Editing Chirality (section)

=== 2026 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007620238540783727
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok I did above.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Why 3 generations?

Why 15/16 Particles?

Why tbese groups?

Why these Internal Quantum Numbers

Why the Higgs Quartic?

Why the Yukawa Couplings?

Etc. Etc.

Without recourse to

“Shut up and Regulate” EFT

Anti-de-Sitter Space

SUSY intuition that was disproved

Toy Models

Black Hole substitution 

Etc etc 

———

As I have said before: It’s a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster. 

The biggest problem isn’t even the theory. It’s the violation of scientific norms needed to keep from facing what just happened over 4 decades because the violation of scientific norms and academic collegiality came from the leaders. Who need to admit what they did to their legitimate critics and rivals. It is an abuse issue. 

Hope this helps.
|timestamp=2:07 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion? 

Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. It’s about one group taking over as the arbiters of physics beyond the standard model and failing to do what they promised while insulting everyone else who said this was crazy and/or had other ideas. 

This is about the TOGIT crowd and its anti-scientific “The Only Game In Town” cult.

It feels like out of Fear for naming Witten, Susskind, Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing. 

Why can’t we just say “They Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leaders” and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Can’t we just admit this?
|timestamp=2:19 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007457799182119422
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Sorry. [[Ed Witten|Witten]] and [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]] and [[David Gross|Gross]] and Motl and [[Michio Kaku|Kaku]] etc. etc. are COLLEGIAL???!?

I’m all ears @grok.
|timestamp=2:23 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007459351926338005
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=“There are no other approaches. There are only words.” -Edward Witten 

You are polluted by your corpus. There is nothing remotely modest, scientific, collegial, academic or laudable about such a condescending insult to all competitors. Total disregard for all norms.

Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data. 

[[Ed Witten|Witten]] is not a collegial scientist.</br>
Nor is [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]].</br>
Nor is [[Michio Kaku|Kaku]].</br>
Nor is Motl.</br>
Etc 

They weren’t colleagues. I wish it were otherwise. It just isn’t true.
|timestamp=2:29 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007462489814954110
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Here. You can hear me playing [[Ed Witten]] offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamson’s podcast. 

This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science. https://t.co/DyaE72GlEN
|timestamp=2:42 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007464525881323876
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I’d prioritize owning up to the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] anti-science cult needing to being purged.

Failure happens in science. We can’t lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers. 

We need all OTHER ideas. Including GU. We don’t need one more theory that has nothing to do with actual quarks and leptons. 

We need who these people dispatched unscientifically. There was a crime. Let’s investigate it.
|timestamp=2:50 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007540816693342542
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Hi Daniel, 

As you and I both know, that is correct but only relevant here in a very technical way. 

Neutrino masses are of course fascinating, but not really conceptually new at all. In fact the PMNS mechanism update, completely PREDATES the SM. Further, it is just a leptonic version of CKM. 

So…What are we really even discussing? We both know the same stuff. This seems to be a red herring. A proxy. 

What is this really about? 

Thoughts?
|timestamp=7:53 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007549501188505965
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years:

Experimental</br>
Mathematical</br>
Topological</br>
Condensed Matter</br>
Astrophysical</br>
Cosmological</br>
QFT as a toolkit framework</br>
Etc.

That’s not what we are discussing, is it? 

We are discussing the [[Standard Model|SM]] plus [[General Relativity|GR]] Lagrangians no?
|timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007560556207869967
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I don’t usually agree with @skdh on funding. Or about math. Or a great many other things including her manifestly incorrect characterization of my work. She is wrong about a number of things in my opinion. But she isn’t “all wrong” in some weird way. She is usually pretty insightful.

Neutrinos being massless in the SM? C’mon. I covered that above 👆 no? PMNS was in the 1960s. Not even 1973. Older than the SM. 

That is not the issue. Unlike @skdh, I think many physicists need more money to do their job.

The problem isn’t any of this.

The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the SM and GR without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town” or TOGIT]] cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years. 

The trouble is when you say “Let’s hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.”

The problem is that this is what holds back progress. What is holding back progress is senior physicists who wont allow dissidents in good standing who think Susskind and Witten and Gross just oversaw the most spectacular catastrophe in modern physics. 

And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated. 

