Editing Quantum Gravity (section)

=== 2024 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1762181012732441040
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“[[String Theory|String theory]] approaches experimental verification.”

“New Breakthrough in [[Quantum Gravity]] upends everything.”

“Black holes discovered for the first time inside quantum computer.”

“AI to deliver theory of everything within 18 months say experts.”

“Human Teleportation inches closer.”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Debriefmedia-profile-GpTlhl96.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Debriefmedia/status/1762097142309474395
|name=The Debrief
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Debriefmedia
|username=Debriefmedia
|content=Quantum gravity breakthrough: Physicists report they are now one step closer to the measurement of gravity at the quantum level. https://thedebrief.org/breakthrough-in-quantum-measurement-of-gravity-achieved-using-levitating-magnets/#sq_hn75ogbo69
|timestamp=12:47 PM · Feb 26, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:21 PM · Feb 26, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=_Jake_Rogers_-profile-Tv9iGDRV.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_/status/1769914294454415486
|name=Jake Rogers
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_
|username=_Jake_Rogers_
|content=Ahh, that's annoying.

So gravity defines spacetime, ferimons depend on spacetime, quantizing gravity alters spacetime's nature ∴ the 'stage' on which all matter exists and interacts becomes uncertain and probabilistic at a fundamental level.

And we all casually nod heads. Hmmm
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1769147019254481113
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Nerd Alert. You may want to skip this tweet.]

There is a very subtle problem here for [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] that worries me that doesn’t seem to worry physicists. 

If gravity becomes uncertain, the force particle medium continues to exist. 

Bosonic Waves: UNCERTAIN </br>
Bosonic Medium: CERTAIN</br>
Bosonic Norm: UNCERTAIN</br>
Bosonic Derivative: EXISTS

So the photon medium exists. And there is still a derivative called the exterior derivative.

This is not true for matter waves. Unless there is a metric 2-tensor g_ij (i.e. the rulers and protractors I always mention) then the matter medium is not defined.

Fermionic Waves: UNCERTAIN </br>
Fermionic Medium: UNCERTAIN</br>
Fermionic Norm: NONE</br>
Fermionic Derivative: NONE

That to me is a major difference between GL(4,R) double cover and SL(2,C). And there is no Dirac operator either. There is no DeRahm type theory for Spinors. Only a Hodge like Dirac theory. 

I am always assured that this is no problem at all. Mumble mumble tetrads….Vierbien this…moving frames…Ashtekar Variables…something something…not a problem. 

I don’t believe it. I think it’s a problem. I could be wrong. But I am not yet convinced. Maybe I’m just not getting it. But I’m really really not getting it. I think it’s wrong that there is no big deal here.

I’m not going to get into a major back and forth on X. But if you know what I am talking about, respond and perhaps we can maybe hash it out in a better forum if it makes sense. 

Thx.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Kaju_Nut-profile-z4klG7sx.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Kaju_Nut/status/1769065754769473859
|name=Nirmalya Kajuri
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Kaju_Nut
|username=Kaju_Nut
|content=Question for physicists: If superposition of macroscopic objects is achieved, their gravitational potentials could be in a state of superposition. 

Is there a sense in which such experiments probe quantum gravity?
|timestamp=6:18 PM · Mar 16, 2024
}}
|timestamp=11:41 PM · Mar 16, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=_Jake_Rogers_-profile-Tv9iGDRV.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_/status/1769152176499359922
|name=Jake Rogers
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_
|username=_Jake_Rogers_
|content=Literally took the words out of my mouth.
|timestamp=12:02 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1769152842642976870
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Right?
|timestamp=12:04 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=_Jake_Rogers_-profile-Tv9iGDRV.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_/status/1769153592139911299
|name=Jake Rogers
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_
|username=_Jake_Rogers_
|content=Is there in instance where there is value making this digestible for a layman or is it always a gated intellectual niche (ha) that kinda sits outside of my purview?
Is there value in bringing this down or does it lose its authenticity and become a facsimile if we simplify?
|timestamp=12:07 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=_Jake_Rogers_-profile-Tv9iGDRV.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_/status/1769153956872348125
|name=Jake Rogers
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_Jake_Rogers_
|username=_Jake_Rogers_
|content=I ask because I'd love to see WHY you care so much about all this. I get hints from your videos speaking on gauge. But your commentary here is not super approachable and maybe that's fine.
|timestamp=12:09 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1769157667166310487
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That I can explain. I am convinced that there are clear reasons that gravity/metrics are different than all other fields that indicate that the entire 70 year [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] program hasn’t been thought through at a basic level. This says “Making Gravity quantum destroys all matter.” That’s sorta sloppy. But you can’t DEFINE matter (spinors) without gravity (a metric). So you CAN’T casually quantize gravity. It seems kinda basic. 

Maybe I’m just not getting it. Don’t want to confuse others if I’m wrong. But I don’t get any of the explanations that come back. And that usually means the [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] community is not on top of their game historically.
|timestamp=12:23 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}
|timestamp=2:30 AM · Mar 17, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774141554611097804
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That gives me some insight into your worldview. If I understand correctly, it hugs the shore of observed SM phenomenology to avoid tilting at windmills of geometry or chasing shadows of [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] for the most part. 

