Editing String Theory (section)

=== 2023 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618348209059004417
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wouldn't a scientist ask the question: 

"What if it is the leadership?" 

Wouldn't that be a logical scientific question? Wouldn't that be a testable hypothesis? Why can't we ask that question as scientists? Why is that hypothesis excluded after *50* yrs?

[End Of Heresy]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347108859535361
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Discussion of the future of theoretical physics seems like a game of [[Intellectual Keep-Away|"Intellectual Keepaway."]]

Its the same group of mandarins who predicted LHC SuperSymmetry, Mini-Black holes, SU(5) Grand Unification, [[String Theory]], [[Quantum Gravity|Q-Gravity]] would work. 

What do our *heretics* say instead?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=AspenPhysics-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/AspenPhysics/status/1618036764878442498
|name=Aspen Center for Physics
|usernameurl=https://x.com/AspenPhysics
|username=AspenPhysics
|content=Past ACP President Michael Turner and Maria Spiropulu in conversation with @overbye of @nytimes discuss the future of Physics! #physics #particlephysics #spacetime #stringtheory #physicists
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Jan 24, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347111023800320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=For the moment, let me entertain a wild idea. Truly wild.

Here goes. What if the problem is our leadership. What if we asked 

"Who believe [[String Theory]] wouldn't work?"
"Who never claimed LHC SUSY was imminent?"
"Who never said Proton Decay was going to be found?"

Etc.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347112722477057
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Said differently, what if our leadership is brilliant but SPECIFICALLY untrustworthy in identifying the path forward. What if 1000 [[David Gross]] &amp; [[Ed Witten|Ed Wit1ten]] Keynotes setting the agenda are the problem? What if [[Lenny Susskind]] is not correct sbout non-string people wasting our time.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347114446323712
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What if we *excluded* people who are consistently wrong about the path forward and asked: 

"Are there any OTHER ideas? Not [[String Theory|Strings]]. Not Loops. Not Asymptotic Safety. Not Simple Compact GUTs. Not Quantum Computing. Not Black Hole Information. Not Technicolor. Not Amplitudes."
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347115876601856
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why is being older with a long track record of not making progress the way we select our leadership? 

What if for 3 years we tried to ask: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE OUT HERE WITH OTHER IDEAS? 

I know. It's stupid. It's crazy. It's self-serving. But it has been 49yrs+11Mos of this.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347117277499392
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Look, we could just hold a conference: [[Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game|"Fundamental Physics: Can't *Anybody* Here Play This Game?"]]

[[David Gross|David]], [[Ed Witten|Ed]], Maria, [[Cumrun Vafa|Cumrun]], [[Nathan “Nati” Seiberg|Nati]], [[Lenny Susskind|Lenny]], Juan, [[Lee Smolin|Lee]] etc. could be respondents giving constructive feedback. We would then at least learn why we are where we are. But this is nuts.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347118720348160
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I will say it from outside the field. I think the problem is that we aren't actually doing fundamental physics and havevn't been for decades. I want a survey of ALL the OTHER paths. It would probably cost a few hundred thousand dollars  to fix this field. But this is bizarre.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347120209334275
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's survey the heretics who aren't even worth talking to...and then we can go right back to tiny progress when we're done, following Strings, Loops, SUSY, Standard GUTS &amp; Asymptotic Safety all over again. At least we will know WHY we are stuck.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:40 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618764799630004225
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@arivero Not my read. It took place just before the G-S anomaly cancellation. The Murray keynote is the best summary of the problem that lead to the String Theology. It mentions [[String Theory]] but doesn’t focus on it. It is the last gasp before the transition.
|timestamp=12:16 AM · Jan 27, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618767037672861698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thanks for the help. But I must regretfully decline. 

The Lamb–Retherford experiment was experimental physics. And Solid State theory would not be fundamental physics.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522849656082432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.

