, another interesting story, [50:56] >> but if you leave the firm, you get to [50:59] your capital can stay in the medallion [51:01] fund. So my claim to you is Jeffrey [51:04] Epstein had a story which is that he [51:06] only accepted a billion dollars or more [51:08] invested with him if you gave him power [51:10] of attorney. These things tend to have [51:13] some reason that no person outside has [51:16] money and gets to ask questions. Right? [51:20] >> So Jeffrey Epstein did not run a hedge [51:22] fund. He told me that he ran a [51:24] multistrategy FX hedge fund and that he [51:27] needed a 727 [51:29] because it had a trading for and he [51:31] filled it with yeshiva students because [51:33] they were the only ones you could trust. [51:35] He was extremely specific about using [51:38] trend following, mean reversion and [51:40] carry is the three strategy. I think he [51:43] didn't say he said he didn't do any [51:44] gamma trading uh you know or or options [51:47] trading. [51:49] That was a lot. It was a cover story [51:51] that that was burned and then he became [51:53] disgraced financeier and then he became [51:56] tax expert Jeffrey Epstein. You're [51:58] looking at a fake world with cover [52:01] stories that fail over. If you remember [52:03] the old get smart wine, would you [52:05] believe, [52:07] you know, a thousand special agents are [52:09] going to swarm this? I find that very [52:11] difficult to believe. [52:12] >> Uh 100 policemen, [52:14] >> you know, not not true, Miss Maxwell. [52:16] Two two boy scouts with a slingshot. [52:19] This is fake. [52:21] And my claim is I don't know what's [52:23] going on at Renaissance, but Jim Simons [52:26] is an absolute genius. Hardly [52:28] distinguished in that. We have many. And [52:31] I don't know anybody who's ever gotten [52:33] close to these returns. I don't know any [52:36] information about what that thing [52:37] actually did, does claims to do. [52:40] >> Yeah. And I'm saying it has very close [52:42] relationships with a talent pool Stony [52:45] Brook which is not acknowledged and then [52:47] and a national lab. [52:49] >> Go back to 8384. [52:50] >> Yeah. [52:52] >> And assume we did not go into this [52:55] quantum universe that we [52:57] >> not quantum quantum gravity universe. [52:59] >> Quantum gravity universe, right? [53:00] >> And we're in a different universe where [53:04] we have a sense what does that physics [53:06] look like today? If we progress physics, [53:08] help an audience that's a generalist [53:10] audience understand a little bit about [53:13] what it means that if physics didn't [53:15] stall out and [53:18] before I do that, let me just ask this [53:19] question. Some would argue that physics [53:22] has played an important role and maybe [53:24] it's not fundamental and you could that [53:26] might be your answer here in advancing [53:28] things like semiconductor manufacturing [53:30] technology, advanced lithography, [53:33] material science. We've we've made [53:35] tremendous progress in our capacity to [53:38] drive compute and that's led to this [53:40] moment today where we have these tools [53:41] that we call AI, [53:42] >> right? [53:43] >> And all of the underlying advancements [53:45] in [53:47] chemistry, material science, physics got [53:49] us to this moment today. Yeah. [53:50] >> And that we have made progress and it [53:52] has been applied. And that would be one [53:54] argument. [53:55] >> And so maybe tell me why that that kind [53:58] of misses the point. and then we can [54:00] talk a little bit about kind of what [54:02] would the world look like today if we [54:03] didn't go off track in 1983 84. [54:05] >> Great question. Let me try to engage [54:07] that and then feel free to redirect me [54:09] if I'm not answering the question. In [54:11] the theory we have of which I'm going to [54:15] call it the the frontier model which [54:17] combines general relativity and the [54:19] standard model of particle theory. [54:22] We know certain things that we can't [54:24] use. We found out that there were three [54:27] veence quarks inside of every proton and [54:30] every neutron. And nobody has ever [54:32] pulled a veilance quark out of a proton [54:34] or a neutron in isolation. Something [54:36] called infrared slavery. Uh and screw [54:39] the woke for not saying we can't say the [54:41] word slavery. Infrared slavery. Deal [54:43] with it, boys. Um you have a situation [54:46] in which there is no industrial [54:47] application. We've known about it since [54:49] 1968. [54:51] So sometimes you don't get to use [54:53] something for an extraordinarily [54:56] long period of time. But what happens if [54:59] some advancements maybe we're never [55:01] going to pull a quark out of a proton? [55:03] Maybe it's impossible. [55:06] What if there are other things we might [55:07] be able to do had physics actually [55:09] advanced? So for example in the mid [55:12] 1970s the two gentlemen called Abdul [55:15] Salam and I forget Pat's first name put [55:19] forward the uh Patis Salam model. I [55:23] believe that the petis salam model will [55:25] be found to be the correct first order [55:28] grand unification above where we are. [55:31] Problem is is that it has something [55:33] called SU4 rather than SU3. And the SU3 [55:37] is what generates the force that keeps [55:40] all those protons from running away from [55:42] each other inside of a nucleus because [55:44] obviously like charges are want to [55:46] repel. That's why we were able to take [55:48] out two Japanese cities in 1945 is that [55:51] we got control of the strong force and [55:53] then that allowed us to use the [55:55] electromagnetic force to generate [55:57] completely destructive um power but it [56:00] didn't destroy protons and neutrons. [56:04] What happens when you have SU4 is that [56:07] you see that the electron and the [56:10] nutrino are the fourth color that we [56:13] associate with the up quark and down [56:16] quark which make up protons and [56:17] neutrons. [56:19] You could have a weapon that rotates up [56:22] quarks and down quarks into the lighter [56:24] lepttons that disintegrate matter. [56:27] >> You could have dark chemistry. Dark is [56:29] not the right concept. It's really [56:31] decoupled matter. Dark matter is [56:34] decoupled matter. [56:36] Nutrinos are essentially dark matter. [56:39] They're barely detectable. In fact, [56:41] >> they don't interact. [56:42] >> Well, they do, [56:43] >> but very very weak. [56:45] >> Very, very weak. Only through the [56:47] gravitational and weak forces, which are [56:48] the two incredibly weak ones. And [56:50] gravity's so weak, it's not worth enough [56:52] nutrinos concentrated, you can [56:54] >> Well, but here's another here's a here's [56:56] a possibility. If you rotate a nutrino [56:59] into some charged particle, you can send [57:02] it through the earth. [57:03] >> Just explain what you mean by when you [57:04] say rotate. What does that mean? So this [57:07] these nutrinos are these subatomic [57:08] particles. They don't really interact [57:11] well. But what does it mean to rotate [57:12] them? [57:12] >> Well, let's take [57:13] >> and and I think a large amount of the [57:15] energy produced in the sun is neutrinos [57:17] that [57:18] >> actually come out like if you actually [57:20] >> you and I are being irdiated [57:22] >> by nutrinos [57:22] >> by billions of nutrinos. And the only [57:24] reason that we're not dead is that, you [57:27] know, imagine [57:28] >> they don't interact with our atoms. [57:29] >> Well, they barely interact. Once once in [57:31] a blue moon they do. [57:32] >> So, you know, at night the sun is [57:34] streaming this through the earth. It's [57:36] passing through all. [57:37] >> Yeah. [57:38] >> But it when it gets to us, it goes it it [57:40] keeps going. You know, you can shoot it [57:41] through I forget what it is a light year [57:44] of lead and you know, you very rarely [57:47] interact. What happens with the rotation [57:49] is in this sort of internal sense. So [57:52] it's kind of metaphor of rotation in [57:54] this abstract place [57:58] >> which leads to a neutron. If I put a [58:00] neutron on the table and we just sit [58:01] there and watch with a half life of [58:03] something like 17 minutes I forget it'll [58:05] turn into a proton and this is called [58:08] beta decay because what came out is that [58:11] people saw [58:13] an electron scream out of the neutron [58:16] and that's why a neutral particle became [58:18] positive because the negiveness went off [58:20] in the electron. So just to be clear for [58:22] the audience, a neutron can turn into a [58:24] proton and release an electron in at the [58:26] same time. [58:27] >> Yeah. But that turned out to be the [58:28] wrong model because what it really did [58:31] is is that you [58:33] >> there were three quarks inside of it and [58:36] one of the down quarks. So a neutron is [58:39] down down up. So a down quark [58:42] let off something called a W minus which [58:46] is a force particle not a matter [58:48] particle. and then that thing decayed [58:50] into an electron and something else. The [58:53] only reason we determined that there was [58:54] something else going on. It's a little [58:56] bit like accounting. If you have a [58:58] really good accounting system and you [59:00] notice that uh the envelope from the [59:03] till is a little light, [59:05] >> you say, okay, according to conservation [59:07] principles, somebody has been messing [59:09] with the money till [59:11] >> and that turned out to be the nutrino. [59:13] And so what happens is is that a nutrino [59:15] and an electron have the same [59:17] relationship as an up and a down quark [59:19] and you can transmute them using these W [59:23] uh W particles. The danger of this is [59:26] that when you have more force particles [59:28] than we know currently [59:31] things that are to all intents and [59:33] purposes stable now might not be stable [59:35] in that new regime. So you could [59:37] disintegrate a mountain potentially if [59:39] SU5 [59:41] uh is present. SU4 is more stable than [59:44] the SU5. I don't think SU5 is relevant. [59:48] But what I'm saying is if you think [59:50] about physics, think about boom, vroom, [59:53] and zoom as an easy way to keep track of [59:56] why this is our most terrifying and most [59:59] amazing subject. Boom is weaponry, [60:02] vroom is energy, and zoom is propulsion, [60:05] computation, and all the cool stuff that [60:07] we get to do. So if you want to think [60:10] about it, you've been denied [60:13] for, let's say, the standard model got [60:15] finalized more or lessif 53 years ago. [60:18] For 53 years, you've been denied new [60:21] boom, vroom, and zoom. And potentially [60:25] the stagnation in physics may have led [60:27] to the survival of the human species [60:30] because the boom is so terrifying. I [60:33] can't tell you whether that's true or [60:35] not, but it means that you don't have [60:37] any room and zoom from the new stuff [60:40] that could have occurred. And so, we [60:42] have to be honest. I want I want the the [60:45] zoom in particular. We could probably [60:50] make the case that no one on earth got [60:54] there and everyone has aligned around [60:57] the distraction, [61:00] the disinterest and the pursuit [61:03] because of that absolute risk. Because [61:06] if someone did actually make [61:07] advancements [61:09] and they could access the bigger boom, [61:11] >> yeah, [61:12] >> it would be game over already. I mean, [61:14] there's no such thing as more absolute [61:16] power that would give an individual or a [61:19] group the ability to leverage that in [61:21] some way to their kind of infinite will. [61:24] And [61:24] >> I don't I don't agree with this at all. [61:26] >> Great. Okay. [61:27] >> So, I spent [61:29] two years indoors [61:32] beingounded to be vaccinated [61:36] because of four amino acids [61:40] being spliced into spike protein of [61:42] corona virus. [61:45] Now, my guess is that that's pretty [61:47] easy, right? Think about it. You need 12 [61:50] nucleotides to code for four amino acids [61:54] at the exact right place in spike [61:56] protein and that's enough to shut down [62:00] Earth. [62:02] These are this is high lever science. [62:04] And my claim is before we decide that [62:06] what we want is let's get back to [62:09] kicking ass and taking names, let us at [62:11] least pause and say most people are [62:16] ignorant of how much power is present [62:19] with a little bit of scientific [62:20] knowledge. which is a marvelous scene in [62:22] Breaking Bad where the protagonist named [62:25] Heisenberg takes what appears to be [62:27] crystal meth and throws it uh in the [62:30] office of a psychopath named Tuco [62:33] and [62:35] Tuco says well like what the hell was [62:36] that that caused that massive explosion [62:38] I forget whether it was lead aside or [62:39] mercury fulminate or one of these [62:41] extremely volatile compounds [62:43] do you have any idea how easy it is to [62:46] make black powder I I I asked modern [62:49] audiences nobody knows that it's 75% [62:52] salt peter, 10% sulfur, and 15% [62:54] charcoal. The anarchist cookbook [62:58] has gone out of discussion. The power of [63:01] science, the leverage of science is so [63:03] profound that we should at least ask the [63:06] question, what if you had nuclear [63:08] weapons that didn't require centrifuge? [63:13] What if there are easy things to do [63:16] that high school students could do? You [63:18] you remember this guy who scavenged the [63:19] amaresium and smoke detectors to build a [63:22] working reactor and I think it was [63:24] Brooklyn. [63:24] >> Yeah. [63:25] >> Okay. Well, nobody thought collect 218 [63:29] smoke detectors and you can have a [63:30] working nuclear reactor. [63:32] >> Yeah. So my claim is that if you want to [63:34] think about Walter White as a paradigm, [63:36] you have to go back to something called [63:38] the United States versus progress the [63:40] progressive magazine in which the teller [63:43] Ulam design for thermonuclear weapon was [63:47] put forward by a publication [63:50] and the government said no no this is [63:52] restricted data. We need prior [63:54] injunction. This is the most dangerous [63:55] piece of geometry. This is Stan Ulum's [63:58] work. And the whole idea is that if [64:00] you're going to use a fision device [64:03] chemical shell compresses sub uh [64:07] critical file material to create a [64:10] detonator out of an atomic bomb. How do [64:12] you get that to compress a rod or [64:14] something into a fusion device? The only [64:16] thing that can reach that tertiary stage [64:18] fast enough is light. you have to figure [64:20] out the geometry because it's the the [64:24] detonator is going to rip apart the [64:26] entire assembly if it doesn't get now [64:28] that secret got published and the only [64:30] reason the government didn't go after [64:33] um Howard what is it Morland is that we [64:37] stupidly declassified all sorts of [64:39] pieces and shards of this and he went to [64:42] the Los Alamos library and he pieced it [64:44] together so [64:47] my claim is if you don't know the story [64:50] of John Aristotle Phillips, the [64:52] substandard [64:54] um physicist who in his Princeton PhD [64:57] thesis as the Princeton mascot said, [64:59] "Look, I'm not very good, Freeman Dyson. [65:01] I want to use the fact that I'm not very [65:02] good to do something amazing. Tell me [65:05] whether or not you will let me come up [65:08] with a plan for an atomic bomb." And [65:10] Freeman Dyson said, "I will give you no [65:11] help, but I'll tell you whether it will [65:13] work." So the substandard physicist put [65:16] together this and he submitted his [65:17] junior thesis [65:19] and I forget whether it's page 24 but [65:22] that that thesis is not in the library [65:24] and the government removed the page that [65:26] has the plan. The fact is that this [65:28] stuff is readily present [65:32] and we've never seen an atomic weapon [65:34] used since 1945 mostly if we don't use [65:40] this power. [65:42] But if it turns out that it's easy to [65:44] do, then and by the way, if the US fails [65:47] with Iran, you're going to see a [65:49] proliferation of countries [65:52] acquiring nukes because we trusted the [65:55] US. But you've got this. You are the [65:57] world's policemen. Petrol dollars aren't [65:59] petro dollars. They're violence dollars. [66:02] The US was supposed to have the violence [66:04] needed to secure the oil, and the oil [66:07] backs the money. We're watching the [66:09] disintegration of that regime in real [66:11] time as the US goes through its Suez [66:13] moment, [66:14] right? You know, whe whether you think [66:16] Donald Trump should have gone in to Iran [66:19] or not, and I I happen to think that he [66:21] was courageous and did something that we [66:23] should have done in 1981 or ' 82 or [66:26] something. We have to win. We we have to [66:30] win because if you have a world that [66:32] decides that there is no world's [66:34] policeman, [66:36] everybody's going to want their own [66:37] nuke. [66:39] And you can go back to the Tom Lair song [66:41] called Who's Next? And you'll you'll [66:43] you'll find that more or less you're [66:44] going to have a world in which you can't [66:46] figure out the game theory because it's [66:47] no longer diatic. It's multipolar. [66:50] >> Imagine a world beyond nukes. [66:52] >> Sure. [66:52] >> What does that world look like? So what [66:54] else is there beyond the boundaries of [66:56] what at this point is almost a 80 year [66:59] old technology? [67:00] >> Sure. [67:01] >> And again I go back to the 83 story. [67:04] We're making advancements. Did we stop [67:06] making advancements? And is someone else [67:07] is China going to make these [67:08] advancements? And what does that look [67:09] like? Is that what UAPs unidentified [67:13] aerial phenomena are? Because you've [67:15] recently made comments that you were a [67:17] deep skeptic on UAPs but now you you [67:20] have a view that maybe there's something [67:22] there. Oh, there's definitely something [67:23] there there. [67:24] >> Okay, [67:24] >> that's something there. There, by the [67:26] way, maybe China. It may be us. It may [67:28] be a fake story, but there's definitely [67:30] something there [67:31] >> based on the videos and the first person [67:34] accounts. [67:35] >> It's not the videos. I I've never cared [67:38] about the videos. [67:39] >> I've talked to too many smart, sober [67:41] people, too many similar stories. [67:44] >> There are definitely special access [67:46] programs. Yeah. [67:47] >> That are all about this. Yeah. The only [67:49] thing that we learn from uh that that [67:52] works for to keep secrets is [67:54] compartmentalization. [67:56] And so we are so compartmentalized that [67:59] almost no one can piece the story [68:01] together. It may be that the the [68:04] so-called stove piping is such that we [68:06] can't figure out what we know because we [68:09] can't talk to each other. [68:12] If you want to know what's possible, I [68:14] could freak you out and it would be [68:16] super cool and super frightening. One [68:18] thing is is that I'm worried about [68:20] multi-temporal adversaries, [68:23] >> time traveling, [68:24] >> times travel, [68:26] >> times, [68:26] >> everybody says time travel because they [68:28] think that time can only be [68:29] one-dimensional. But imagine, for [68:31] example, that you put a giant gun on a [68:34] rail car. The rail car can only move in [68:37] one dimension. Now, somebody puts a [68:41] giant gun on something like a tank and [68:43] you go to the Bonavville Salt Flats. [68:44] Now, you can move in two dimensions. Now [68:46] you put it on an A-10 warthog and you [68:48] can move in three. Those are all spatial [68:50] dimensions. Why do you think there's an [68:53] arrow of time? It's because you believe [68:55] time can only be one-dimensional. I [68:57] don't think time is one-dimensional. [69:00] And I if you meet an adversary who has [69:02] access to multi- time, it's like you're [69:05] trying to compete with them with an A-10 [69:07] Warthog and you've got your only gun on [69:09] a on a track except with time rather [69:13] than with space. if I could sneak up [69:15] behind you in time knowing your intent. [69:18] I mean, this is terrifying stuff to me. [69:20] And it's also like I would love to have [69:22] this over our adversaries, [69:25] but I don't want to meet anybody who [69:27] knows how to do this kind of stuff, not [69:29] on a level playing field. Let me say [69:30] another one. The solar system is an [69:33] escape room. And Elon is focused was [69:36] focused on Mars. I said that Mars is a [69:38] red herring. It's a mcguffin. Tonight, [69:40] it's focused on the moon. He is our only [69:44] adult so far as I can tell uh crazy and [69:46] mad as he is and he uses that to [69:50] motivate engineers because Mars is [69:52] barely doable. These are the only rocks [69:54] that are potentially habitable. It's not [69:56] enough diversity if we have this much [69:58] power in this these few spheres with [70:01] which we could put atmosphere. So assume [70:02] that you could put atmospheres on the [70:04] Mars and on the moon and you could get [70:06] back and forth between them with [70:07] chemical rockets. You'd have three [70:09] places to screw up. We need tens of [70:12] thousands, if not millions of places [70:14] before we figure out how to civilize [70:16] ourselves. So, we have to get out of [70:17] here. It's too expensive to leave the [70:20] solar system. So, my