We have become a nation when it

comes to science.

>> You were called a fringe scientist.

>> I [music] keep saying fringe.

>> Yeah.

>> I totally disagree with the narrative of

the field. I want to blow a giant pole

in the civil rights act. The stagnation

in physics may have led to the survival

of the human species. When we make this

jump, the world will become

unrecognizable. I'm going all in.

>> As your wealth grows, have you noticed

how much more complex things get?

Between investments, tax strategy, and

estate planning, managing it all is a

full-time job you didn't ask for.

Creative Planning can help. Their

coordinated team of investment managers,

CPAs, and affiliated estate attorneys

can do much of the heavy lifting so you

don't have to. Creative Planning, where

wealth works together. Go to

creativeplanning.com/allin.

I'm [music] going

>> Eric Weinstein, mathematician,

physicist, economist, PhD in

mathematical physics from Harvard,

National Science Foundation postoc, O&R

fellow at Harvard, published a proposed

mathematical framework and speculative

unified field theory called geometric

unity in 2021, formerly with Theel

Capital, podcast host and guest. Welcome

to the all-in interview.

>> It's great to be here. Now, where are

the besties?

>> They declined the opportunity because

this is an extended science corner that

>> can't believe that Jason has turned tail

and and ran.

>> No, you and I. I mean, just for the

audience, you and I both happen to be in

DC right now. So, we're in a rented

studio doing this interview, but good

timing. What brings you to DC?

>> Uh, opportunity. I'm really excited.

I've meeting with the department of war

um and took the opportunity to stay a

couple extra days. Been talking to

director Katzios over at OSTP and the

White House science adviser. Fantastic

meeting. Been talking to Jay Badachari

who's an old friend over at NIH. About

to talk to Jim O'Neal who's hopefully

coming into NSF. Yeah.

>> And really just taking a look at the

first major proposal to reform American

science since Venavar Bush at the end of

World War II. So this is couldn't be

more exciting.

>> Did Katzios tell you that I just

interviewed him on this topic?

>> No.

>> Okay. Well, I did.

>> Okay.

>> You guys are old colleagues, right?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Michael's Michael's great.

And so he he that came up. He said, you

know, here I am in this new role. Yeah,

>> I guess I was sort of worried that this

report, you know, obviously he's filling

huge shoes and I was worried that it was

going to be a disaster and I was stunned

how how good it was. I mean, it wasn't

perfect, but never never is.

>> And then I told you that.

>> Mhm. and you said that well you and I

had been talking and that you had been

conveying a lot of these issues to him

and I feel like he's uh he's really

grown into this role trying to become a

student of the American science project

and I couldn't be happier at hearing him

say things like we know that we don't

know everything we're just at the

beginning we're just getting started so

it looks like a great blueprint

>> governmentdriven science has played a

fundamental role in the success of the

republic at least over the last hundred

years last 50 75

prior to that there's a argument to be

made in the in science and new golden

age that Kratzio published and that

others have been making I've heard you

make it that science has really stalled

in America. Can you make that case for

us now?

>> Well, it's a question of which science

has stalled. Um so one of the great

things about what Michael's saying is is

that science is a big place and it's not

being done in one way. So what I really

think is the biggest, if you wanted to

sort of fly over and give an idea of

what's what's at risk, it's the

absolutely courageous science that we

can afford to do as a rich, ruggedly

individualistic nation that no one else

can afford to do. And so more or less

when when I see us doing incremental

research and doing things that are

incredibly careful with low variance and

calling it excellence, I get depressed

because my feeling is is that what we

should be taking on is the bets no one

else can afford to take on. It's also

the case that our chief geopolitical

rivals, China,

>> has a problem with freedom. And quite

honestly, freedom is a weapon. It is a

uh serious advantage that we can afford

to look at ourselves and say we don't do

everything perfectly and we want to know

the truth. I want to know whether Fouchy

killed 10 million people. I should be

able to investigate that as a viologist,

as an epidemiologist. I I I should be

able to get answers and and go through

the process of justice. When we have a

situation in which our scientists are

hamstrung because the conclusion is

known ahead of time, we limit our own

ability to use cowboy science

to drive the rest of the world. And and

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. young

person should be able to say, "Hey, I

think my field is going in entirely the

wrong direction and I'm willing to bet

my career on it. Don't interfere." This

was always the biggest question for me

is where were all the skeptics? Where

were all the scientists that are

supposed to question the dogma during

the lockdowns, during COVID, during that

pandemic? And I talked to Katios about

this when we did our interview that if

everyone in the room agrees on

something, it's probably wrong. Like you

know there there has to be some degree

of skepticism but particularly because

the fundamental basis of science is to

ask questions, interrogate, generate

evidence, generate data and then draw

some you know conclusion and ask your

next question. But it's almost like the

asking questions stopped. Where did that

come from? It sounds like you're saying

it's because folks were hamstrung

socially. Was it economic? What is it

that happened that not just in this

pandemic but just broadly are we seeing

this happen more in these scientific

domains where everyone kind of aligns

around one thesis one dogma and you're

not going to get funding you're not

going to have friends you're not going

to get colleagues to work with you

you're going to get chastised if you ask

different questions or ask whether these

assumptions are correct

>> this is the question and let me just

answer it is is that we created the

scientific procariat

We created a world in which professors

cannot afford

to go against a consensus. Now the

problem is consensus because if

everybody agrees on something, you

shouldn't need a consensus. There's no

arithmetic consensus. Do we have an

arithmetic consensus that 2 + 3 equals

5? No, it just is.

When I hear the word consensus, I get

very, very nervous because a consensus

is usually an artificial agreement

achieved through pressure. the

Washington consensus is some sort of a

thing where we're all going to go in a

particular direction and if you don't go

in that direction you don't have a job.

So when you ask well what happens you

know my question is that the the uh Jay

Bacharia is a perfect example of what

should happen. You have a guy who has a

PhD in economics and an MD

and he went against it with the Great

Bington Declaration. Now he's the head

of NIH. I I knew Jay when he was called

a fringe epidemiologist by this loser

Francis Collins and you know his

sidekick who was probably our bioweapons

are Anthony Fouchy. You know, if I say

Anthony Fouchy was probably our

bioweapons are, that's going to strike

all these people, particularly on the

institutional left is, well, that's

conspiracy theory talk. So, my question

is, we signed a couple of uh agreements

in the 70s, the Geneva Convention and

Boweapons Treaty. We have a cryptic

system. Somehow we chose in that case a

mysterious Ukrainian uh British

zoologologist to receive huge amounts of

money through a hippie dippy charity

called the Ecoalth Alliance money from

like Ditra, the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency, the whole thing doesn't make any

sense. So if you start doing things

through covert operations, the problem

is is that scientists can see right

through covert operations.

If you have great tools, you know, if

you say, "I I wasn't at the scene of the

crime." I said, "Oh, well, but we have a

a hair follicle and I can pretty much

tell you you were at the scene of the

crime." That's how powerful science is.

So now you have this different problem

which is is that you've got all of these

Bminus policy people in Washington,

particularly in the covert community,

not the intelligence community, but the

covert community, inside the

intelligence community, who don't want

kick-ass independent scientists, because

they're telling stories and narratives

that are easily exploded. So right now,

we don't don't just have a problem with

good science, we have a problem with

good journalism,

>> right? They also have to fall in line

with the

>> the pride narrative.

