Editing Standard Model (section)

=== 2024 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060797847208382
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=[Note for Curt: This is the whole point of [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]]. They are three geometries. Which are all one geometry, and that is only possible in the rarest of circumstances. Which we are in oddly. 

Metric Geometry: [[General Relativity|General Relativity GR]]
[[Bundles|Fiber Geometry]]:  [[Standard Model|Standard Model SM]]
Symplectic Geometry: Hamiltonian Quantization of the [[Standard Model|SM]]. ]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=TOEwithCurt-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt/status/1773057150199238985
|name=Curt Jaimungal
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt
|username=TOEwithCurt
|content=I'm confused. This lecture doesn't negate the geometric foundations of GR. Einstein differentiates between how gravity and electromagnetism relate to the structure of space, all the while pointing to his ultimate goal of unification. As for the rest of the original article linked, I'm unsure how the quotes from Einstein support the author's title. GR is indeed a geometric theory; however, Einstein's viewpoint was that its geometric nature doesn't singularly distinguish it from the broader domain of physics, where geometry has always played a fundamental role. If anything, Einstein is saying not to confuse the map with the territory.
|timestamp=6:39 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060553411641673
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=He is correctly anticipating the Simons-Yang discovery of the [[Wu-Yang Dictionary|“Wu Yang dictionary”]]. 

Maxwell became Yang Mills</br>
Yang Mills became Simons Yang.</br>
Simons Yang became the Wu Yang Dictionary.</br>
[[Wu-Yang Dictionary|Wu Yang]] was (except for one entry) was [[Bundles|Ehressmann fiber bundle geometry]]. 

Think of metric geometry, fiber geometry and symplectic geometry as the geometry of symmetric metric 2-tensors, [[Bundles|fiber bundle connections]] and anti-symmetric 2 tensors respectively.
|timestamp=6:52 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:53 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774099388329234800
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Longer discussion. But SUSY and GUTs both got associated with particular instantiations of general ideas by zealots. 

The SU(5) and MSSM variants failed and then, oddly, the community moved to a dysfunctional interpretation. If no observed SU(5) proton decay then downgrade ALL GUTs. Similar for E-W scale super partners. 

The community is just bizarrely intellectually dysfunctional now. Strings has an infinite leash and the other good ideas are ignored with this monstrous new EFT defeatism as the new sophistication. I still can’t believe this is our world.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The number of new particles is a very bad indicator for how predictive a theory is

There‘re one-parameter models that predict infinitely many new particles (e.g. SU(N) and models with many, many parameters that predict no new particles (e.g mod gravity)

1/2
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=If anyone tells you a theory is more or less motivated by counting particles, they either don’t understand this argument or they hope you don’t 

2/2
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773742711579050158
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=So let’s talk about the best new theories with new particle predictions.

What are your favorite top 5 theories formulated over say the last 25 years ranked by well motivated particle predictions just as you see it Martin? Then as the community sees them? Thx.
|timestamp=4:03 PM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The [[Standard Model|SM]] withstood every experimental test apart from neutrino masses, dark matter & gravity. Explaining those needs new degrees of freedom

Besides this most effort has been put on treating the [[Standard Model|SM]] itself as a low energy EFT which implies new dof but is agnostic about which
|timestamp=8:44 AM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774053944467374254
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I’m not truly understanding even though I think I follow everything you wrote. I sense the word “agnostic” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in not giving me 5 modern theories. 

One way of making sense of what you just posted is that there isn’t enough information in the Wilsonian EFT framing to want to worry about any particles/fields/dof that aren’t strictly needed to close the observed physics off within the current energy regime. Is that what you mean??

If so…yikes.
|timestamp=12:39 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MetaLevelUp-profile-kaVe55de.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp/status/1774057075724657146
|name=MetaLevelUp
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp
|username=MetaLevelUp
|content=This is basically EFT in a nutshell though

Many UV theories map to the same set of operators at low energy ("agnostic" but not info-free). The latter correspond (in principle) to observables which, if seen in experiment, could be used to limit the underlying space of UV theories
|timestamp=12:52 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774092904459629027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Nice to meet you.