claim is that in an [70:24] Einsteinian world, you're never going [70:27] to. If Einstein is left to be in force, [70:31] the speed of light is too brutal. So, [70:33] you go to Alpha Century, four light [70:34] years away, you come back, you do it at [70:36] nearly the speed of light. [70:39] Everything is eight years advanced by [70:41] the time you get back home. Nobody wants [70:42] to do that. And that's just the first [70:44] star. [70:45] My claim is is that we have been too [70:48] long in Einstein's prison. General [70:51] relativity really begins in 1913. It's [70:54] really due to Grossman and Einstein, not [70:56] just Einstein alone. I don't know why we [70:57] say that. Uh it's not really Einstein [70:59] Hilbert. It's really Einstein Grossman. [71:02] But more or less since 1915 1917, the [71:05] equations haven't moved. They're going [71:07] to break because of what's happening in [71:10] southern Arizona. Tit Peak has this [71:12] object called Desi, the dark energy [71:15] spectroscopic instrument. And I believe [71:17] that it is going to show that the [71:19] cosmological constant times the metric, [71:22] which is how we encode dark energy into [71:23] the equation, is going to break because [71:25] it's not constant. The only reason that [71:28] you have lambda times the metric which [71:30] is this term [71:32] is the product rule. If you take a [71:34] derivative called divergence, [71:38] you have to take the derivative of [71:40] lambda times the metric left alone plus [71:42] lambda* the derivative of the metric. [71:44] The derivative of the metric has to [71:45] vanish. That term is the only possible [71:49] term that can go there because of [71:50] something called love locks theorem. If [71:52] you're within general relativity, you're [71:54] trying to do this geometrically. [71:56] My claim is is that that's going to [71:58] break. We're going to get to five sigma [72:00] if we aren't there already. I haven't [72:01] kept up with the news. And then we're [72:04] going to realize that the dark energy, [72:05] the most important generally [72:08] >> makes up 60 70 80% of our universe. [72:12] >> We have the wrong formula for it. [72:14] >> We have no contemplation of what it is. [72:17] >> Well, I I'm focused on saying I have a [72:21] candidate formula and I think everybody [72:22] who has one should come forward. where [72:24] we should hold a conference and say who [72:27] wins, who's who's got the best idea. We [72:29] can't just have Ed Whitten patting [72:30] himself on the back saying, "Well, [72:32] string theory is the only game in town." [72:33] It's like 42 years later, [72:37] come on. This this is preposterous. [72:39] Getting back to policy, give me some [72:41] money and get rid of these people. I [72:44] don't want them reviewing anything that [72:45] I'm doing. Give me somebody competent to [72:47] talk to. [72:48] >> So, sorry, let me just go back. The dark [72:50] energy [72:52] measurement, which we're going to end up [72:54] having a very high accurate estimation, [72:56] >> right, [72:57] >> tells us that the general theory of [73:00] relativity and the equations associated [73:02] with it are wrong because of the [73:06] relationship that we see between matter [73:08] and rotation and movement. And so [73:10] there's something off about that. And [73:12] that [73:13] >> we know that general relativity is not [73:14] the last. We know general relativity is [73:17] wrong. [73:18] >> It is a view. It is a derivative. [73:20] >> It is the map and not the territory. It [73:22] is a great great model. Whoever comes [73:25] next has to recover it. But there is no [73:29] initial singularity due to the big bang. [73:32] Nor is there a singularity in the in the [73:34] center of a black hole called the [73:35] Schwarz singularity. [73:38] That's that's where our ignorance shows. [73:40] We have two singularities we can't get [73:42] rid of inside the theory. So you have to [73:44] go outside of it. But the thing is it's [73:46] so perfect. [73:47] >> Yeah. that nobody can figure out, you [73:50] know, sort of in the first four seconds [73:53] of a physics talk, you say, "Let X13 be [73:56] a space-time manifold." Well, okay, it's [73:58] over. [73:59] >> Yeah, [73:59] >> that's the sarcophagus, and you're [74:01] already in an Einsteinian frame of [74:03] thought. And so, we know that it's [74:04] wrong, and nobody can figure out how to [74:08] make it wrong. [74:10] And that is what keeps us stuck here. [74:13] There's a marvelous demonstration around [74:16] 2003 at a TED talk of this guy showing a [74:21] surface and he's got some sort of [74:24] display and he does this and suddenly [74:27] everything enlarges and then he does [74:29] this and everything gets smaller and [74:31] this is the beginning of a multi-touch [74:33] gesture called pinch to zoom that we all [74:35] use. [74:36] My claim is is that we don't realize [74:39] that pinch to zoom is probably built [74:41] into the thing that we're confusing for [74:43] spaceime. [74:44] So we don't know to do this [74:47] and when you do that you change the [74:50] distances. So you don't need to break [74:51] the speed of light. So this is just [74:54] again you're asking somebody who can't [74:57] come in to the physics establishment who [75:00] is in the physics. I am in the physics [75:02] establishment. This is we're in some [75:05] sort of crazy world in which people who [75:08] have radical