>> Exactly. So there are times when you

when you have to, you know, when the US

went to war, Roosevelt was in a

wheelchair with these leg braces and

there was a general agreement that we

won't report on the state of the

president's health. Well, we had the

same thing with Biden. Biden was

undergoing some form of dementia.

Did anyone think to ask a leading

geriatric neurologist, look, examine his

gate, examine his speech patterns, and

tell us where he is he likely in his

cognitive trajectory. So, if you're

trying to to, you know, tell a lie

that's important structurally, you

really don't want scientists exploding

it. When we did the and I I'm I'm not

arguing with that. We shouldn't have

been honest about what we were doing at

a New Mexico boy school from 1940 to

1945 because science was creating the

most powerful weapon ever seen on planet

Earth.

>> For those not aware, that's the

Manhattan Project.

>> Absolutely.

>> So, what I'm trying to say is is that

right now, you're not taking those

people who stood up and making them the

president of a university or the

chairman of a department. You're not

giving them a chair. And I just gave a

talk on this at at uh Jordan Peterson's

ARC conference. You haven't reinserted

the tiny number of people who stood up.

You haven't rewarded them. My question

is where's my third home for standing

up?

>> Where's the ability to put my kids, you

know, I want to put three kids through

school. I want to participate in the

security and the prosperity that we

provide to everyone else. And this is

the the key issue. You've created the

American scientific procariat. That's

one of the reasons why you have, you

know, such strange political

affiliations where you don't have

balance in the professor. You've got

this incredibly dangerous situation

where we are not participating in

freedom. And I will say in particular

theoretical phys physics theoretical

physics is the only profession to have

lost free speech because of something

called restricted data where I am not

allowed to put pen to paper to write

down a physics equation if in any way it

affects nuclear weapons. Well try doing

really good physics in a way that

doesn't affect

you know hadrons and nucleons. It

impossible. So you have this threat,

right, that somehow um the law I'm not

even protected by the first amendment.

>> But I I want to go back to your point

about incentives. So when you say I want

to have a third home, what you're saying

just to I'm going to do the Eric

Weinstein translation here, but you're

saying as a professor, I have to fall in

line in order to gain tenure, in order

to get a grant, in order to get the the

chairmanship role or whatever the

fellowship I'm looking for. If I don't

fall in line, if I'm fringe, if I say

things that are nonconformist, is that

the right kind of way to

>> heterodox?

>> Heterodox,

>> if I choose to just go against the

orthodoxy, right? I believe that um it

was insane to take the idea of the Wuhan

Institute of Irology off the table when

it came to the origin of CO.

>> Right.

>> Okay. Insane. It was clear then. And

when you said that, you were called a

fringe scientist and you were chastised

and labeled an outcast and therefore you

lost access, you lost jobs, you lost

income. There was much that was left out

of the equation for you. Y

>> because you asked questions that were

heterodox.

>> I I came up with a set of equations in

differential geometry in 1987 and I was

uh really treated incredibly badly.

those equations took over my field in

1994 and there was never an attempt to

go back and say wait a minute we just

brutalize somebody who got things right

and very early and so you know by the

same token it's just a very simple

process you're not allowed to want

better for your life you're supposed to

be humble you know well true scientists

don't care about money true scientists

don't care about security the reward is

the work it's you know blah blah blah

blah blah it's all of this absolute dril

The fact is is that we are providing

your security. And I say third homes to

be deliberately provocative. I used to

say second homes and I'm done with that.

You're dealing with a level of

prosperity in a world in which the genie

coefficients are blowing out. It's

almost entirely due to the technology

that is derivative of science and the

scientists are not participating. So

what you're doing is you're creating a

collectivist mindset because we can't

get paid. We can't win. If we get things

right, we're out.

>> When did this change happen? Because did

we not value and prize heterodoxy,

hereticism, outlandish ideas. The origin

of science, the origin of great

innovation, which arguably America is

still the global leader in today, arises

from what initially seems heretical.

seems like an idea that is far-fetched,

unrealistic, not going to happen. But

all it takes is one out of 10 of those

things to be true and ultimately the

envelope is pushed forward and we find

ourselves in a new frontier,

>> right?

>> Science should follow the same formula

as entrepreneurship in the sense

technological or industrial kind of

entrepreneurship roughly. Yeah. But

where did things change and why is this

just the natural course of you know Ted

Kazinski the uniomber wrote this

manifesto where he talked about over

socialization. Is that ultimately what

happened here? Is it social media played

a role? Is it just that this is the

saturation of social systems over time?

>> Yeah. This

>> or was there a deliberate external

effort?

>> The one thing you didn't uh recite in

that list of things. You didn't you

didn't mention my being in in the

physics department I guess uh at Hebrew

University

MIT

uh post-docctoral fellowship but the the

most important one is that I was the

co-chair co-PI with Richard Freeman of

the science and engineering workforce

project at Harvard in the economics

department because I was worried that we

were we had been losing this and there's

a very crisp answer to this and between

1965 and 75 everything went wrong.

Right. And and it's basically from the

beginning of the Medicare Act of 65 to a

controversy over something called man a

course of study in 1975 that ushered in

peer review and the control. But if you

wanted to really pinpoint it, it really

65 69 to 71 is particularly brutal. And

what happened was the MIT physics

department, I think in 1969 in the

spring, walked out in protest of the

Vietnam War, including people who had

been part of the Manhattan Project.

>> And the government took one look at this

and said, "Okay, you are wobbly. We

can't trust you. We have a we have a

very complicated, cryptic agreement with

our physicists in particular. You are

the most dangerous, most deadly, most

intelligent, most successful group along

with the mathematicians and we've relied

on you and now we can't trust you

because you're not you're not rowing uh

in the same direction that the country

is rowing with the with the war because

you're joining the protest movement.

What happened was is that immediately

the MIT instrument laboratory, which I

think was a where lots of government

money was being funneled through,

>> was taken outside the university and

turned into Draper Labs.

And the Mansfield amendment in 6971,

named after Mike Mansfield of of

Montana, said, "Okay, the military can

no longer fund blue sky research inside

of our university system unless it has a

direct military uh express military

purpose." That was the disaster because

what the military had done is they said,

"Look, we want you guys fat and happy

doing blue sky research, which is what

you think you should be doing. We trust

you guys. We just want to know that

you're there for us when we need you."

So, the military was our best friend.

Now that was uncomfortable because quite

honestly you have a huge paniply of

different ideas inside of high energy

highly dynamic science project. If you

don't have communists and fascists in

the same department having tea together

something has gone wrong

>> because scientists are very extreme. And

Ted Kazinski, you know, wrote a

marvelous story, for example, called

Ship of Fools about a bunch of people

overly concerned about political

correctness on a ship that then, you

know, runs into an iceberg because

nobody's actually paying attention to

the writing of the ship. They're having

questions about

>> I didn't even know this.

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody should

should read it. Now, of course, I'm not

>> I'm not pushing people to uh a mass

murderer. Uh you know, how however

>> it's heretical to acknowledge Ted

Kazinski, by Well, but the point is is

that

>> scientists are weirdos,

>> or at least many scientists are weirdos.