I am not unaware of this…but I am shocked by the *change* in the interpretation of EFT during the String Era.

40 years ago, the Standard Model was considered geometrically beautiful but mysterious. “SO(10)” was an example of how to get a 3 factor reductive Lie group and a bizarre series of internal quantum numbers to become elegant. In short, the [[Standard Model|SM]] was an EFT, but not a random one. It was a coherent idea that pointed the way towards its own preferred completion/extension. Oddly, String phenomenology recognized this. 

Then as the field spun off into mathematically informed medieval theology, the [[Standard Model|SM]] started to be seen as ugly. A random EFT without a preferred extrapolation towards its Planckian revelation. Seeing the [[Standard Model|SM]] as in anyway distinguished became seen as “not getting [[Ken Wilson|Wilson’s]] point” analogous to archaic views on strong reductionism. 

This is such a disaster to think this is what Martin means. It’s the physics version of Seligman’s “Learned Helplessness”‘theory.
|timestamp=3:14 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MetaLevelUp-profile-kaVe55de.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp/status/1774095907379655062
|name=MetaLevelUp
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp
|username=MetaLevelUp
|content=Great to meet you too! Been following your work for a very long time 🙂

I'm not old enough to have witnessed this change, but I *am* old enough to have seen similar dynamics around SUSY in the LHC era (and for many of the same reasons), so your story fits for me.
|timestamp=3:26 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
|timestamp=3:40 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1778141545260331295
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=In the passing of Peter Higgs, we lost one of our last living connections to the Lagrangian of the Standard Model.

Peter Higgs was involved with both lines 3 & 4 of this “Recipe for the Universe.”

The level of the Higgs field φ becomes the as-if mass for the matter ψ in the mysterious ψy ψ φ term on line 3. This goes under the name “Yukawa coupling” if you wish to look it up.

How do you get that level (“vacuum expectation value” or VEV) to generate a positive mass m and not to be φ =0? That’s the job of the V(φ) term on line 4 which goes under the name “Mexican Hat potential” to induce “spontaneous symmetry breaking” for those googling.

Lastly, once you give life to this field φ which bears Higgs’ name, you have to animate it so that its excitations know how to move as waves. This is the job of the <nowiki>| D φ | ²</nowiki> “Kinetic Term” at the beginning of line 4. You can Google “Klein-Gordon Lagrangian” here. 

I have recently heard commentators like  @michiokaku and @seanmcarroll opine that our Standard Model is “Ugly as Sin” or “It looks ugly. It’s both ugly and beautiful…It’s ungainly.” respectively.

I think that such physicists are *quite* wrong in that, but that is not the point here as I can guess how they see this. And in large measure they aren’t talking about lines 1 and 2 as “ugly”, which pretty much everyone agrees are beautiful as they come directly from Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein, and are present in the original [[Quantum Field Theory|Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT)]] called Quantum Electro-dynamics (or QED). 

So to simplify matters, lines 1 and 2 are sort of canonically beautiful and appear so to essentially everyone. Lines 3 and 4 governing the Higgs field (with their expansion to 3 forces across 3 generations of matter) are what divide us. The only thing that forces them on us is the weak force and it’s bizarre decision to act only on “Left handed matter and right handed anti-matter.”

And so the legacy of Peter Higgs is tied up in the sui generis nature of the weak nuclear force and what makes the Standard Model “new” beyond QED.