I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in [[Quantum Field Theory]] of 1928-47 was broken.
https://x.com/MBKplus/status/1618356997107355649
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522853183459329
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work.  Enter Duncan McInnes.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522856316633088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=On January 21 1946, McInnes suggested to Frank Jewett a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders.  As head of the [[National Academy of Sciences (NAS)|National Academy of Sciences]], Jewett allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522859172958208
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Beginning on June 1, 1947 at the Rams Head Inn on Shelter Island NY and ending on Weds June 4th, 24 mostly untested participants "hung out" together.

The actual cost of the meeting was...[drum roll please]...$872.00 in 1947 dollars. Which is about $12,000.00 in 2023 dollars.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522862268354560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by simply getting rid of most of the failed 1928-1947 leadership and focusing on the most promising untested physicists, a $12K slush fund in today's dollars changed history ending a two decade stagnation debuting Feynman's Path Integral, the Lamb Shift &amp; the two Meson theory.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522864986230784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So why do I suggest Hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands? Good question! First, it is harder to get rid of the failed leadership because our stagnation as of Februrary 2023 is 50 years old not 19. But also, Shelter Island needed two companion conferences in 1948-9.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522867934842882
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The Pocono Manor Inn meeting in Pennsylvania &amp; the Oldstone conference in Peeskill NY were around $1200 each in 1948 and 1949 respectively. As it turned out, the electron mass in the QED theory and the measured mass had been set equal when they were distinct quantities. Who knew!
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522870640160769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=According to many of the participants these three conferences (but particularly Shelter Island) were the most important conferences of their entire careers. Feynman was in his late 20s. This is how you get unstuck. How you build leadership. How you stop failing year after year...
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522874008195072
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Those 3 conferences fixed the problem of infinites destroying the explanatory power of QED.

So I padded the HELL out of those numbers because I think the stagnations are similar with the major problem being leadership. I could be wrong. But it might take $1/2 Million to test it.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522876956790785
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That isn't the issue. The issue is that the leadership is not passing the baton and there are no McInnes or Jewett figures. And professors now don't even know this history it seems! Don't they teach this in Physics class? Maybe it's too dangerous to learn how physics works. ;-)
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522879964114946
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So...feel free to try to snark your way out of this. But I'll stand my ground. We don't need to go "Funeral by Funeral", but I'm tiring of "Calabi-Yau Phenomenology" or Multiverse excuses as a replacement for actual physics. We need to go back to science. https://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522884598816769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As to what's wrong with modern physics: let's start with [[Quantum Gravity]]. Bryce DeWitt started a failed 70 year wild goose chase in 1953 that is not working. If we lost 20 years on conflating Bare v Dressed masses, we just lost 70 years on [[Quantum Gravity]]. Maybe take a time out?
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522887107018752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have thought this through. It isn't a cheap shot. And I have waited until the 50th anniversary to be this frontal about it. But it has never been controversial since Planck to suggest that aged failed leaders are a huge issue. I'm not the Funeral by Funeral guy. He was. ;-)
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522889690714118
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, I can't stand anti-collegial snark. We can escalate if you want, but if instead you would like to have a serious discussion next time, it would be my pleasure. Shall we try this again? 

I'm Eric. Huge fan of what you guys do. Big supporter. Nice to meet you.  Thanks.
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618536081506586624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MBKplus Sorry to be slow, but you used a screenshot so I wouldn’t see your response rather than a quote tweet. 

Not big on snark. But here is a proper response. Didn’t know the history had become so obscure to modern physicists. My bad.

Thread:
|timestamp=9:07 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=caseylolsen-profile-65Fvydvt.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen/status/1618530570094661639
|name=casᴇʏ oʟsᴇɴ
|usernameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen
|username=caseylolsen
|content=This was a proper fuck you 🤌
|timestamp=8:45 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539094476263427
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Nah. It’s a sensitive topic. Almost 40 years of [[String Theory|string theology]]. 50 years of stagnation. 70 years of quantum gravity not shipping a theory. 