And if you're not going to deal with

truly dangerous minds, I don't even know

why you're suiting up for the science

game. So, where do those minds go

if they're not enabled or allowed into

the institutions, the establishment, the

machinery of science in America? Are

they still around or their brains just

blunted out and they're only allowed to

say certain things or are we taking

great scientists and reprogramming them

and missing all the alpha? I mean, what?

>> Yeah. Yeah. You're you're missing you're

missing the alpha. And it's funny that

you should say that because that makes

it like alpha male or the uh alpha in

investment theory, right?

>> Both works.

>> Yeah. I'm a I also do freestyle raps.

Really? Yeah. No. Well, sometimes. Okay.

We'll talk later about that.

>> Yeah. Cool. Um, well, mostly what you're

doing is you're spaying and neutering uh

your best minds. Uh, but the other thing

is is look at Palmer Lucky.

Okay, that guy looks to me like a

scientist.

He's a reverend. He's got a crazy shirt

and he builds things that kill people.

>> Yeah.

>> Right now, if he was in a physics

department, um, he could not easily be

that guy. But if you wanted somebody

who's in still in science, who looks to

me like a great scientist, I would point

you to Nema Arani Hamemed. Incredibly

charismatic, brilliant as the day is

long, completely uncompromising, did not

go in for the string theory fat at a

deep level, even though he's sympathetic

to many aspects of it.

>> Do you guys even know that he's there?

He's the best of us currently, and he's

still not that old, you know. Um, my

feeling is that there's pretty much been

a giant decrease in our effectiveness.

And I know why. When you kick Jim Watson

out of Cold Spring Harbor, which he

built,

what are you doing? Do you know that

Mark Tashnney uh is in his mid 80s? uh

guy who wrote a genetic switch on fage

lambda, one of the most brilliant,

irreverent people. You know, at some

point, I think I sent a journalist to

him and the journalist came back with

his tail between the leads and said that

that that guy's insane.

>> Well, Eric Lander was the White House uh

science adviser, Katzios's role. I think

his picture isn't up on the wall because

he's sort of an uncompromising,

difficult to deal with guy. And my

feeling, I hate to say, this is tough. M

>> you know if you ever saw the movie

Whiplash

>> love it. One of my favorites.

>> Okay. Well, there's a reason that that

guy has the best band. He you know he's

not handing out tissues. And I I don't

mean to be mean about I don't want a

brutal place, but like this stuff is

pretty unforgiving.

>> What's the solution to morass

stagnation? What do we do here to try

and catch up again? What do we do here

to to restructure? Or is it about

institutions? Is it about funding? Is it

about people? Is it reprogramming? I

mean, how do you get out of the social

circuit that's fully programmed?

>> Great question. I mean, really great

question. Let's just be provocative and

throw some stuff out. National interest

waiverss. I want to blow a giant hole in

the Civil Rights Act so that we can have

teams that are not constantly afraid of

HR.

>> What does the Civil Rights Act do that

makes it difficult for individuals to do

what they need? Well, you know, you

>> science,

>> my closest friend uh from college, we

have a group of three, two Jews and a

Muslim.

>> Mhm.

>> And the Muslim is constantly teasing the

Jews about, you know, you guys know all

the banks of the newspapers and we, you

know, joke with him about him being a

terrorist. Now, that is not a model I

can explain to anybody, but we've been,

you know, incredibly close uh since

1982. My claim is is that you don't

understand how high agency people

actually form tight cohesive social

units.

>> If you have the HR department saying,

you know, Eric, I understand you you are

making an inappropriate joke,

>> screw off. Get out of here. Who are you

and what are you doing in my lab? Let me

call security. Why do I need a note from

my mommy and daddy to to do everything?

I'm not saying be horrible. I'm saying

you don't know enough about the culture

of greatness

to be my HR department. That's sort of

what I'm saying. So like I'm just

throwing out a provocative idea which by

the way I'm a Democrat. I'm sort of a

Democrat from the JFK school rather than

I I don't think I would join.

>> I don't know I don't know what you would

be today.

>> Well I'm I'm staying in the party. I'm a

nail house Democrat. You know the nail

house is the house that you build a mall

around because the person won't sell.

>> Yes. I'm not I'm not leaving the party.

Um, but my party has gone insane. My

feeling is if we were really who we say

we are, we'd be making common cause with

the Republicans I met with and saying,

"Let's get on with it and reform the

system together." And if you want to

brag about how you made America great

without us, you can go screw yourself.

Um, my feeling is that I'd rather work

with you, make America great, and then

fight over the credit later. That's how

you work in a war, you know. So my my

first recommendation is

>> throw out the Civil Rights Act.

>> No, not throw it out. Poke holes in it

because you like the intent of it. It's

the letter that's arbitrageed against

the the intent which creates the sort of

collectivist thinking. You can't do

great work without hyperindividualism

and without rugged hyperindividualism.

And so my feeling is is that that's not

an Einrandian thing. That's not a

conservative thing. it. The issue is is

that I'm I consider myself left of

center and there's no one more

individualistic than I am. And so what

you need is I need not to have peer

review. Peer review is a fake story that

was retconed into science. It is no, you

can look it up on Google engrams, put

quote space peer review space close

quote, and you'll notice that there's

really no mention of it before 1965.

And the reason for that is that the

Medicare act made the government the

major payer for medical procedures. The

government said, "Well, why are we

paying for all this stuff?" Well, the

doctors said, "We don't want you

having oversight over our

decisionmaking." So, our peer we will

peer review each other. It started in a

Utah clinic. And then it wasn't until

1975

when fiscal and social conservatives

attacked the NSF over something called

man a course of study or makos. Now some

for some reason the NSF

grouped in anthropology as a science. I

I think that's a mistake. I think what

we really need is we really need very

hard sciences separated. And my feeling

is the weaker scientists should go form

their own organization and stop using

our credit card

>> because they're destroying our credit

limit.

>> Those are social sciences and soft

sciences versus hard scientists where

there's an industrial end point.

>> Well, it's not a question of an

industrial endpoint. I mean, I think

that's another thing that's really

screwed up is that science has become

synonymized with biomedical, which it

isn't.

>> Yeah. and science has become uh in the

conservative mind something that the the

market can do well when it's like did

did no one take econ 101 because the you

know on the first day of school they're

supposed to tell you that markets work

really well as long as you're not in a

category called market failure and if

you miss that day you say well markets

are perfect and they can price

everything but anything that's uh

inexhaustible and inexcludable which is

exactly the definition of science can't

be priced by a market unless you create

an artificial market So, I can't tell

you how dispiriting, you know, this is,

if I've been kind to the Republicans.

Here's a place where I'm going to be

cruel. You can't have morons who do not

understand that markets cannot see

everything. There's a reason that we pay

taxes for an army. And it's a technical

reason. It's not a we think that's a

good thing. It's that if market if you

could make the army uh exhaustable and

excludable, you wouldn't need to pay for

it with taxes. So that your tax dollar

has to be used for things that the

market can't reach. Homatopy theory is a

great case. When I say homotopy theory

in these science discussions, people

say, "Well, what is that?" And my my my

response is, "Well, you don't know. It's

an incredibly important part of

mathematics, pure mathematics. I don't

know that it has any industrial

applications." But you go after homatopy

theory and you're you're pulling out a

Jenga block from an incredibly important

ecosystem that you don't understand. So

my my feeling about this is I'm going to

inject a PhD perspective into this

conversation because the what the PhDs

are doing wrong is that they're staying

out. Trump to them has cooties. They

don't want Trump cies so they don't show

up.