ideas [75:11] can't do the radical ideas inside of the [75:14] institutions. Like a radical idea is is [75:17] that male and female are mostly [75:19] determined by the SRY complex on the Y [75:23] chromosome. If I say that I can't be in [75:26] a meeting because I'm a bigot. Okay? I [75:30] can't be in a physics department because [75:32] I don't I think Ed Whitten drove the [75:35] field off of cliff. [75:38] Nobody said nobody else is saying it. [75:39] Clearly the one person who's saying that [75:41] has to be wrong. [75:42] >> Yeah. [75:42] >> Now this is the whole thing is that I [75:44] have the first uh first paper I think on [75:48] the danger posed by mortgage back [75:49] securities. I think I was the only [75:53] person to loudly say you don't know [75:54] whether Biden's going to make it to [75:55] November. And I think I said loudly, I [75:57] think this is four years of dimension [75:59] dimension. [76:01] When people say something different, do [76:03] you do you force them back into this [76:05] consensus? Well, that's what nations do. [76:08] And we have become a nation when it [76:10] comes to science. [76:11] >> Talk about China. [76:13] >> Yeah. [76:13] >> From what you know, is China thinking [76:16] differently about physics? Is China [76:19] trying to recast the paths? Is China [76:23] trying to invite innovative ideiation [76:26] amongst their scientific community or [76:28] are others I mean it seems like the west [76:30] is probably clumped together. Is China [76:32] different? Is anywhere different? [76:34] >> Yeah, let's let's talk about that. First [76:36] of all, France is historically the [76:38] world's greatest mathemat mathematical [76:41] country. China where we're always taught [76:44] to be, you know, so scared of the [76:45] Chinese in math couldn't buy a base hit [76:49] until very recently. Now, what they're [76:51] doing is is that they're looking at us [76:53] with our absolutely ridiculous [76:56] collectivist fictions [76:59] and they're they're they're siling up to [77:02] our best people and they're saying, "Are [77:03] you sure you wouldn't want to be free? [77:05] You sure you wouldn't want to get paid? [77:07] Come over to China. Taste the freedom. [77:09] Get paid. Have fun." [77:10] >> Right? [77:11] >> And our people are going there. [77:13] >> American scientists are going to China. [77:15] American scientists, Russian scientists, [77:19] all sorts of scientists are going to [77:22] China for some prestige, some money, and [77:26] some freedom. [77:29] And we are going to train them up and [77:30] they are going to be frighteningly good [77:32] up until the point that that freedom [77:36] involves Tibet, Tianan Square, and [77:39] Taiwan. Are they going to rethink some [77:46] of these thoughts on the path we're [77:50] taking in physics? Are they going to be [77:52] fundamental in how they rethink things? [77:55] >> Let me tell you what I really believe on [77:56] that. [77:56] >> Yes, [77:57] >> the AIs are going to change soon. Right [78:02] now the AIS are trained on a corpus that [78:05] privileges things like cell nature and [78:07] science as the prestige journals of [78:09] biology or in mathematics it would be [78:11] the invention and the annals and the [78:13] journal of the American math society. [78:16] These are where the narratives of the [78:18] fields are held. Okay. The trash can is [78:21] also a corpus. [78:24] Take all of the ideas that have been poo [78:27] pooed and laughed at and call that the [78:30] trash can corpus, the TC corpus. [78:35] The AIS are going to start reading all [78:37] of the things that our quote leading [78:40] physicists have laughed at. [78:43] Look out. [78:44] >> That's where the discovery and the [78:45] reinvention is going to happen. [78:47] China is going to have a private model [78:49] and they're going to say assume that the [78:53] completely failed the most failed theory [78:55] in the history of modern physics string [78:57] theory and something called M theory and [78:59] quantum gravity [79:01] assume for the moment that it's a red [79:05] herring meant to distract us. [79:08] It's not our leading theory. It hasn't [79:09] been our leading theory for 42 years. It [79:12] can't that the dog can't hunt. [79:15] What was it meant to stop us from [79:17] seeing? [79:18] >> And the AI will get there. [79:19] >> The AI will get there. [79:21] >> And when the AI gets there, we have [79:24] >> everyone who has an AI that can do this. [79:27] Again, I'm I'm saying completely radical [79:29] things because quite honestly, that's [79:31] what we're supposed to be doing. We're [79:33] supposed to have John vonman's and [79:36] Richard Fineman's and Paul Dox and all [79:40] of these characters and we don't have [79:42] any of them. So, I'm trying to say what [79:44] this sounds like. You're all wrong and [79:46] I'm right. And don't tell me that I'm [79:48] arrogant or that I'm conceited or that [79:50] real scientists are humble or if you [79:52] understand something, you can explain it [79:54] to a 5-year-old. That's all nonsense. [79:56] What I'm trying to say is string theory [79:59] has not been our leading theory for 42 [80:01] years. It has never been the only game [80:03] in town. And just the way Jeffrey [80:06] Epstein was never a hedge fund manager. [80:08] We're not allowed to say this. I don't [80:10] know why. I want to know is there [80:12] somebody over at CIA and the science