I get it. But snark is a tell. The youngest Nobel particle theorist is over 70. I think 8 are alive. It’s really bad.
|timestamp=9:19 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539524421976065
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no underlying animosity towards Mike. Let’s see what happens next.
|timestamp=9:21 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618528687804272642
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=Honest to god, what are you talking about? In your mind does 'fundamental physics' consist solely of an oddball sitting in his dorm room at Oxford moving a magnet through a coil? (& yes,  I know that was Faraday at the RI & Newton was at Oxford, but I'm painting a picture here).
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618540646826139649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=See I was thinking pads of paper, pens, and a whiteboard or blackboard. Maybe some coffee. A bit of LaTeX.

But that’s just me not getting it. Forgive me.
|timestamp=9:25 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618551618911469569
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=So you're confusing theoretical physics with 'fundamental physics', an honest mistake, consider yourself forgiven.
|timestamp=10:09 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:25 AM · Jan 27, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621058252246237184
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="I remember when rock was young...🎶"

Let's get that energy back, by any means necessary.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621058252246237184-Fn8n3VFacAA_dcF.png
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054161885499395
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Today May be Considered the 50 year Anniversary of the Stagnation of Particle Physics.

Today Feb 1 marks the appearance of Kobayashi &amp;  Maskawa's englargment of the Cabibo Angle to the three generation 3x3 CKM matrix. 

That should be cause for celebration. So let us celebrate!
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054161885499395-Fn8U2kYaIAMg8wk.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054165408706560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unfortunately, it also marks the end of what we can be certain actually is physics.

Imagine if Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" was still the #1 song on Billboard's Hot 100 &amp; Tony Orlando and Dawn were singing "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". That, in a nutshell, is fundamental phsyics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054165408706560-Fn8iMnEaUAMg0wC.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054168764133376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To be clear, It is not as if there are no Nobel Laureates recognized for fundamental discoveries in particle theory left. I believe we are down to the last 8. Half of them are in their 70s. One in his 80s. Three are nongenarians. Yes. It's that bad. And we're not honest about it.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054168764133376-Fn8iezwaMAAErrN.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054172224421888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=When you hear about [[Peer Review|"Peer Review"]] in this field, you have to understand that the field stopped working. Without nature telling us, we don't actually know who the physicists are any more. We have no idea who is a fundamental physicist. All we know is that what we do doesn't work.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8iwsfaAAAVeiu.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054175483432960
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I am celebrating today by pointing out the obvious: maybe it isn't a good idea to have people who haven't made contact with actual fundamental physics telling everyone else what they must and must not do to be members of a club that no longer works according to normal science.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8jAhDaMAED_d4.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054178570407936
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What fundamental physics really is, is (approximately) captured by the table below. In short, if someone is below the age of 70, they may have proven their brilliance and mathematical ability, but they have not proven any ability to make contact with reality as theorists.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054178570407936-Fn8YxU6acAEQmCD.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054181443514369
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I will point out that our experimentalists are in FAR better shape. The massive nature of neutrinos, discovery of gravitational waves, the Higgs field, Intermediate Vector Bosons, Accelerating Expansion of the Universe/Dark Energy are all major successes over the last 50 years.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054181443514369-Fn8jMQWaQAENPbQ.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054184186613760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So what went wrong? I will be talking about my understanding of the stagnation this year at a different level. But the single greatest threat to fundamental physics in my estimation is something called [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantum Gravity"]] which was really born 70 years ago around 1953.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054184186613760-Fn8jTU3aYAAIeGf.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054187512668160
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To put it bluntly, it is not just that Quantum Gravity doesn't work. It's that you can't comfortably question Quatnum Gravity because the failed investment is on a scale that I think is difficult for us to contemplate. It includes [[String Theory|String Theory]], Loop Quantum Gravity, AdS/CFT etc.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054187512668160-Fn8jeqSaUAAU1O9.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054190691975168
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next Year, will be 40 years of failure for modern [[String Theory|StringTheory]] to ship a product. To be clear and STEELMAN the argument for strings, it *is* a remarkable framework. It is REAL math. It teaches us things no other framework has.

But, it *destroyed* the culture of honest physics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054190691975168-Fn8j43gaYAEp0Cd.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054193426661376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We spent almost 80% of this time being told that [[String Theory|ST]] was a 'Piece of 21st Century Physics that fell into the 20th Century.' 