>> Yeah. And now, okay, well, if if they

are not going to explain to you why we

need homatopy theory and we need to tax

people and to pay for it,

>> the administration's not hearing what

they need to be hearing and the people

that are supposed to be saying it are

not showing up to the administration.

>> That's right. And it's completely

dysfunctional and quite honestly,

>> by the way, the statistic I gave Cratios

is uh Nature did a survey of 2,000

scientists, their readers. Nature being

a scientific journal that's widely read

and by the scientific community and six

>> by the way not peer reviewed until the

70s

>> right and six% of the readers pled uh

voted for President Trump 85% or

something Kla Harris and then there was

an undecided group but I think it speaks

to your point like Trump is deemed to be

so anti-science the institution of Trump

is deemed to be anti-science that there

doesn't even want to be an engagement.

>> Assume that you detest Trump. Okay.

Assume that you think Trump is the

devil. I just met with Michael Katzios.

Great. I I wanted that role. I put my

hat into the ring for that uh for that

role. I didn't think I would get it

because I wasn't willing to pledge

sufficient loyalty to Donald Trump.

Happened to go to Michael Katzio. I was

very nervous because he he's not coming

from a PhD background.

What a what an unbelievable growth in

that role. The guy understands. I don't

know all sorts of things. I'm here to

learn. Tell me what I need to know. And

if no one shows up to do that toutelage,

you're going to you boy, do you deserve

exactly what you got because I think

Michael is trying to do absolutely the

right thing. I know Jim O'Neal very well

from the Peter Teal universe coming in

at NSF. Jay Bodacharia. Absolute gem. If

you can't work with these people, is

that their problem or is that your

problem?

>> So, arguably this and sorry, let me just

go back to talk about markets and I I'll

make a libertarian argument. If markets

work well for driving economic value and

those who are good at that participate

meaningfully in that value creation,

there will be wealthy people and those

wealthy people will see the value of

mathematics, the value of pure physics,

the value of astrophysics and cosmology

and they'll fund it. Jim Simons, didn't

he fund quite a lot of research?

>> Jim was a genius with detailed knowledge

of pure mathematics. Mhm.

>> So if you have, you know, Yuri Milner is

a guy who has a background in quantum

chromodnamics,

>> if you have more of those people,

>> and there are point is, and I'm not

trying to argue with you about it, but

my point is, shouldn't the market work

regardless that they'll see the value of

the science that you're identifying?

They'll identify it. Capital will flow

to that research, it will get funded

somehow. There's a lot of independent

institutions out there that get capital.

and is or is that not sufficient for the

landscape? And I'll also state like you

know one of the uh statistics that I

brought up with Katzios which he

published in his book is that over time

we have seen a significant decline in

the effectiveness of dollars deployed

against scientific research in the US an

80fold decline in return on every dollar

invested in government research. So, I

just want to throw those two points out

there, like is there not private market

capital that will find its way to solve

these problems? And isn't the government

getting worse over time at deploying

capital and driving returns? And I might

be giving you a a te-ball here. So,

>> I guess or or I feel like I should have

I should have gotten high on cannabis uh

in order to even take that question on.

>> I don't believe any of that first point.

Um and and it's I knew Jim Simons

decently well. Uh Jim

was the kind of guy who could do that.

But even he didn't understand. My last

conversation with Jim Simons, I was

trying to explain to him how the churn

Simons uh transgression interpreted as

an action functional is the only rival

to Einstein Hilbert. um and that

effectively he will find um if he if he

pursues this that churn Simons and

Einstein Hilbert are on an equal playing

field as daughters of the ultimate

theory.

>> Uh he didn't know that. So partially the

issue is is that it is so difficult in

my area to know what's going on in the

adjacent area. I just got off the phone

before the podcast with my good friend

Edward Frankle who does uh algebraic

geometry whereas I would do differential

geometry. It's very difficult for us to

communicate even though those fields are

adjacent to each other. So yes, if you

happen to have an algebraic geometer

who's a billionaire, uh, and one who's a

representation theorist, another one

who's, uh, interested in, um, oh, I

don't know, category theory, you could

do it that way, but this is completely

insane. So,

>> okay, so government should fund

>> government has to be the basic funer of

these things.

>> The next part of this,

>> we need to have the right people

representing the decisions on where we

should be funding, what we should be

funding. Correct. And that's what we did

previously is that we sort of had slush

funds and they're very good people had

money. Somebody years ago I was at a

conference in Bereva um on physics and

people were talking about where they

were going to get their next job and

this old guy comes up to us and said I

just pity all of you. There was an

American and I said in what way? He said

you know I never applied for a job in my

life. He said sorry what do what do you

mean? He says, "If you were any good and

you needed a job, you talked to one of

the people who was high up in the field

and they got on the phone and by the

time they got off the phone, you had a

job where you needed to be."

>> And so my claim is is that when you have

administrator types come in and say,

"What we need is KPIs.

Uh we need to to drive this on a data we

I'm data driven. I want to know what the

translation is.

Do do you even know what ROI is

or is it just what you can measure?

>> Yeah.

>> And so my claim is a lot of what you

want is you want these people on

retainer so whenever you have a real

problem you call up the Jason's and it's

stocked with the most terrifying

intellects you can imagine and we can

get to work and we can solve your

problems.

But if you're saying, "Well, why should

my taxpayer dollars uh, you know, go do

whatever you find interesting?" Well, if

I can pursue what I find interesting,

and when you call me up,

I'm going to be very friendly to helping

my own country, my own nation, I'm going

to feel positive about that. If you tell

me you should work on this because this

thing is what drives the ROI, my feeling

is, do you just not understand science?

Do you imagine that your technology

mindset

is the same thing as my scientific

mindset. You want to get paid. I mean, I

I've spent a lot of time in Silicon

Valley. I'm not nearly interested as

interested in having a new McLaren as

whether my name is going to be discussed

10,000 years from now if humans are

still around. And I I say that because,

you know, Jim Watson just died. My good

friends Isidor Singer, Raul Bot are are

now dead. Those are people whose

contributions will be discussed 10,000

years from now.

>> Can you say that about almost anyone

you know who's doing software as a

service? Uh hard to say. You know, as I

used to say, um what's the difference

between uh Grecia Pearlman and Ron

Pearlman? And so in the modern era, the

question is who's Greca Pearlman? And

you know, a thousand years from now,

it's who's Ron Pearlman. So my feeling

is is that we have our own toys that we

we care about. We care about our

history. We care about different things.

It's it's not unreasonable to want to do

and to want to be able to check into a

Four Seasons uh and to fly business

class, but we don't need a corporate

jet. Like that's your stuff. So treat

scientists like the rock stars that they

should be will be. Otherwise, you're

going to lose them. You're going to lose

that talent. You're going to lose that

moment.

>> Protecting nature is often labeled

anti-growth. The Conservation Fund

disagrees. They believe protecting land,

wildlife, and outdoor access goes

handinhand with economic opportunity.