I’m sad that I never met the man. But I believe what comes next is not [[String Theory]], but instead a recognition that the last two lines of this Lagrangian point the way to seeing the [[Standard Model]] as the classic “Elegant Swan” confused by many for an “Ugly Duckling” due to the misappraisal of its Higgs sector as if it were just an ad hoc mass mechanism. RIP.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Fermilab-profile-sZ1TMaxM.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab/status/1777786518393835759
|name=Fermilab
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab
|username=Fermilab
|content=Peter Higgs, after whom the Higgs boson was named, has left a remarkable impact on particle physics. The field changed forever on July 4, 2012 when the Higgs boson was discovered, cementing the final piece in the Standard Model of particle physics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/science/peter-higgs-dead.html
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Apr 9, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:22 PM · Apr 10, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1778141545260331295-GK05prgaIAAe-2V.jpg
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827761781261103246
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=NOTE: I was addressing these questions directly to my friend @skdh as a reponse  to the OP when I posted. That said, many people are interpreting this as a general request and I am delighted to hear their takes as well.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827740131799011345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Interesting. If that’s what’s wrong, what would physics done right be?

Q1: What are the 3 most promising general lines of attack on fundamental physics?

Q2: Who are 5 theorists, in your opinion, closest to pursuing a breakthrough beyond the Standard Model/General Relativity?
🙏
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1827724986427281497
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=all that's wrong with theoretical physics in one simple graph
|media1=skdh-X-post-1827724986427281497-GV1iMAkXwAAOBNM.jpg
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827741517571887579
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Yet another cut would be: 

If the caption were instead reversed to read “All that is right with theoretical physics in one simple graph.”, what would that look like visually?

I’m genuinely super curious to learn about what you’re most excited, as I realized I don’t really know!
|timestamp=4:15 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
|timestamp=5:35 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834702103211917754
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=For some reasons that have never been explained or justified leaders in physics started making the claim that [[General Relativity|GR]] *was* also a gauge theory. This was done by claiming that general coordinate invariance in the form of the diffeomorphism group is a kind of Gauge Transformation. Which it clearly is not. 

This is absurd. Gauge transformations move the fibers and are defined not to move space time where as diffeomorphisms move space time directly. 

So: why claim that GR is a kind of gauge theory? The only payoff I see is that this allows us to pretend that the [[Standard Model|SM]] vs [[General Relativity|GR]] incompatibility is classical vs quantum where it is staring us in the face that it is instead contraction-based ([[General Relativity|GR]]) vs Gauge Transformed ([[Standard Model|SM]]). 

The only reason this is at all controversial is that the people saying it were thought to be the leaders 40 years ago. 

That didn’t work out. We have 40 years lost as a result. 

But the truth is anyone can see the incompatibility between gravity and [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]] if they are not being told that gravity is a special kind of [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]]. Which it absolutely is not as formulated by Grossman, Einstein and Hilbert.

[[Morals|Moral]]: The problem holding us back from a Theory of everything is **Classical**, and not Quantum. The quantum comes as desert after classical compatibility. It’s not the main issue. A red hearing that throws us off following the scent. It’s a distraction that should have fooled almost no one who was thinking for his or her self.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834698277356527999
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=This is what is blocking progress in my opinion for physics to go beyond [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] and [[General Relativity]].

40 years ago, the leaders of physics started claiming that gravity had to be quantized to be compatible with the [[Standard Model]].

But the incompatibility is *not* Quantum vs Classical field theory. The *classical* field theory of the [[Standard Model]] is already not compatible with classical [[General Relativity]].

[[General Relativity]], at least as it is now, simply cannot be gauged so as to make it a true gauge theory, because Gauge transformation does *not* commute with the Ricci Contractions used in the field equations, and within the Einstein Hilbert action.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=postquantum-profile-CoJxMwrT.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/postquantum/status/1834184677860491584
|name=Jonathan Oppenheim
|usernameurl=https://x.com/postquantum
|username=postquantum
|content=I wish I deserved the heretic moniker, but isn’t asking whether spacetime is quantum or classical just common sense? After all, general relativity (GR) - our theory of gravity and spacetime - is special. It isn’t a gauge theory, and gravity isn’t a force. 1/
|timestamp=10:57 AM · Sep 12, 2024
}}
|timestamp=8:58 PM · Sep 13, 2024
}}
|timestamp=9:14 PM · Sep 13, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849982838264988060
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I want to end on a personal note despite the dangers of being 'real' on X.