Uh. Bullshit. That is an excuse. It's not clear that it's physics at all.

It's a "Failed piece of 20th Century Physics still hanging around in the 21stC".
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054193426661376-Fn8kDPoacAAwub7.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054196949651456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is time to hold conferences dedicated to the issues of groupthink in physics. Why wont our leading voices admit failure? We don't know. Previous generations wanted their students to succeed. But [[String Theory|String Theory]] is dominated by boomers who seem oblivious to danger.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054198824710144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If we're going to truly wrestle w/ dark matter, or dark energy, or [[UAP]] that supposedly violate our laws of physics (e.g. [[General Relativity]]) we can't afford a leaders projecting their fears that THEY have wasted their lives, credibility and students careers on [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantum Gravity"]].
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054200439537667
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by all means, let's celebrate. But it is time to ask new voices for wild, dangerous and irresponsible ideas. Peer review failed. Quantum Gravity Failed. Community norms failed. And soon there will be NO ONE LEFT proven to be able to play this game. So what do we do?
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054201957847040
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to spend perhaps 5yrs asking "If the leaders have not succeeded for FIVE DECADES in moving beyond the [[Standard Model]], then why are they leading this field and directing the resources, research, and path forward? What if we listened to those who the leadership push aside?"
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054203522347008
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As someone who has tried to ask this question, I can tell you that mostly the big programs have granted themselves a science equivalent of 'dipolmatic immunity' from the standards they impose on their intellectual competitors.  But from today forward, we must end that game.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054205107802112
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's put resources in new avenues, theories and theorists that have yet to fail. The next time you hear a theorist telling you about quantum gravity, the multiverse or String theory or Loops or Supersymmetry or AdS/CFT, etc. Ask them the following dangerous question:
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054206814871552
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="If you haven't succeeded in 50-70 years, what other theories would be viable if we relaxed the standards you have imposed on your competitors given that your theories do not seem to work? What if your [[Quantum Gravity]] were subjected to such standards? Would QG be quackery?"🙏
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621055968699383808
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's honor those who tried before by bringing the same energy they once brought to the attempt to learn our place in the universe. Happy to be corrected. But this is an emergency if we're ever going to go beyond chemical rockets and use physics to take our place among the stars.
|timestamp=8:00 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:09 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626979209578164224
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Brian is one of our best public speakers as well. I’ve seen him improvise on his feet in tough situations and I am blown away by how he manages to be accurate, accessible and funny in real time scientific matters. A lightning-fast mind working simultaneously on multiple levels.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626759376110501888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The IAI asked me to clarify some arguments in an interchange over theoretical physics I had earlier with [[String Theory|String Theorist]] @bgreene of @Columbia, just as Brian was asked about the same discussion on @TOEwithCurt.

The @IAI_TV write up is here. Check it out!

https://iai.tv/articles/eric-weinstein-the-string-theory-wars-auid-2394?_auid=2020
|timestamp=1:43 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626761575817433088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think what was new to @IAI_TV was someone who was not against [[String Theory|string theory]] as a framework, but adamant that String culture and [[Quantum Gravity]] had been catastrophically enervating for 40-70 years.

A part of the original interchange was excerpted here:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=hyFMB1xfePw}}
|timestamp=1:52 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626763789336215552
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=At 1:32:50, Curt Jaimangul asks Brian Greene about the same issue. 

I respect Brian a great deal and always found him collegial. I’d be happy to have the state and future of [[Quantum Gravity]] discussed at length in open forum if people were interested. 
{{#widget:YouTube|id=O2EtTE9Czzo|start=5570}}
|timestamp=2:01 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JohnAllenderOT8-profile-3-U9BYwJ.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/JohnAllenderOT8/status/1626937827140452352
|name=JohnAllenderOT8
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JohnAllenderOT8
|username=JohnAllenderOT8
|content=Could list to @EricRWeinstein and @bgreene debate all day. Podcast was killer. Thanks again to both of you intellectual titans!
|timestamp=1:31 PM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Feb 18, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1662923540335669248
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wonderful to exchange ideas with @RogerPenrose5 @bgreene @tasneemzhusain on [[String Theory]] and the underlying source of the unique  controversy that has swirled around it for decades. Thanks to @HTLGIFestival for putting this together! Great panelists and moderation!
|timestamp=8:47 PM · May 28, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441063752671232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is “Almost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing  theories of physics.”