For 40 years, they've moved with market

speed to protect at risk land while

supporting local communities. With 9

million acres protected across all 50

states, the Conservation Fund is proving

that they deliver lasting outcomes that

benefit communities and nature. Learn

more at conservationfund.org.

>> When you say slush funds, the way the

funding process works in the modern era

is grants. you you apply for a grant

with a very specific set of objectives

and that's what the capital is going to

be used for. And to your point earlier,

grants are typically approved if they're

lower beta, which means more predictable

in terms of the outcome.

>> So, so we're appropriating modern

portfolio theory to science.

>> To science.

>> Love it.

>> Yes. Well, I mean, that's the way it

it's been operating is my argument. Or

has it not been? And does that not miss

the opportunity to take crazy high beta

bets and not just bet on the idea but

bet on the person. So

>> crazy high beta bet.

>> Yeah.

>> Let's do an example.

>> Yes.

>> Imagine that I have a 1% chance of

curing all cancer,

>> right?

>> Should you hire me?

>> Well,

99% failure is pretty expensive. But the

benefit of killing curing all cancer

um the government is incredibly rich and

when you're incredibly rich you can

afford to take different bets to

maximize your outcomes. The problem is

is that the government co-invested

through things that are poorer than it.

>> So each department says you know we

can't really afford we don't get that

many appointments. So, we're going to go

with somebody who has a very high

probability of succeeding at a very

modest

outcome and then we're going to start

lying about how important that is.

You'll notice that if you ask people,

"How's your field doing?" Everybody

says, "It's never been a better time to

be a particle theorist." Well, it's a

terrible time to be a particle theorist,

right? And and we can't say that. And

and it's funny because again in

portfolio theory, if you have a balanced

portfolio and part of it starts

succeeding and part of it failing, what

you usually do is you take money out of

the thing that's succeeding and put it

into the thing that's failing because

otherwise you get too much concentration

in the portfolio. Nobody's ever thought

about any of this stuff. And so what you

have is you have people who don't even

understand modern portfolio theory and

don't understand market failure

designing things. It's really important

to know basic

market theory and we don't.

>> Yeah. So if we fix that do we fund

individuals versus ideas? You know this

is the other kind of

>> say more.

>> So the whole story I I gave this example

to Katzio. Stuart Butterfield worked on

this project for a couple years. He was

down to three million bucks. All the VCs

put money in started nearly failed. And

he calls him up. He called up Ben

Horowitz. He just told the story

recently. He said, "Hey, should I give

the money back? This project didn't

work. But by the way, we've been doing a

intra company communication tool for our

engineering team. Maybe I could pivot

into that." He's like, "Yeah, keep the

money. Do that. I trust you."

>> Yeah.

>> You pivoted it, turned it into Slack,

sold it for $30 billion.

>> The idea being that you back the person,

not the idea. that the the great people,

the great entrepreneurs continuously

evolve, continuously build, continuously

pivot. I mean, here you are with Zuck

reinventing that company again and again

and again. And if you find the

upandcomers, is there a way to kind of

find the individual that are emerging in

their fields?

>> Oh, yeah. But

>> and you fund them for a period of time

and you say or is this a portfolio

theory again where you say some bets are

on an idea, some bets are on people and

you know the people bets should be

long-term and fully funded,

>> right?

I'll give you the magic formula that

gives you an idea of how difficult this

is and how tricky you have to be. Tell

me who the established leaders of of a

field will block but will not short

fund that guy.

>> Mhm.

>> For now

>> because if you're not willing I mean if

you I I'll say this with my own uh main

theory. If you are willing to short

either geometric marginalism or more

importantly geometric unity, I want to

dance with you.

>> Mhm.

>> Because I want to take your house. I

want to take your retirement. It would

be my absolute pleasure to destroy you

in the market.

>> Mhm.

>> But that's not what happens. It's like,

well, we want to block him, but we know

that he knows a lot of stuff. Yeah.

>> And we know that we haven't really read

it. And you know, there's something

about somebody saying, "Look, you're

99.9999%

uh going to fail." And I say, "Care care

to formalize that?"

>> Mhm.

>> You know, let's have Well, why? I'll bet

you $100 that by next year you haven't

gotten full acceptance in the That's not

what you said. You said that you'd be

willing to put up your house to win a

dollar from me, and I want to do that at

size, you know. So my feeling is come at

me baby that would be fun.

>> And let me tell you something. He also

listened for things that no one is

willing to say. I I am on record as

saying that the the smartest man in the

world today is Edward Whitten.

Brilliant.

>> Mhm.

>> Unbelievable. The guy drove theoretical

physics off the road and off a cliff 42

years ago.

>> Nobody else is willing to say it.

>> Mhm.

So the question is is the one person who

noticed that nobody's gone to Stockholm

[laughter]

that the standard model has not changed

the recent conference uh in string

theory supposedly the only game in town

in fundamental physics.

Go to strings 2026 website. There's a

list of all the talks. There's a search

engine. Put in these following words.

Electron, Hadron, Higs, Leptton.

There's no physics in this. They're not

talking about anything that could hurt a

foe. They're not talking about the

physical world. I was at arguably the

world's

leading physics institute.

And I said, "Who are the smartest people

here?" And it was I was given three

names. Two of them were pure theorists.

I talked deeply with both of them. When

I got to the point about how to advance

the standard model, which is our notion

of all the particles you see in the in

this room,

both of them said, "I have no interest

in the physical world." And I said,

"Well, you're the two leading professors

at our major, our most expansive

theoretical physics institute, and

neither of you care about the physical

world." just openly expressed

this is madness and you know I give

talks at physics departments and I I've

now started non-ooperation with the

departments who've asked me to come and

talk

but will technically deny me a talk. So

for example, I've given talk a talk at

the University of Texas Austin, but I'm

I'm not allowed to say that the talk

occurred in the physics department.

>> Really?

>> Yeah. I gave a talk at the Perimeter

Institute in the Skyrim.

It is not a talk. Eric is answering

questions. I gave a talk at the

University of Chicago in the

>> This is because your talk and your

persona is viewed to be fringe and

outlandish.

>> You keep saying fringe. Yeah,

>> I totally disagree with the narrative of

the field.

>> I just out and out say that when physics

in 1983 physics made sense in 1984 it

did not. It was very stark and it was

like overnight more or less three people

Leonard Suskin, David Gross and Edward

Whitten drove the field in a totally

different direction and now the

achievement of this has not been any

advance in our knowledge of the physical

world but it has been something that no

one knew was possible. You take the

field in which Edward Teller and Jay

Robert Oenheimer and Richard Fineman and

Stannislov Ulam created the most

terrifying weapons from SU3 cross U1

gauge theory and you've made it safe. It

is now safe to do physics with your

geopolitical rivals. You can invite your

friends from China to come and become

graduate students in your department and

you will fill their heads with things

about ads CFT that couldn't hurt a fly

because there's no physics in it. So the

question is

did I

is this a secret program?

>> Go back to 1983. Wait, so we drove off a

cliff in 1983 and the question is did

someone say, "Hey, let's drive this off

a cliff."

>> Well, this happened before. Do you do

you think that there is some

community subgroup

set of assets

set of projects that are happening

somewhere on Earth that are making

advances in physics and have been for

the last 50 years?