and [80:14] technology directorate who would like to [80:16] have that conversation? Is there anybody [80:18] over at the Department of Energy who [80:20] would be interested in not having this [80:22] conversation right now? You and I are [80:23] having a conversation with our friends, [80:24] the Chinese and the North Koreans and [80:26] the Russians. Why are we doing this? [80:30] Are are you so confident that I'm wrong [80:33] given this obviously huge amount of [80:35] knowledge that most people have never [80:37] heard? Well, I I think the question is [80:41] can you really distinguish [80:43] and can you really cage the AI? I mean [80:47] at the end of the day [80:48] >> say more. [80:49] >> So if the rate of progress with AI is [80:51] such that and the ubiquity of access and [80:54] the corpus to your point of knowledge [80:58] and non-nowledge [80:59] >> right [81:00] >> is apparent to everyone. the AI can be [81:04] directed from anywhere and it's probably [81:06] a conversation about what does humanity [81:08] look like [81:11] and I think that's a conversation with [81:13] humanity not with nation states per se. [81:16] >> Well, I think what I'm trying to get at [81:17] is my model of the AI [81:20] is it is insane to have pushed out the [81:23] AI as a commercial product. It's just [81:25] funny. Let me imagine the scene from [81:28] silence. [81:29] >> It's just matrices and linear algebra. I [81:31] mean, [81:31] >> yeah, it's just inner products. [81:32] >> Mhm. [81:33] >> There's a scene in Silence of the Lambs [81:37] where Hannibal Lectar is wheeled out on [81:38] a gurnie in a straight jacket with a [81:41] crazy mask and there's all these people [81:44] around because he's so dangerous, but [81:45] he's very, very intelligent. [81:48] That's what I think Anthropic [81:50] is doing. Here's your new employee, [81:53] Hannibal Lectar. He's a consultant. [81:55] You've hired Hannibal Lectar from a [81:58] temporary agency. And the harness that [82:01] is supposed to keep you from hurting [82:03] yourself is all the people around him, [82:05] the mask and the straight bear. And [82:07] we've decided that this military [82:09] research project is something you need [82:11] in your home. It's like telling people, [82:13] look, the second amendment just says the [82:15] right to keep and bear arms. We have [82:17] this thing we haven't used called the [82:18] Davy Crockett, a soldier launched [82:20] personal nuke. Why isn't it available at [82:23] Kmart with a waiting period? [82:24] >> Yeah. Well, it's been distilled at this [82:27] point. I don't know if that's a relevant [82:29] point anymore because models have been [82:31] distilled or the model development's [82:34] been commoditized and it's been open [82:36] weight released and it's out there now. [82:38] So models are there, models are here. [82:40] >> Yep. [82:41] >> And to your point, maybe those models [82:42] get pointed at the path of discover [82:45] novel physics and look at strange texts [82:48] and ideas and and rethink everything. [82:50] >> It's going to be a hell of a ride. [82:51] >> It's going to be a hell of a ride. Yeah. [82:53] I just want to hear your your one [82:54] assessment because I I I wonder if this [82:57] is a glimmer. What what do you think [82:59] UAPs are today? Is that really the first [83:04] window in what's happening? If there's [83:05] something there, the question for you is [83:07] what do you think today UAPs are? [83:10] >> Let's answer that question, but I want [83:13] to take let's do it in a debugger and [83:14] we'll step through it line by line of [83:16] the code as it executes. I look at you, [83:19] I'm on a podcast. My first thought is I [83:22] know what risks I'm running. If I say [83:25] what I think, I can tell you which [83:27] colleagues will not open their doors to [83:29] me. No, I'm not kidding. [83:31] >> When I took a job with Peter Teal, let's [83:33] imagine that there are only about 125 [83:36] people I can speak to about my work. I [83:39] would say 30% of the doors closed to me [83:41] just by virtue of the fact that I work [83:43] with Peter Teal. And I don't think he's [83:44] the devil and he's a close personal [83:46] friend. Now you're asking me the [83:48] question of how many of the remaining [83:50] doors would you like to close? Eric, [83:52] it's not just a question. I know how [83:54] these people think and I know how [83:56] terrified they are. Let's answer it [83:58] anyway. If general relativity is really [84:00] the last word, I think that these UAP [84:03] UFO things are nation states [84:06] experimental weapons system. [84:09] I think that there's been some [84:11] breakthrough particularly in the 1970s. [84:14] No, sorry, in the 60s. There's a 1971 [84:17] Australian intelligence document where [84:20] Australia, which was the testing ground [84:22] for nukes that of the of the United [84:25] Kingdom, started seeing all these UAPs [84:27] near their nuclear test just the way we [84:29] see them near ours. [84:32] And the Australians revealed that all of [84:34] our best people, not all of our best [84:36] people, many of our best people and many [84:38] of our top institutions [84:40] were doing anti-gravity, technically [84:42] gravity shielding research. And the [84:45] cover story was the golden age of [84:47] general relativity where suddenly [84:48] general relativity was hot from the [84:50] early 50s to the late 60s early 