Let’s finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441014981033984
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now I feel completely alone.

I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.

I believe this is how [[String Theory|String Theorists]] stopped being scientists.

I just want our data &amp; the physics.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1666303048631590914
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=I want this to be real. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:36 AM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441031158730752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the standard model and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. It’s tempting.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441034140725251
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think biological interstellar alien visitors using GR and the SM make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine “Need to Know” as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441040314748928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What just happened isn’t data. It’s that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But it’s not science yet.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441043347374080
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As I‘ve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. We’re drilling holes in our own scientists’ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now it’s physicists.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441045926891520
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.

I fight like hell to promote my theory. But I’d sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441048753836033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.

To go beyond GR, let’s be scientists &amp; get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441052369158145
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What I want to know:

Why was the Mansfield Amendment passed?

Why did NSF fake a labor shortage in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?

What stopped the Golden Age Of General Relativity?

Why was the SSC really cancelled?

StringTheory &amp; STAGNATION: WTF?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441055531663362
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What the hell was the 1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference actually about?

Why are we not stopping to QUESTION quantum gravity after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441058442674176
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is the 50th year of stagnation in the Standard Model Lagrangian. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441060976062464
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of  1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?

Quantum Gravity is fake and works to stop actual physics.

There. I said it. Now let’s talk.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676028532940742656
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As a STEM PhD, I never say those things to kids. Why? Because we are lying.

It’s a total disconnect. A sense of an imagined life as researchers and scientists that has nothing to do with reality.

Ask questions about COVID, [[String Theory]], [[CPI]], etc and you will *not* find this. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676026736352583680
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We tell kids: “Actually *anyone* can be a scientist. Science is about asking questions more than having answers. Scientists always welcome questions! Why? Because there are NO stupid questions in science. Science is a journey where professional researchers  actually learn from being forced to answer questions. *Never* be afraid to say that something confuses you. Most great discoveries usually begin not with ‘Eureka!’, but with “Huh. That’s odd.”

So you then try to apply that in real life.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=r_hirschman-profile-GDvGIcvJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/r_hirschman/status/1675718295989768192
|name=Richard Hirschman
|usernameurl=https://x.com/r_hirschman
|username=r_hirschman
|content=I never claimed to be a doctor or scientist, I am an embalmer. I have been only sounding an alarm about what I am seeing! I  can only say that this is not normal. In the 20 years prior to 2021 I never seen anything like this. Something is causing this, and I see it often.
|media1=r_hirschman-X-post-1675718295989768192-F0FYyz-XoAEDLaY.jpg
|timestamp=4:09 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:34 AM · Jul 4, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:41 AM · Jul 4, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744563154272256
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is time to face up to the disaster of [[String Theory|string theory]]. But we need to be fair about what failed and why. The equations of [[String Theory|string theory]] can’t hurt anyone. It’s 40 years of the anti-scientific destruction of scientific standards and norms of collegiality to promote one failed theory over all other attempts that is behind this destruction of what was previously the worlds most accomplished scientific community.

It’s time to face up to what actually happened 40 years ago. And it ain’t pretty. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744552039374848
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The good folks at @IAI_TV put together a reel of [[String Theory|String Theorist]], Prof. @bgreene and I debating [[String Theory]] in Wales in May at @HTLGIFestival. 

Check it out: 

{{#widget:YouTube|id=eOvqJwgY8ow}}
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744555814223872
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This should really be done at a somewhat more technical level. The biggest damage done by [[String Theory]] was that it quickly redefined the most important problems in Physics to be general aspects of analysis and field theory rather than understanding our *hyper*-specific world.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744557689106432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, now in the current post-string era, it is perfectly acceptable for people to work on [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] without having to understand essentially anything about the mysterious 3 generations of chiral particles that actually populate our world. In short, they changed the field.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744560180502528
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Oddly, even though Roger Penrose and I were on the same side on this stage, I couldn’t subscribe to much of Penrose’s critique of strings and found myself agreeing more with Brian Greene on the technical points.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To sum it up: when [[String Theory|string theorist]] are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isn’t it the case that from A-Z maybe [[String Theory|string theory]] is not being honest?

Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say “It’s the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.” in front of the public. No? 

🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677230177544470529
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“[[String Theory]] is absolutely…the most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1676908960652066816
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.

But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, [[String Theory|string theory]] is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.
|media1=JosephPConlon-1676908960652066816-F0WTvUYWIAExXQ4.jpg
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677231449240399872
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Yes, that is precisely what I think.
|timestamp=8:21 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677235567871021059
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard model” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. It isn’t at all about what you think. It is a true statement.

Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about [[String Theory]] within physics.
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677244875605958656
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).

As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that [[String Theory|string theory]] and the complex  of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
|timestamp=9:15 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677368642328211456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“IMO objectively true”

As with so many of these String Theoretic claims I have no idea what that means.

So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?

“Objectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.” My opinion doesn’t enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion. 

Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your String community are “not serious” as per the above?
|timestamp=5:27 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677440377559695360
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.

But in 280 characters and no equations, it’s hard to develop these 

In a book, easier to do so.
|timestamp=10:12 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677449460677509120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that’s the issue Joseph. At all. 

Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.

[[String Theory|String theorists]] like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.

And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesn’t make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I don’t see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion. 

What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how [[String Theory|string theory]] has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!”

Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
|timestamp=10:48 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678554652026220544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is not objective or absolutely true that [[String Theory]] is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.

Waited a few days. I don’t think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. [[String Theory|String theorist]] deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
|timestamp=11:59 PM · Jul 10, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678645376557936645
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The question about where [[String Theory|string theory]] stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that [[String Theory|string theory]] has given lots of stuff that  is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
|timestamp=6:00 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678646205767725058
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.

I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true — once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647080774934528
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=But most people (reasonably) don’t have this background. So I preface this with ‘my opinion’ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
|timestamp=6:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647632460128256
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why [[String Theory|string theory]] has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
|timestamp=6:09 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679328534140170240
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the  metric field that leads to gravitation, [[String Theory]] is by far the most advanced. I don’t think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. It’s a solid argument.
|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679329566161276933
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that [[String Theory|“String Theory”]] is the answer to a question you formulated: “Of all the approaches to quantizing  gravity which haven’t worked, which is the best?”

My argument is with that framing.
|timestamp=3:19 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem I have is with [[String Theory|string theorists]] framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think [[String Theory]] is dangerous for this reason. 

Try these instead:

A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?

B) Same as A) but for [[General Relativity]]?
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679331799439396864
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?

D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?

E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?

F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?

G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
|timestamp=3:27 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679332528610738178
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?

I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
|timestamp=3:30 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679333915365101568
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?

K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?

L) Which approach is most dogmatic that [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] rather than “Unification” or “Gravitational Harmony” or “Incremental understanding” etc. *Is* the path forward when we don’t even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]?
|timestamp=3:36 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679334548646277120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?

N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
|timestamp=3:38 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679335373070008320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking “The Landscape” of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?

P) Which community brags about “postdiction” the most because it has failed at predictions?
|timestamp=3:42 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679336247322636290
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?

R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?

S) Same for brains?

T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?

U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
|timestamp=3:45 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679337827786719239
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?

W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?

X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?

Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?

Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply “What is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?” when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
|timestamp=3:51 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679338937561776129
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is why this conversation doesn’t work. It is what magicians call “Magicians Choice”: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like [[String Theory]] is our top community. 

Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said “Hold my beer!” back in 1984.
|timestamp=3:56 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:00 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676623162098999296
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Alternate thought experiment. 20 years from now there has been no progress beyond the standard model of particle physics. @FrankWilczek is the last living particle theorist to have made traditional contact with the physical world. What is a leading particle theorist in 2044, when no one has made progress in 70 years? Will we even know if anyone is really doing physics at that point when there are no traditionally successful theorists left but one?
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676623160110874625
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thought experiment. Assume the final theory exists, is agreed upon in 2024, and has nothing to do with [[String Theory]].