>> Great that you asked that question. That

would be crazy, wouldn't it, David? Can

you imagine if there was like a secret

place that was making advances in an

important field of physics and people

who were studying physics outside of

that place were being stymied?

>> I would find it hard that it would be

kept secret.

>> Okay. What happened in 1940

is that something that you've never

heard of called the reference committee

was established inside of the National

Research Council.

So when the neutron was first

hypothesized in 1911 by Rutherford, it

was then discovered in the early 30s, a

woman named Lee Mitner came up with the

concept of the chain reaction which was

then proven by Fairmy at the University

of Chicago with something called Chicago

pile one.

Thereafter, a guy named Wright uh briti

t formed something called the uh

reference committee inside the national

research council so that if you

submitted a paper on chain reaction

physics to a journal, it got shunted

into the national research council and

they would return it to you saying

unfortunately you know these results are

really preliminary.

um we don't see this as being uh at the

level of the journal. Please revise,

etc., etc.

Okay, now you've resubmitted it. It's

still not going. You don't know that

this thing exists. This is how people

outside of the Manhattan Project,

outside of the white badges, treated

their colleagues who weren't allowed

inside the Manhattan Project. So let's

at least agree that from 1940 to 1945

there was a review process which

destroyed the ability to earn a living

if you were doing chain reaction physics

and you weren't invited into the secret

group.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. The question isn't is that nuts?

It's clearly not nuts because I know

that this actually existed and happened.

Question is did it happen once or more

than once? If it happened more than

once, the question is, what is the

analog of the boys school in New Mexico?

What is the analog of the white badges?

What is the analog of the reference

committee?

>> And you have a theory?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay.

>> If it's happening, I've said that the

leading candidate would be Renaissance

Technologies on Long Island.

>> I've heard you say this.

>> Yeah.

>> But surely there's

>> Let's look at the cover story.

>> Okay. The cover story would be, you

know, we are so good at trading that we

don't even allow people who know markets

into our firm. We only hire people in

directly relevant subjects of physics,

like particle theorists, like

differential geometers,

like machine learning experts. And we

have a very strange thing that we have a

very close relationship with the Brook

Haven National Laboratory. And by the

way, there's a middling university right

next door

who happens to be absolutely world class

historically in the exact subjects that

would be relevant to doing next level

physics.

Okay. So you multiple fields medalists

and US News and World Report never ranks

this as like one of our great

facilities. Even though if if you look

at the people have passed through State

University of New York at Stonybrook,

it's unbelievable. Yeah, to me that

looks like Fort me when it was still no

such agency collecting way too many

number theorists.

>> But Eric, people have come out of that

place, that workplace. I know one or two

of them and there are no such stories.

At some point you would envision that

some number of them, some small

percentage of them would

>> leak some information or some set of

facts if that were to be true about some

of this advanced physics work going on

or there would be probably more

innumerable returns realized from that

than perhaps there have been.

>> I'm not saying that I know that that's

true. My point was, and I tried I tried

to be careful. If you said, "Eric, that

sounds preposterous because to be

entirely honest, the concept of Los

Alamos, which was published in 1944 by a

journalist named Jack Raper in a

Cleveland newspaper, he he broke the

story.

>> Nothing happened because what he said

was crazy. He said, "There is a secret

city with a mayor who's supposed to be

the next Einstein

working on a doomsday weapon." and the

town is so secretive that nobody knows

what's going on inside it. So my claim

is is that I'm doing the Jack Raper

thing and you're doing the what happened

to Jack Raper. Well, clearly there's

only one person saying that and he's

nuts.

>> Well, in that in both cases, I could

show up and start asking questions and

interrogate and see if I can find

something.

>> Again, I'm not saying that Renaissance

Technologies is that. I am saying you

have a secure campus with a story that

makes no sense. Yeah,

>> you know markets. Do you have any idea

how much the medallion fund

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know. Cuz again, my

friends who were there, they get to

leave their money there and then the

returns continue.

>> They get to leave their money there is

not what happens.

>> Okay.

>> They closed the fund to all but internal

money.

>> Yes. Yes. That's what I mean.

>> You know, another interesting story,

>> but if you leave the firm, you get to

your capital can stay in the medallion

fund. So my claim to you is Jeffrey

Epstein had a story which is that he

only accepted a billion dollars or more

invested with him if you gave him power

of attorney. These things tend to have

some reason that no person outside has

money and gets to ask questions. Right?

>> So Jeffrey Epstein did not run a hedge

fund. He told me that he ran a

multistrategy FX hedge fund and that he

needed a 727

because it had a trading for and he

filled it with yeshiva students because

they were the only ones you could trust.

He was extremely specific about using

trend following, mean reversion and

carry is the three strategy. I think he

didn't say he said he didn't do any

gamma trading uh you know or or options

trading.

That was a lot. It was a cover story

that that was burned and then he became

disgraced financeier and then he became

tax expert Jeffrey Epstein. You're

looking at a fake world with cover

stories that fail over. If you remember

the old get smart wine, would you

believe,

you know, a thousand special agents are

going to swarm this? I find that very

difficult to believe.

>> Uh 100 policemen,

>> you know, not not true, Miss Maxwell.

Two two boy scouts with a slingshot.

This is fake.

And my claim is I don't know what's

going on at Renaissance, but Jim Simons

is an absolute genius. Hardly

distinguished in that. We have many. And

I don't know anybody who's ever gotten

close to these returns. I don't know any

information about what that thing

actually did, does claims to do.

>> Yeah. And I'm saying it has very close

relationships with a talent pool Stony

Brook which is not acknowledged and then

and a national lab.

>> Go back to 8384.

>> Yeah.

>> And assume we did not go into this

quantum universe that we

>> not quantum quantum gravity universe.

>> Quantum gravity universe, right?

>> And we're in a different universe where

we have a sense what does that physics

look like today? If we progress physics,

help an audience that's a generalist

audience understand a little bit about

what it means that if physics didn't

stall out and

before I do that, let me just ask this

question. Some would argue that physics

has played an important role and maybe

it's not fundamental and you could that

might be your answer here in advancing

things like semiconductor manufacturing

technology, advanced lithography,

material science. We've we've made

tremendous progress in our capacity to

drive compute and that's led to this

moment today where we have these tools

that we call AI,

>> right?

>> And all of the underlying advancements

in

chemistry, material science, physics got

us to this moment today. Yeah.

>> And that we have made progress and it

has been applied. And that would be one

argument.

>> And so maybe tell me why that that kind

of misses the point. and then we can

talk a little bit about kind of what

would the world look like today if we

didn't go off track in 1983 84.

>> Great question. Let me try to engage

that and then feel free to redirect me

if I'm not answering the question. In

the theory we have of which I'm going to

call it the the frontier model which

combines general relativity and the

standard model of particle theory.

We know certain things that we can't

use. We found out that there were three

veence quarks inside of every proton and

every neutron. And nobody has ever

pulled a veilance quark out of a proton

or a neutron in isolation. Something

called infrared slavery. Uh and screw

the woke for not saying we can't say the

word slavery. Infrared slavery. Deal

with it, boys. Um you have a situation

in which there is no industrial

application. We've known about it since

1968.

So sometimes you don't get to use

something for an extraordinarily

long period of time. But what happens if

some advancements maybe we're never

going to pull a quark out of a proton?

Maybe it's impossible.