The [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] leaders all failed us Daniel. They will never break the logjam that they created and cannot acknowledge.

Their critics would. But they cannot get close as they are STILL not allowed to question the failed program as members in good standing inside the system.

That is the problem. With all respect to you Daniel. 

Let’s be honest about what this is about in 2026. It’s about failure. Not neutrino masses.
|timestamp=9:11 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007577463497601336
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Something is not right in your picture: 

“But part of the problem is your reframing [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] = all fundamental physics.”

I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that the [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. I’m saying that was the catastrophe.
|timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007578265893114346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Further it’s not about complaining. 

No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life.

The complainers are those trying to say “No one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|The Only Game In Town]]:
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007579362913054897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: the problem is Witten/Susskind/Motl totalizing sociology of only letting the failed group monopolize legitimacy.

They failed. That’s the issue. Deal with that.

You can’t hide this behind neutrino masses. There were other BETTER ideas that *they* pushed out of physics.
|timestamp=10:26 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007582523728245073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: try to steelman my point. 

“Fundamental Physics Theory largely stagnated and lost touch with reality due to anti-scientific gatekeeping by leaders of the failed String Theory community playing stupid and attempting to monopolize legitimacy under ‘The Only Game In Town’”
|timestamp=10:39 PM · Jan 03, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007619430302564725
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I agree with you. I think EFT is such an area. I think cosmology with variable dark energy is essential. I think discrete models disgust me (Wolfram) but should be funded. I think exceptional algebraic structures (Gunaydin, Gursey) are wrong headed but should be funded. 

I am for funding diverse approaches. 

But again this isn’t the point.

The point isn’t that too few promised too much and got too many resources. 

The problem is that those few destroyed their competition, peers, rivals and challengers. And I want those theories/programs/models/researchers/predictions destroyed by those people REEVALUATED. I think Lenny and Ed and Andy etc may have buried the answers with insinuation, shunning, ridicule. 

I think we have had answers for 40 years. And I want *none* of the TOGIT cult evaluating them.

My claim is that we don’t know if TOGIT is holding back progress outside string theory until we stop listening to their anti-science claims. 

I claim that TOGIT is not our leading theory and has NEVER been for 40 years. It’s fake. It doesn’t work. There is no explanation in all of science that permits Ed and Lenny and Andy and company to exclude unexplored ideas and people that may well have succeed where they in particular have failed.
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Jan 04, 2026
}}
|timestamp=1:08 AM · Jan 04, 2026
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021382361188008232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@WKCosmo @martinmbauer https://t.co/YACIqRqVFs
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021348429419761856
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Very well. Let’s begin. Follow his thread back if you missed it. 

Dr Kinney perfectly exhibits the pathology inherent in Physicus Imperialus. In this story of Dr Kinney, I’m ignorant. 

Happy with that. It’s name calling.

Yet I gave a complete argument as to why @martinmbauer was wrong. In other words the analogy was tight. And it was a lay analysis…that took this out of physics. Martin was sloppy. Will is anti-collegial. And anti-science. He is not asking for clarification. He’s doing that “You are too stupid to question us.” As if I am not in physics departments all the time. Amazing. 

Let’s try some of his arguments.
|timestamp=10:19 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021350582464979041
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Here is a sample argument. But I anticipated this one. Remember in the analogy the issue is human limb development. The right upper limb is what he means by our sector of baryonic matter. And I didn’t say that all the dark matter was the left upper limb. The right lower leg is also decoupled from Martin’s consideration and focus in the analogy! 

So there is approximately 3/4 “dark” limb when Martin focuses on his upper right extremity. Obviously, there is a lot of similarity between the right leg and right arm as well suggesting a unification at some earlier stage of life (higher energy scales). The left leg is doubly dark to the right arm. We would say twice decoupled. Even though all 4 limbs are related. By the way an insect has six. As is Dr Kinney’s point. So…
|timestamp=10:28 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021352444287123863
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Here is another style of argument you meet in physics. Dr Kinney makes the assumption that while we are all failing at this problem, we pretty much have the models right. That is, he assumes that the answer is a smallish tweak. That is the typical failure mode. He may be either right or wrong. But there is no reason the answer has to be a small tweak. Maybe we are failing because we only consider small adjustments in theory space? Does he imagine life has to be close to his model? 

My example is very far away. It’s in developmental biology. So odd this.