70s. [84:54] The claim from the se that 71 document [84:57] is no no the only reason everybody went [84:59] towards gravity is that there were there [85:02] was interest in gravity shielding [85:04] anti-gravity etc etc. [85:06] I don't believe general relativity is [85:08] the last word. I believe pinch to zoom [85:10] exists. There's another multi-touch [85:12] gesture called shear to tilt and that [85:14] means that we can leave our solar [85:15] system. Okay, that's great news because [85:17] it means we can survive. The implication [85:20] is if we can leave everyone else can [85:22] come and given the size of the universe [85:25] we the odds that we are the most [85:26] advanced [85:28] life form is laughable. There's no point [85:31] in worrying about them. So if we can [85:33] leave, I think they're here and I think [85:35] we can leave. [85:37] And I think the thing the scenario to [85:41] worry about is North Sentinel Island [85:43] that [85:44] everybody who lives on North Sentinel [85:46] Island is considered a citizen of India [85:48] and they don't know the word India. [85:51] They're an uncontacted people who don't [85:53] know that they're part of something [85:54] larger that watches them that does not [85:57] allow people to land. [85:59] But if they started sending out radio [86:01] signals and then they started letting [86:03] off nukes on that tiny little island, [86:06] India would not have this paternalistic [86:10] attitude towards its primitive tribe. So [86:13] my concern is that when we let off a [86:16] nuke in 1945 [86:19] or when Italy became very good at [86:21] quantum theory with Fermy and I forget [86:24] what the name of the the atomic boys and [86:26] there was this magenta [86:29] incident under Mussolini. Somehow UAPs [86:32] are very tied [86:35] to nukes. And I believe that a nuke is [86:38] the sign that you become advanced enough [86:40] that the next thing you figure out how [86:42] to do is to leave and traverse through [86:45] propulsion. We don't realize that yet [86:47] because we've never seen that happen. [86:50] But my claim is is that almost every [86:52] civilization before it gets to using the [86:55] profound propulsion game which is these [86:59] multi-touch gestures [87:01] first lets off a nuke and that we [87:03] alerted whatever India is in this [87:06] analogy we're almost ready to come out [87:09] and we're so pathetically [87:12] unevolved that we are a danger to any [87:15] other civilization [87:18] if there's so much power in the next [87:20] theory, which I I believe geometric [87:21] unity is the next theory. Now, that will [87:25] cause a certain percentage of your [87:26] audience to say, "Oh, it's just [87:27] self-promotion." As opposed to, "No, no, [87:30] no, that's what you're supposed to do. [87:31] If you have a theory, [87:33] you talk about Yes. I think I think that [87:36] there are all sorts of things that you [87:37] can do. I think there's multi-temporal [87:40] movement. I think that there's dark [87:42] chemistry. I think that there's dark [87:43] light. [87:45] I think that there are two other [87:49] families of chyro matter left to [87:52] discover at a luminous level. Spin three [87:54] halves matter exists. I believe that SU4 [87:58] cross SU2 SU2 is the next grand unified [88:02] theory that we'll find. There is so much [88:05] more to do [88:07] that when we make this jump, [88:11] the world will become unrecognizable. [88:14] And I believe that there are other life [88:17] forms in the universe and that they can [88:19] come and they can visit. And I don't [88:20] think that that's preposterous. I think [88:22] that we are an uncontacted people. On [88:25] that note, I think we have more to talk [88:27] about in the future. This has been a [88:29] truly unique, fascinating, and I think [88:33] for a lot of people in our audience, [88:35] this is not a typical conversation. But [88:38] I I just want to highlight the [88:40] importance of hearing what you have to [88:43] say. [88:44] Because I think it's very important that [88:46] even if something seems not apparent, [88:49] particularly when things seem unlikely [88:51] or when things seem outlandish or [88:53] heretical or whatever term you might [88:55] want to put onto things, it's valuable [88:57] to to take that in. It's definitely a [88:59] lot to kind of think about the paths [89:00] ahead and I'd love to talk more. [89:02] >> I'd love to do that. I'd love to do it [89:04] with your friends and I also just want [89:06] to say thanks for having me. it it's [89:08] time for America to lead because there's [89:11] no other nation I trust like I trust our [89:14] people to take care of uh of this [89:19] planet. We should make common cause with [89:22] our rivals as fast as we can because the [89:26] danger of getting to the next level of [89:28] leverage in a contested situation is [89:32] overwhelming. M [89:33] >> it's very important we went in the [89:35] Persian Gulf and it's very important [89:36] that the scientific community recognizes [89:38] that despite their feelings about Donald [89:40] Trump. We've got four or five [89:42] individuals with the science portfolio [89:45] who are much much better than the PhDs [89:48] think and before you turn up your nose [89:50] at this consider doing what I did which [89:53] is to come for a few days to Washington [89:55] DC and utter the dangerous words how can [89:58] I help? [90:15] I'm going all in.