Open main menu
Home
Random
Log in
Settings
About The Portal Wiki
Disclaimers
The Portal Wiki
Search
Editing
Geometric Unity Predictions
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{#widget:YouTube|id=PYRYXhU4kxM|start=4261}} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379874520526299136 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU it’s 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation. Again I would need QFT colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect. |thread= {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=In strong GU: SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) (Standard Model) Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside Spin(6)xSpin(4) =SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2) (Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).) I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4): |media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg |quote= {{Tweet |image=11Equity-profile.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/11Equity/status/1379832703848230916 |name=11 |usernameurl=https://x.com/11Equity |username=11Equity |content=@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677 |timestamp=4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872179026677760 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find: |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 |media1=ERW-X-post-1379872179026677760.jpg }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872184387039232 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with Standard model symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their ‘internal’ quantum numbers as: |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 |media1=ERW-X-post-1379872184387039232.jpg }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872185871822848 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them? A: I don’t. But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges. |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872186740080647 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a QFT calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague. So let’s talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. That’s not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare. |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872187692187648 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely. But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ “Beyond the Standard Model” theories. 🙏 |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872188593926144 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=P.S. Happy to attempt to sharpen what GU can say. But not working on my own outside the community. If you want more precise predictions than I already have, I’d need access to normal resources (e.g. constructive QFT colleagues). Working outside from home it’s probably impossible. |timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} |timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021 }} {{stub}}
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to The Portal Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
The Portal:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)