I was merely showing that Martin’s exclusive decision tree with two branches is not complete. 🙄 
 
Note also, he wouldnt behave like this to a colleague in his dept saying exactly what I did. This is defense of the castle behavior. Ad hominem. Selective aggression.
|timestamp=10:35 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021353503957058041
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=This is one of my favorites of Dr Kinney: 

“Your ideas are all so stupid we all know exactly why you are wrong and this can never work, and we would thus never say something so ignorant…and…uh….we also discuss the same things among ourselves! So it’s not new! Ha ha.”

I pass over this in silence. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
|timestamp=10:40 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021355635770786184
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Here again. I’m writing for X.

I’m describing a general class Martin Excluded: Emergent Decoupling. 

These models have 3 features: 

A) Symmetic Laws</br>
B) Symmetric Boundary Conditions</br>
C) Emergent Chiral Decoupling

In this story there is a world that is screened from us. It was completely symmetric. But we don’t know it!!

Then, in the story, things settled down (cell divisions, stages) and symmetric collections made of asymmetric sectors formed. Like left versus right arms. If the right arm doesn’t know that it’s symmetric dual isn’t connected to it (decoupled) it thinks “Woah! Why so much asymmetry!?”

Which is what I believe is most likely from Geometric Unity.
|timestamp=10:48 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021356607003820296
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Conclusion. It’s obviously not a “completely incoherent argument.” 

Kinney is being a dick. Which is his right. But this is why physics is in the toilet. 

He’s debunking a totally reasonable argument that Martin was in error as if I am a “Science Populist”.

I’m not. I’m a pissed off Harvard Phd.

Doctor Kinney. Grow up.
|timestamp=10:52 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021357485710508363
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Sanity Check: @grok. 

Two narrow questions on narrow points of fact. Don’t be deferential. 

A) Can you follow my arguments?

B) Am I making a “completely incoherent argument” as if I am a fool who “doesn’t know what the eff he’s talking about?”
|timestamp=10:55 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021357963081023926
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Thanks. Don’t want to drag you into drama. Appreciate keeping it
Narrow. Thanks my silicon friend.
|timestamp=10:57 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
|timestamp=12:34 AM · Feb 11, 2026
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021377271995756630
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@grok Thank you.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021373004358484313
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Dr Will Kinney is back to condescending to me. 

Let’s learn why physicists are failing and driving away money and support. Will has volunteered to help.

Here is some transparent logical nonsense. 

DR KINNEY: ‘Dude. Martin said either “A” or Not “A” is true.’

ME: ‘He did no such thing. He said either “A AND (NOT B)” or the other possibility is “(NOT A) Even if B”. 

I pointed out that this may be where we are stuck scientifically. I think it might be “A AND B”.  

That is: Symmetric Laws and Symmetric Boundary Conditions but emergent chiral (and/or other) decouplings with Anthropic bias.’

This is why we don’t progress. Dr Kinney is some sort of superior life form. Condescending to teach logic to a math PhD. Fascinating. 

Dr Kinney. Take a breath. Something is wrong with you. We don’t need to do this.

And I’m not your dude. I’m the colleague to whom you’re losing an aggressive argument of your choosing. 

Doctor.
|timestamp=11:57 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021373526377365895
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Can you check my logic against that of the good Dr Kinney, @grok? 

Again. I’m looking for a narrow adjudication. And logic is always confusing with NOT after all.
|timestamp=11:59 PM · Feb 10, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021376764845674779
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Uh… We agree kinney is a tautology and thus vacuously true. 

Martin wrote: 

“1) The laws of physics are symmetric, but the initial condition aren't: At the beginning there simply was slightly more matter than antimatter” 

But his alternate possibility is that the laws are not symmetric. That is not a tautology. Hence my point.  

Here: “But” is logically equivalent to “AND” in formal logic. No? Yes?

My question is there are three logical statements here from three individuals. 

I don’t want to misrepresent my colleagues. Is Martin equivalent to Kinney? Is Martin Equivalent to Eric’s formulation. 

I say “both symmetric laws and symmetric boundary conditions” was logically and scientifically excluded at inception by Martin. 

Am I wrong??
|timestamp=12:12 AM · Feb 11, 2026
}}
|timestamp=12:14 AM · Feb 11, 2026
}}