What if there are other things we might

be able to do had physics actually

advanced? So for example in the mid

1970s the two gentlemen called Abdul

Salam and I forget Pat's first name put

forward the uh Patis Salam model. I

believe that the petis salam model will

be found to be the correct first order

grand unification above where we are.

Problem is is that it has something

called SU4 rather than SU3. And the SU3

is what generates the force that keeps

all those protons from running away from

each other inside of a nucleus because

obviously like charges are want to

repel. That's why we were able to take

out two Japanese cities in 1945 is that

we got control of the strong force and

then that allowed us to use the

electromagnetic force to generate

completely destructive um power but it

didn't destroy protons and neutrons.

What happens when you have SU4 is that

you see that the electron and the

nutrino are the fourth color that we

associate with the up quark and down

quark which make up protons and

neutrons.

You could have a weapon that rotates up

quarks and down quarks into the lighter

lepttons that disintegrate matter.

>> You could have dark chemistry. Dark is

not the right concept. It's really

decoupled matter. Dark matter is

decoupled matter.

Nutrinos are essentially dark matter.

They're barely detectable. In fact,

>> they don't interact.

>> Well, they do,

>> but very very weak.

>> Very, very weak. Only through the

gravitational and weak forces, which are

the two incredibly weak ones. And

gravity's so weak, it's not worth enough

nutrinos concentrated, you can

>> Well, but here's another here's a here's

a possibility. If you rotate a nutrino

into some charged particle, you can send

it through the earth.

>> Just explain what you mean by when you

say rotate. What does that mean? So this

these nutrinos are these subatomic

particles. They don't really interact

well. But what does it mean to rotate

them?

>> Well, let's take

>> and and I think a large amount of the

energy produced in the sun is neutrinos

that

>> actually come out like if you actually

>> you and I are being irdiated

>> by nutrinos

>> by billions of nutrinos. And the only

reason that we're not dead is that, you

know, imagine

>> they don't interact with our atoms.

>> Well, they barely interact. Once once in

a blue moon they do.

>> So, you know, at night the sun is

streaming this through the earth. It's

passing through all.

>> Yeah.

>> But it when it gets to us, it goes it it

keeps going. You know, you can shoot it

through I forget what it is a light year

of lead and you know, you very rarely

interact. What happens with the rotation

is in this sort of internal sense. So

it's kind of metaphor of rotation in

this abstract place

>> which leads to a neutron. If I put a

neutron on the table and we just sit

there and watch with a half life of

something like 17 minutes I forget it'll

turn into a proton and this is called

beta decay because what came out is that

people saw

an electron scream out of the neutron

and that's why a neutral particle became

positive because the negiveness went off

in the electron. So just to be clear for

the audience, a neutron can turn into a

proton and release an electron in at the

same time.

>> Yeah. But that turned out to be the

wrong model because what it really did

is is that you

>> there were three quarks inside of it and

one of the down quarks. So a neutron is

down down up. So a down quark

let off something called a W minus which

is a force particle not a matter

particle. and then that thing decayed

into an electron and something else. The

only reason we determined that there was

something else going on. It's a little

bit like accounting. If you have a

really good accounting system and you

notice that uh the envelope from the

till is a little light,

>> you say, okay, according to conservation

principles, somebody has been messing

with the money till

>> and that turned out to be the nutrino.

And so what happens is is that a nutrino

and an electron have the same

relationship as an up and a down quark

and you can transmute them using these W

uh W particles. The danger of this is

that when you have more force particles

than we know currently

things that are to all intents and

purposes stable now might not be stable

in that new regime. So you could

disintegrate a mountain potentially if

SU5

uh is present. SU4 is more stable than

the SU5. I don't think SU5 is relevant.

But what I'm saying is if you think

about physics, think about boom, vroom,

and zoom as an easy way to keep track of

why this is our most terrifying and most

amazing subject. Boom is weaponry,

vroom is energy, and zoom is propulsion,

computation, and all the cool stuff that

we get to do. So if you want to think

about it, you've been denied

for, let's say, the standard model got

finalized more or lessif 53 years ago.

For 53 years, you've been denied new

boom, vroom, and zoom. And potentially

the stagnation in physics may have led

to the survival of the human species

because the boom is so terrifying. I

can't tell you whether that's true or

not, but it means that you don't have

any room and zoom from the new stuff

that could have occurred. And so, we

have to be honest. I want I want the the

zoom in particular. We could probably

make the case that no one on earth got

there and everyone has aligned around

the distraction,

the disinterest and the pursuit

because of that absolute risk. Because

if someone did actually make

advancements

and they could access the bigger boom,

>> yeah,

>> it would be game over already. I mean,

there's no such thing as more absolute

power that would give an individual or a

group the ability to leverage that in

some way to their kind of infinite will.

And

>> I don't I don't agree with this at all.

>> Great. Okay.

>> So, I spent

two years indoors

beingounded to be vaccinated

because of four amino acids

being spliced into spike protein of

corona virus.

Now, my guess is that that's pretty

easy, right? Think about it. You need 12

nucleotides to code for four amino acids

at the exact right place in spike

protein and that's enough to shut down

Earth.

These are this is high lever science.

And my claim is before we decide that

what we want is let's get back to

kicking ass and taking names, let us at

least pause and say most people are

ignorant of how much power is present

with a little bit of scientific

knowledge. which is a marvelous scene in

Breaking Bad where the protagonist named

Heisenberg takes what appears to be

crystal meth and throws it uh in the

office of a psychopath named Tuco

and

Tuco says well like what the hell was

that that caused that massive explosion

I forget whether it was lead aside or

mercury fulminate or one of these

extremely volatile compounds

do you have any idea how easy it is to

make black powder I I I asked modern

audiences nobody knows that it's 75%

salt peter, 10% sulfur, and 15%

charcoal. The anarchist cookbook

has gone out of discussion. The power of

science, the leverage of science is so

profound that we should at least ask the

question, what if you had nuclear

weapons that didn't require centrifuge?

What if there are easy things to do

that high school students could do? You

you remember this guy who scavenged the

amaresium and smoke detectors to build a

working reactor and I think it was

Brooklyn.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Well, nobody thought collect 218

smoke detectors and you can have a

working nuclear reactor.

>> Yeah. So my claim is that if you want to

think about Walter White as a paradigm,

you have to go back to something called

the United States versus progress the

progressive magazine in which the teller

Ulam design for thermonuclear weapon was

put forward by a publication

and the government said no no this is

restricted data. We need prior

injunction. This is the most dangerous

piece of geometry. This is Stan Ulum's

work. And the whole idea is that if

you're going to use a fision device

chemical shell compresses sub uh

critical file material to create a

detonator out of an atomic bomb. How do

you get that to compress a rod or

something into a fusion device? The only

thing that can reach that tertiary stage

fast enough is light. you have to figure

out the geometry because it's the the

detonator is going to rip apart the

entire assembly if it doesn't get now

that secret got published and the only

reason the government didn't go after

um Howard what is it Morland is that we

stupidly declassified all sorts of

pieces and shards of this and he went to

the Los Alamos library and he pieced it

together so

my claim is if you don't know the story

of John Aristotle Phillips, the

substandard

um physicist who in his Princeton PhD

thesis as the Princeton mascot said,

"Look, I'm not very good, Freeman Dyson.