Right handed neutrinos, for example, are implicit within the old “SO(10)” GUT, but you list them here as ‘new’ because they aren’t here to fill out a Weyl 16 for Spin(10). They just are being posited without much motivation beyond the dark sector. Wilsonian agnosticism as it were.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773605640096620900
|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/1773605641703117252
|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/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@martinmbauer 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/1774136833665806519
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The 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 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/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1774136833665806519
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The field has changed from a more theory driven approach to a strategy that takes the SM as the central theory and explores perturbations: SM effective theory

We're in the Fermi theory phase of whatever is to come

Models with explicit new states aim at explaining BSM phenomena
|timestamp=6:09 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:28 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1782029409630728407
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Regarding "Kona Blue". I have been away from normal connectivity so I have been slow to digest this. Here is what I have.

My position on UFO/UAP has been solidly consistent for the last several years:

A) I was previously simply wrong that there was nothing to this story. I have no interest in denying my error.

B) There were almost certainly secret programs hidden within the US Federal Government that have been denied that were addressed to the topic of [[UAP|UFOs]].

C) There is, as yet, no hard public scientific proof that any of these programs have anything to do with actual recovered craft or 'biologics' or Non-Human Intelligence or Aliens.

D) There is a history of fakery in warfare and national security that could explain this.

E) High level physicists like John Wheeler, Bryce DeWitt, Louis Witten, Pascal Jordan, Herman Bondi, etc were previously part of some bizarre secret anti-gravity efforts related to UFO programs that birthed our common era of [[Quantum Gravity]].

F) [[Quantum Gravity]], at least publicly, does not appear to work by historical standards in its 71 year history. 

G) This state of QG is totally non-controversial scientifically, but pointing this out leads to bizarre reputational attacks.

H) There is some connection inside the US government from [[UAP|UFO/UAP]] to occult like interest in angels/demons/consciousness/"remote viewing" which makes the whole thing sound like nonsense. This may be intentional to discredit interest from those not read in to the special access programs.

I) There appear to be essentially no high level physicists involved in a supposed area of national security that hinges on phenomena that supposedly defy physical law. This is itself a MAJOR clue that gets little attention.

-------

With "Kona Blue" disclosed, I am relieved that I would appear to be proven correct on many of the above points. I was *not* early here, but I did not overclaim either and admitted my main error. I can also reasonably claim that I was early among PhDs with relevant backgrounds regarding relations to physics.

The above points A)-I) are pretty much what one concludes when a sober person with historical awareness confronts the reality of a completely insane corner of national security. I stand by all of the above statements no matter how nutty they sound, or how conservative they sound to different parties. This is simply the state of the situation if you are not a [[UAP|UFO]] enthusiast or debunker.  It's totally embarassing for our nation and made a deliberately unresolvable question as to what is going on. That is not an accident. It is by design. It's really just unconscionable that we are here.

We look like the Keystone Cops.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kona-blue-causing-split-between-intel-agencies-dod-coulthart/ar-AA1ngzu3
|timestamp=12:51 PM · Apr 21, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1828104395000819753
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Many of you will be shocked by my IV. Which is perhaps why I asked for three…

IV) I would choose [[String Theory]] or the Amplitudes / Double Copy approach. 

At least the String people are energized by the fact that the math is real even when the physics is fake. And at least the double copy people have a mystery connecting [[General Relativity|GR]] to the [[Standard Model|SM]]. 

B) As to who I find interesting. Anyone going it alone to follow a hunch, but who knows what [[General Relativity|GR]] and the [[Standard Model|SM]] are. Mavericks, not cranks. 

Woit, Lisi, Deutsche, Wolfram, myself and Barbour are all outside of purely traditional structures. Oppenheim and others are in such structures but still mavericks. I wish Sabine had a theory that I knew of. But I am not aware of one. 

The observation I would make is that being a professor is a double edged sword. Outside the Professorate it is almost impossible to function from isolation and deprivation. Inside, you get captured by a constant set of pressures to conform to things you know are sapping your vitality. And you go into angry denial “I do whatever I want as a professor! I just happen to believe in this large program which is known not to work but gives me grants and summer stipend.”

Right now, I would bring those mavericks together with the most open of the professorate and steelman/catalog where those individual programs are in their trajectories. Duh. 

There are really fewer than 10 of them. This is absolutely obvious. It is cheap and would take almost no resources. It does not happen simply for reasons of political economy. There is no other reason not to do it.

As for who excites me most (myself excluded):

Nima Arkani Hamed</br>
Frank Wilczek</br>
Peter Woit</br>
John Baez</br>
Ed Witten</br>
Luis Alvarez Gaume</br>
Dan Freed</br>
Jose Figueroa O’Farril

And two others I will leave nameless for a top 10.

———

So that is my take. It wasn’t a gotcha. 

