Editing Bernhard Riemann

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980687868648566784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=END/ I am sorry that this was a bit technical for lay folks and not technical enough for experts, but it's twitter. I may begin to say more in the weeks and months ahead that may be clarifying. 

If you are interested, do stay tuned. Until then, I thank you for your time.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980669687313850368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice.

I was challenged by someone as to why I wasn't taking my own medicine referenced in the sub-tweet below this April 1st.  Ok. Here goes.

What I believe about the universe that is quite different and why I don't talk about it much...
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/979379894978150400
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ APRIL FOOL'S SCIENCE: A proposal.

Already bored of the coming "April Fools' Day!" pranks? Same here. And it's still March!

Consider how we might re-purpose this resource for science. What if 1 day a year, we explored big ideas that'd normally result in professional shunning?
|timestamp=3:28 PM · Mar 29, 2018
}}
|timestamp=4:54 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980671434153275393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ When I was around 16-17, I learned of a story that fascinated me much more than it seemed to captivate any other mathematician or physicist. It was the story of the discovery of the [[Wu-Yang Dictionary|"Wu-Yang" dictionary]] around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: [[Jim Simons]], [[CN Yang]] &amp; [[Isadore Singer|Is Singer]].
|timestamp=5:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980673146398244865
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr 
&amp; [[Paul Dirac|Dirac]] was built on an internal Geometry, just as surely as [[General Relativity]] was built on an external geometry of space-time. Only the two geometries weren't the same! One was due to [[Bernhard Riemann|B Riemann]]; the other to [[Charles Ehresmann|C Ehresmann]].
|timestamp=5:07 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980674834215481344
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ Further the 2 geometries had different advantages. Riemann's geometry allowed you to compress the curvature &amp; measure the 'torsion' while Ehresmann's encouraged "[[Gauge Theory|Gauge]] Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified?
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980677084094783489
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified &amp; rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!' 

Almost.
|timestamp=5:23 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980680721353199618
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be chiral, I came to believe it was fundamentally symmetric. While we seemed to observe there being 3 or more generations of matter, I came to believe that there were but 2 true generations, plus an improbable "imposter." etc...
|timestamp=5:37 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980682507107602432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=7/ In short a great many things had to be slightly off in our picture of the world in the 1980s to get the two geometric theories into a "Geometric Unity." Then in 1998, it was found that neutrinos weren't massless! This started to tip the scales towards the alterations I needed.
|timestamp=5:45 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980683552487440384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where chirality would be emergent (not fundamental), the number of true generations would be 2 not 3, there would be 2^4 and not 15 Fermions in a generation, and the geometries unify.
|timestamp=5:49 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980686736375164928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=9/ I spoke on this nearly 5 years ago; I have been slow to get back to it as I found the physics response bewildering. I have now decided to return to this work &amp; to disposition it. So over the coming year, I'll begin pushing out [[Theory of Geometric Unity|"Geometric Unity"]] (as a non-physicist) to experts.
|timestamp=6:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-958034414167982080-DUufH-dVAAAD8jD.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:06 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}

== Related Pages ==

* [[Charles Ehresmann]]
* [[Gauge Theory]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]