When a mathematics or physics PhD leaves academic research departments behind to work on research on their own, it is very difficult to function. It is almost impossible. 

For the last 10-15 years, [[Edward Frenkel|Ed Frenkel]] has been like a one man research department for me to talk about [[Differential Geometry]], Representation Theory, Algebraic Topology/Homotopy Theory, Particle Theory of the [[Standard Model]], [[General Relativity]], Geometric and [[Quantum Field Theory]], Lie Theory, Differential Topology, Elliptic Operators, Category theory, Spinorial Algebra, etc.

Whatever I have needed to discuss across a very broad range of topics, [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] has been able to meet me. I speak from experience: other than another man named David Kazhdan (a coauthor of Ed's), I have not seen this easy ability to switch contexts at a personal level. [[Edward Frenkel|Edward]] is not just a remarkable mind, but an extraodinary individual, and friend at multiple different levels.

[[Edward Frenkel|Ed]]: Congratulations. I couldn't be more excited for you brother. Looking forward.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849977335858254241
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=[[Edward Frenkel|UC Berkeley Prof. Edward Frenkel @edfrenkel]] is one of the world's great mathematical minds.  He has just decided to launch a video-podcast called AfterMath. 

This is just beginning today and should mature and be amazing. 

{{#widget:YouTube|id=7eejAeqYFCg}}
|timestamp=12:52 AM · Oct 26, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849978643189203212
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=In my opinion, knowing [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] as I do, It certainly has the potential to change everything in the space of high level science communication around both Mathematics and Physics (Particularly [[Quantum Field Theory]]). 

Within mathematics [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] is unusually approachable, with collaborative work across film, art, literature, philosophy and psychology. He and I have known each other since Harvard snatched him from the Soviet Union at its bitter end to come to our math department. Years later we reconnected and started going on various adventures in the US and abroad. I believe I even had a breakthrough in my own work when we even spent an entire surreal week completely covered in alkaline dust arguing about cinema and particle theory in a tiny two man tent, with most details mercifully lost to history, vodka and the Burning Man playa.

In any event, it is very uncommon for research mathematicians to use words like 'Genius', but that is probably how [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] struck us American graduate students in the department at the time; an always smiling Russian immigrant of few English words, who seemed to understand everything across the hardest fields almost instantly.  My recollection was that it took him around one year to get a PhD. Something like that.

[[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] has since matured into a fine author and public speaker with fantastic command of American English. While he is just getting started on his chanel, he already brings up a great point in his first video that I don't think I ever fully considered and just discussed with him last night: mathematics is not communicated or learned through sensory input. We can build visual models or use symbols, but the actual structures we discover are not sensory in nature. And that this leads to disorientation because in some sense they are built inside the mind without any experience of them having come in (via our senses) from the outside world.

Subscribe to [[Edward Frenkel|@edfrenkel]] on @X and on his YouTube channel. This is likely to eventually wend its way up to the most beautiful but otherwise inaccessible science content that we almost never get in the public sphere, presented by a top researcher (rather than a popularizer) at the height of his powers.
|timestamp=12:57 AM · Oct 26, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1849978643189203212-GaxxpV1bAAAEuXc.jpg
}}
|timestamp=1:14 AM · Oct 26, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1849982838264988060-Gax05ALbEAAvHKf.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1849982838264988060-Gax1GZxaAAAy-3f.jpg
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871127090067915264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Some of us propose such solutions. 

Some of us do not.

Those that propose other solutions are targeted for self-promotion.

Those that do not are told "You have no alternatives."

Woit is an excellent example of someone who was told he was barren when he was a pure critic...only to then be told he was a self-promoter when he had something to say about the structure bundle of CP^3 being potentially the low energy electro strong SU(3)xU(1) and the oddity of the chirality of the weak force being either fully on or off rather than merely conjugate V vs \bar{V}.