If all we can do is bemoan the state of physics, we need to change our focus. 

Yes I expect to be savaged. For some reason, saying anything positive creates anger. Bring it. 

Thanks for your time. As always.
🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1828098295492915708
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=After seeing my friend @skdh say what is wrong with theoretical physics, I asked her what would theoretical physics done right look like. Specifically, which general approaches and which theorists she was most excited about. 

Her answer is in the quote tweet. 

The question was not a gotcha question so I will try to answer it myself below.

I will say that I find her answer at turns both expected and shocking. There is very little going on, but there is not nothing. And if she is not excited by anything, that’s an amazing state of affairs. 

Here is my response to the same question below. Which many may not expect or accept.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1828098295492915708-GV61tXbWAAAlkXp.jpg
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1828019281168109819
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Eric, I am still saying the same thing I said in "Lost in Math" because the situation is still the same. 

Q1: Not sure whether you are asking for strategies or topics. For what strategies are concerned: necessity, consistency, phenomenology. For what topics are concerned: Quantum measurements, quantum gravity, dark matter. So yes, dark matter... but don't invent unnecessary details, hence my misgiving about the figure. The entire figure is basically screaming that theorists are inventing loads of unnecessarily contrived and useless theories.

Q2: can't think of anyone, sorry
|timestamp=10:38 AM · Aug 26, 2024
}}
|timestamp=3:52 PM · Aug 26, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1828098300928823611
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A) The three most promising lines of attack in fundamental physics. This is likely to confuse people who think in terms of “the strong community”, “the amplitudes program”, “the LQG community”. These are the “Team Sports” branches of attack. And team players really only recognize other teams which is a MASSIVE bias. That is why [[String Theory|String Theorists]] view [[Quantum Gravity|Loop Quantum Gravity]] as their hand chosen rigal. It is a team that they believe doesn’t challenge them; a partner to dunk on if you will.

For my money, the true rivals are not teams. They are NOT communities. 

I). Spinorial/Clifford/Exceptional physics. This is almost never broken out. 

The idea here is that many of us believe that there is way more information in Spinorial physics of the particle spectrum of the Standard Model than has been used. In particular the D5 Dynkin diagram GUT is the missed off-ramp.

In this generalized setting, Peter Woit of @notevenwrong, Roger Penrose, Myself, Garrett Lisi, and the exceptional algebra researchers focused on extending the octonionic tradition of the Turkish school are all clustered. In this school, almost everyone will be largely *wrong* in my opinion. But the right answer is most likely to come from this branch IMO.

II) Classical Differential Geometric Field Theory. It is amazing to me how over-focused we seem on the quantum. The star of the show is not now, and never was the quantum.

Let me put it in provocative terms: Classical Physics is where the real action has always been. Pun intended.

The quantum is real. It’s mysterious. It’s mind blowing. And as a result it provides jobs and something to talk about when the classical theory is stagnant. But the dream of quantum theories that are born quantum never materialized. We still quantize classical theories, for all our posturing about needing to take classical limits of quantum theories.

Witten in particular popularized the notion that the incompatiblity between General Relativity and the Standard Model is a Classical vs Quantum problem. He’s wrong. 

The Classical GR theory is already incompatible with the Classical Standard Model. The incompatibility is already classical: NOT Quantum.

The G_{mu, nu} operator concept of Einstein (and Grossman) is NOT gauge compatible. But the Standard Model IS a gauge theory. We have wasted 40 years in my opinion pretending that the GR vs SM split is a call to quantize gravity. We got there by pretended that GR is a kind of gauge theory which it obviously isn’t. And we pretend that you don’t quantize classical theories but take classical limits of quantum theories. Who this is supposed to fool is beyond me. The weak? The insecure? The egoic?

Once you have the classical arena (the manifolds) the field content (the bundles, groups and representations) and the action, the game is largely already determined theoretically when you are quantizing a classical theory. The quantum theory is used to figure out what its real world consequences are. The world is quantum after all. 

So why does the Classical theory get sent to a diminished role? This is going to be brutal: it’s the political economy of Physics. It’s because the number of people who have contributed to the Lagrangians is tiny. Einstein/Grossman, Maxwell/Yang and Dirac tower over our theories. That’s spin 2, spin 1 and spin 1/2 right there. The Higgs sector pulls in Glashow, Englert, Weinberg, etc. But I believe this is temporary and will be absorbed back into the other sectors before too long. It is the ungainly sector after all that still feels contrived. Real, but contrived.

And I believe that a lot of the toy work in low dimensions will turn out to be closer to GR than people imagine. Right now it looks closer to the Standard Model due to history. 

III) Non spacetime SUSY. 

I believe the reason we can neither find Supersymmetry nor get rid of it is that we misinstantiated it. There are no Squarks or Gluinos. Right idea, wrong off-ramp. This goes back to Salam and Strathdee.
|timestamp=3:52 PM · Aug 26, 2024
}}
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Aug 26, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871127090067915264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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 [[String Theory|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/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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
}}