I want to use the fact that I'm not very

good to do something amazing. Tell me

whether or not you will let me come up

with a plan for an atomic bomb." And

Freeman Dyson said, "I will give you no

help, but I'll tell you whether it will

work." So the substandard physicist put

together this and he submitted his

junior thesis

and I forget whether it's page 24 but

that that thesis is not in the library

and the government removed the page that

has the plan. The fact is that this

stuff is readily present

and we've never seen an atomic weapon

used since 1945 mostly if we don't use

this power.

But if it turns out that it's easy to

do, then and by the way, if the US fails

with Iran, you're going to see a

proliferation of countries

acquiring nukes because we trusted the

US. But you've got this. You are the

world's policemen. Petrol dollars aren't

petro dollars. They're violence dollars.

The US was supposed to have the violence

needed to secure the oil, and the oil

backs the money. We're watching the

disintegration of that regime in real

time as the US goes through its Suez

moment,

right? You know, whe whether you think

Donald Trump should have gone in to Iran

or not, and I I happen to think that he

was courageous and did something that we

should have done in 1981 or ' 82 or

something. We have to win. We we have to

win because if you have a world that

decides that there is no world's

policeman,

everybody's going to want their own

nuke.

And you can go back to the Tom Lair song

called Who's Next? And you'll you'll

you'll find that more or less you're

going to have a world in which you can't

figure out the game theory because it's

no longer diatic. It's multipolar.

>> Imagine a world beyond nukes.

>> Sure.

>> What does that world look like? So what

else is there beyond the boundaries of

what at this point is almost a 80 year

old technology?

>> Sure.

>> And again I go back to the 83 story.

We're making advancements. Did we stop

making advancements? And is someone else

is China going to make these

advancements? And what does that look

like? Is that what UAPs unidentified

aerial phenomena are? Because you've

recently made comments that you were a

deep skeptic on UAPs but now you you

have a view that maybe there's something

there. Oh, there's definitely something

there there.

>> Okay,

>> that's something there. There, by the

way, maybe China. It may be us. It may

be a fake story, but there's definitely

something there

>> based on the videos and the first person

accounts.

>> It's not the videos. I I've never cared

about the videos.

>> I've talked to too many smart, sober

people, too many similar stories.

>> There are definitely special access

programs. Yeah.

>> That are all about this. Yeah. The only

thing that we learn from uh that that

works for to keep secrets is

compartmentalization.

And so we are so compartmentalized that

almost no one can piece the story

together. It may be that the the

so-called stove piping is such that we

can't figure out what we know because we

can't talk to each other.

If you want to know what's possible, I

could freak you out and it would be

super cool and super frightening. One

thing is is that I'm worried about

multi-temporal adversaries,

>> time traveling,

>> times travel,

>> times,

>> everybody says time travel because they

think that time can only be

one-dimensional. But imagine, for

example, that you put a giant gun on a

rail car. The rail car can only move in

one dimension. Now, somebody puts a

giant gun on something like a tank and

you go to the Bonavville Salt Flats.

Now, you can move in two dimensions. Now

you put it on an A-10 warthog and you

can move in three. Those are all spatial

dimensions. Why do you think there's an

arrow of time? It's because you believe

time can only be one-dimensional. I

don't think time is one-dimensional.

And I if you meet an adversary who has

access to multi- time, it's like you're

trying to compete with them with an A-10

Warthog and you've got your only gun on

a on a track except with time rather

than with space. if I could sneak up

behind you in time knowing your intent.

I mean, this is terrifying stuff to me.

And it's also like I would love to have

this over our adversaries,

but I don't want to meet anybody who

knows how to do this kind of stuff, not

on a level playing field. Let me say

another one. The solar system is an

escape room. And Elon is focused was

focused on Mars. I said that Mars is a

red herring. It's a mcguffin. Tonight,

it's focused on the moon. He is our only

adult so far as I can tell uh crazy and

mad as he is and he uses that to

motivate engineers because Mars is

barely doable. These are the only rocks

that are potentially habitable. It's not

enough diversity if we have this much

power in this these few spheres with

which we could put atmosphere. So assume

that you could put atmospheres on the

Mars and on the moon and you could get

back and forth between them with

chemical rockets. You'd have three

places to screw up. We need tens of

thousands, if not millions of places

before we figure out how to civilize

ourselves. So, we have to get out of

here. It's too expensive to leave the

solar system. So, my claim is that in an

Einsteinian world, you're never going

to. If Einstein is left to be in force,

the speed of light is too brutal. So,

you go to Alpha Century, four light

years away, you come back, you do it at

nearly the speed of light.

Everything is eight years advanced by

the time you get back home. Nobody wants

to do that. And that's just the first

star.

My claim is is that we have been too

long in Einstein's prison. General

relativity really begins in 1913. It's

really due to Grossman and Einstein, not

just Einstein alone. I don't know why we

say that. Uh it's not really Einstein

Hilbert. It's really Einstein Grossman.

But more or less since 1915 1917, the

equations haven't moved. They're going

to break because of what's happening in

southern Arizona. Tit Peak has this

object called Desi, the dark energy

spectroscopic instrument. And I believe

that it is going to show that the

cosmological constant times the metric,

which is how we encode dark energy into

the equation, is going to break because

it's not constant. The only reason that

you have lambda times the metric which

is this term

is the product rule. If you take a

derivative called divergence,

you have to take the derivative of

lambda times the metric left alone plus

lambda* the derivative of the metric.

The derivative of the metric has to

vanish. That term is the only possible

term that can go there because of

something called love locks theorem. If

you're within general relativity, you're

trying to do this geometrically.

My claim is is that that's going to

break. We're going to get to five sigma

if we aren't there already. I haven't

kept up with the news. And then we're

going to realize that the dark energy,

the most important generally

>> makes up 60 70 80% of our universe.

>> We have the wrong formula for it.

>> We have no contemplation of what it is.

>> Well, I I'm focused on saying I have a

candidate formula and I think everybody

who has one should come forward. where

we should hold a conference and say who

wins, who's who's got the best idea. We

can't just have Ed Whitten patting

himself on the back saying, "Well,

string theory is the only game in town."

It's like 42 years later,

come on. This this is preposterous.

Getting back to policy, give me some

money and get rid of these people. I

don't want them reviewing anything that

I'm doing. Give me somebody competent to

talk to.

>> So, sorry, let me just go back. The dark

energy

measurement, which we're going to end up

having a very high accurate estimation,

>> right,

>> tells us that the general theory of

relativity and the equations associated

with it are wrong because of the

relationship that we see between matter

and rotation and movement. And so

there's something off about that. And

that

>> we know that general relativity is not

the last. We know general relativity is

wrong.

>> It is a view. It is a derivative.

>> It is the map and not the territory. It

is a great great model. Whoever comes

next has to recover it. But there is no

initial singularity due to the big bang.

Nor is there a singularity in the in the

center of a black hole called the

Schwarz singularity.

That's that's where our ignorance shows.

We have two singularities we can't get

rid of inside the theory. So you have to

go outside of it. But the thing is it's

so perfect.

>> Yeah. that nobody can figure out, you

know, sort of in the first four seconds

of a physics talk, you say, "Let X13 be

a space-time manifold." Well, okay, it's