It's time to stop pretending this is about physics. It's about protecting a 4 decade MASSIVE screw up pretending that there is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|only one game in town]].
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1870919779189670098
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this claim.

"News Story:  Physicists ‘Bootstrap’ Validity of String Theory NYU and Caltech scientists develop innovative mathematical approach to back existence of long-held framework explaining all physical reality"

https://nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/december/physicists--bootstrap--validity-of-string-theory-.html
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=MattStrassler-profile-X2IZ87ok.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler/status/1870210427189141892
|name=Matt Strassler
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler
|username=MattStrassler
|content=Certain strategies, used in politics, are also used by various angry scientists who have found ways to made it big in the media.  These strategies are effective.  But they must indeed be translated, just as Sam suggests here. https://x.com/Samuel_Gregson/status/1870158470575427620
|timestamp=8:51 PM · Dec 20, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:50 PM · Dec 22, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MattStrassler-profile-X2IZ87ok.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler/status/1871037821525643414
|name=Matt Strassler
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler
|username=MattStrassler
|content=I fail to see the relation between my comment and yours, Eric. I was hardly referring to the topics that you mentioned, and neither was Sam.
|timestamp=3:39 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871122619661205902
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Hi Matt. 

Sam regularly portrays himself as outraged about 'angry' or 'dissatisfied' or otherwise 'upset' voices and insinuates that they are turning to sensationalism. I furnished two (of very many) cases that folks like Sam would find absolutely outrageous if the real concern was damaging science with sensationalism, and which cause *far* more harm to fundamental physics than independent voices like Sabine Hossenfelder.

SG is a brand on line. A guy who tries to make the establishment seem 'edgy'...often by targeting people who are raising the real issues with the institutions.

The big problem for fundamental physics is institutional sensationalism, excuse-making, and cheerleading for failing programs as well as anti-collegial behavior of the form that SG regularly tries to turn into disparagment for entertainment. 

Many of those independent critical voices are actually focused on *institutional* sensationalism particularly surrounding outrageous claims for particle theory,  [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] and [[String Theory|String Theory/m-theory]]. 

I generally view your public outreach work very favorably, communicating the beauty of the [[Standard Model]], and to a lesser extent GR. Within research, you  mostly seem to be trying to connect [[String Theory]] and other speculative frameworks to things like experimental accelerator signatures. Despite my distaste for 4-decades of anti-scientfic String Triumphalism and dissembling from the Susskinds, Wittens, Motls, Grosses and others, I have never associated that with you.

Gregson clearly has a problem. He is strawmanning colleagues talking about a VERY real problem of denial, and anti-collegial behavior which is anethma to science.
I may not agree with @skdh's critique (this is no secret to her), but even I can steelman her points.

I feel like people such as yourself, David Tong, @3blue1brown, etc are doing amazing work.  I was simply disappointed to see a leading voice of high level outreach join a toxic voice gleefully targeting a colleague. I thought 'Perhaps Matt is not be aware of SG's MO."
|timestamp=9:16 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871124671053345101
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I'm just not going to put up with this quietly again after all the sadistic cruelty Sabine has been through from the Lubos Motl's of the world while her community largely stayed silent or laughed along.

SG can man up and take Sabine on if he likes. But the man has an anti-collegial strawman problem followed by blocking.
|timestamp=9:24 AM · Dec 23, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1871124671053345101-GfeRDnQaIAAZVdB.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=matterasmachine-profile-4x5ZEdlX.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/matterasmachine/status/1871125330326646826
|name=Matter as Machine
|usernameurl=https://x.com/matterasmachine
|username=matterasmachine
|content=Sabine Hossenfelder does not propose any alternative.
Critics makes no sense until there is alternative solution.
|timestamp=9:26 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
|timestamp=9:33 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}