How would historians account for the monomania of the last 40 years? As a cult? A scientific mass delusion? The political economy of a failed generation? A hoax?
|timestamp=4:04 PM · Jul 5, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:04 PM · Jul 5, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679572655496888322
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@TomBilyeu @JosephPConlon My completely crazy claim: I don’t think there is a log jam. [[String Theory|String theory]] is relentlessly jamming the future. It has taught people how to *stop* progress. 

The future of physics is not necessarily evenly distributed.
|timestamp=7:25 PM · Jul 13, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679344230458863617
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Note Added: The tweet quoted is not coming up for everyone. Perhaps because it is mid thread? 

Just look for the A) - Z) section of different framings that are seldom discussed well beyond the issue of which is the best theoretical attempt at [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]]. Thanks.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1679344230458863617-F046rL0aAAAgDsI.jpg
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679342337636564992
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Some of you have asked me why I am specifically focused on how [[String Theory]] *may* have permanently deranged modern theory in High Energy Physics. 

In the midst of a thread with Prof. @JosephPConlon, author of “Why [[String Theory]]?” I set out the dangers of allowing [[String Theory|string theorists]] to be the arbiters judges and juries of what is important in physics.

Simply put, they mis-framed almost everything to explain the last 40 inexplicable years of string induced monoculture and stagnation in moving beyond the [[Standard Model]] and [[General Relativity]]. The question is now: “Can more healthy physics research culture survive and come back from the String Failure?”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem I have is with [[String Theory|string theorists]] framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think [[String Theory]] is dangerous for this reason. 

Try these instead:

A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?

B) Same as A) but for [[General Relativity]]?
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:09 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:17 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680217280125472769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Who turned out to be right? 

Everyone who said “Wait: why are we changing the core mission to ‘Quantizing Gravity’?? Weren’t we supposed to explain the observed particle spectrum? And the weirdness of the Higgs sector as Deus Ex Machina? And the origin of chirality? Etc etc.”

Feynman/Glashow/Perl/Etc. 

It was a total switcheroo.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680009866382032897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Some have been making this point for 39 years. We are not now “At a point where we really ought to question…”.

We were there in 1984. And I was not alone at the time. There were *many* of us. Before this [[String Theory]]/ [[Quantum Gravity]] mind virus took over.

I don’t know what to call the behavior pattern where institutions look to someone who has *NOT* been making the important point for forever so they don’t have to deal with the fact that they got EVERYTHING WRONG for 4-7 decades in an obvious fashion.

You have to ask yourself “Who are the real cranks when those accused of being cranks turn out to be right?” And the leaders who accused them turn out to be wrong. Over and over. Again. And again. 

Glad to have the company however.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=QuantaMagazine-profile-cBeerOAi.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/QuantaMagazine/status/1679178839673671681
|name=Quanta Magazine
|usernameurl=https://x.com/QuantaMagazine
|username=QuantaMagazine
|content=“We’re at a point where we really ought to question whether this drive and this challenge to quantize gravity was really the right thing to do.” https://youtube.com/watch?v=DkRbNXILroI
|media1=QuantaMagazine-1679178839673671681-F02kPSOXwAk27v6.jpg
|timestamp=5:20 PM · Jul 12, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:22 AM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1680119766650957824
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=I don’t even know where to start. 
Who exactly turned out to be right? About what?

You want to be taken seriously, yet the reason people disagree with you is a ‘mind virus’?
|timestamp=7:39 AM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680215975084564480
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sorry. By whom? Do I expect to be taken seriously by the many [[String Theory|String Theorists]] who called their colleagues morons, frauds and “not serious” behind their backs? No. I don’t. 

I expect them to leave the field. Then we can get back to doing physics. The subset of reasonable [[String Theory|string theorists]] who know this problem well and are still doing science? Well….They know ST/QG has a problem and they hate it too. And I do care about them. 

That isn’t a mind virus. The mind virus is specifically the tortured defense of [[String Theory|string theory]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] by attacking colleagues without admitting its massive failure. And that is a mind virus. I stand by that. It’s atrocious.
|timestamp=2:01 PM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
|timestamp=2:06 PM · Jul 15, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1681516386307194880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t get this at all. Dark matter is not sketchy. Neutrinos as extremely light electrically neutral leptons are *almost* dark. 

People ask me what I hate about [[String Theory]] and [[Quantum Gravity]] culture. It is this. The endless ST/QG propaganda and smearing of critics makes it look like  Dark Matter, Grand Unified Theory, Supersymmetry, Dark Energy, extra dimensions, etc. are all part of a Bullshit offensive of speculative nonsense.

I have been extremely harsh because this culture has left an impression with non-researchers that all of high energy particle physics theory  is ‘sketch’. Bullshit. One tiny group of people with an unusual scientific ethics of both overselling unsuccessful ideas and bad mouthing rival colleagues doesn’t have the right to destroy the credibility of this amazing community.

Even Supersymmetry and [[String Theory]] aren’t Sketch…Let alone dark matter and dark energy. And I am among the longest standing public critics wiling to say that [[String Theory|string theory]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] are totally failing as solid physics programs. 

MORAL: Sketchy culture leave the impression that the science is sketchy. NO!! It’s the *culture* not the *theory* that is ‘sketch’. That is why we need to call out the unethical behavior that is undermining support and understanding of fundamental physics.

🙏
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=elon-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1680669208932241408
|name=Elon Musk
|usernameurl=https://x.com/elonmusk
|username=elonmusk
|content=Possibly. 

Dark matter is what seems most sketch to me.
|timestamp=8:02 PM · Jul 16, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:08 AM · Jul 19, 2023
}}



{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1681535402082009088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with [[String Theory]] from a critic.

[[String Theory|String theory]] is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized.

ST has taught us many things (e.g.  dualities in QFT, to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base.

The quantum gravity fanaticism is the problem. There is no reason that gravity has to be *naively* quantized as claimed. A giant 70 year mistake that actually predates theory by over a decade. Simply put, we are *not* being called to quantize gravity as the overarching organizing principal for modern particle theory research. 

Think of [[String Theory|String Theorists]] as akin to a fanatical absolutist monastic order discovering and developing Linear Algebra as a proof of the literal story of Jesus. The problem wouldn’t be with  the linear algebra!! It’s the claimed strength of the application and its motivation that is the problem.

ST is at least mathematics. But it just doesn’t work as a leading program for physics because of its fanatical behavior patterns. That screwed up fundamental physics. 

After 70, 50 or 39 years of stagnation (depending on how you count), this is clear to all but the fanatics. But the damage to scientific norms has been catastrophic. They failed in the application as measured by all reasonable metrics including (most importantly) those they originally set for themselves. And that is it in a nutshell.

Again, Thanks for asking. 🙏
|timestamp=5:24 AM · Jul 19, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1684888174797942784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t mean to be judgmental. But I don’t think this makes physical sense as explained. That is quite independent of the issue of additional dimensions.

Higher dimensions aren’t all about holography, Calabi-Yau manifolds, [[String Theory]] etc. This sounds wrong at a physics level.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=HighPeaks77-profile-DKkUw9yH.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HighPeaks77/status/1684282001849999362
|name=UAP News
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HighPeaks77
|username=HighPeaks77
|content=18. NHI (Non human intelligence) possible Inter-dimensional

https://x.com/andrew_colorz/status/1684252099557617665/video/1
|timestamp=7:18 PM · Jul 26, 2023
}}
|timestamp=11:26 AM · Jul 28, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1685013193800773632
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My old friend @edfrenkel on coming back from the big [[String Theory]] conference in Canada:

“[F]or the health of the subject going forward, I believe it is necessary to reckon with the past and accept responsibility.”

Check out Ed’s whole thread:
|timestamp=7:43 PM · Jul 28, 2023
}}