Editing Sabine Hossenfelder (section)

=== 2019 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743276565069826
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is why we need to rescue our experts &amp; institutions. We need to stop asking them to lie to us about their needs for growth. If even high energy physics can’t escape its inability to meet growth expectations, then all expert communities are suspect.

These are our very best.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743271875895297
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’ve been talking about unmeetable  [[Embedded Growth Obligations|“Embedded Growth Obligations” or E.G.O.s]] as the reason why all our expert communities are under unbearable pressure to distort across our institutions. The physics community is *very* trustworthy on the experiment-theory level. Yet even here:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1091582806021623808
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Particle physicists surprised to find I am not their cheer-leader

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/particle-physicists-surprised-to-find-i.html?spref=tw
|media1=skdh-X-post-1091582806021623808-DyYUwdaWwAEHRbx.jpg
|timestamp=6:23 AM · Feb 1, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743274526683136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This allows us to use Fundamental Physics as a reference for deception.

These folks are our BEST. They aren’t lying about their experiments. They aren’t lying about agreement w theory. They aren’t wrong about expecting another accelerator imho.

Yet the [[Embedded Growth Obligations|EGOs]] make even them fib.
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743275533266944
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I may disagree with @skdh on whether we should build another multi-billion dollar accelerator. But she is exactly correct that there is no longer any new physics beyond the [[Standard Model]] expected to be found. She is telling truths above her pay-grade in the eyes of our leaders.
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1100429733139894272
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What we need is a multi-decade  [[Labor Shortages|“labor shortage”]] in STEM that brings technical employers howling in pain about employee wage demands. Family demands. Maternal demands.
The answer is simple: in STEM the wrong people are in pain. It should be our beloved administrators &amp; employers.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1100427792083111936
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is the elephant in the lab.

A secret reason (which we collected anonymously multiple times at NBER/ASCB) for delaying tenure decisions beyond healthy fertility is departmental fear of committing to top women in research for fear they will find motherhood more fulfilling.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1100358133434761221
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Nearly half of US female scientists leave full-time science after first child
|media1=skdh-X-post-1100358133434761221.jpg
|timestamp=11:33 AM · Feb 26, 2019
}}
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Feb 26, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1100427794461253639
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You can blame the Principal Investigators who told us this (both male &amp; female). You can blame the universities. You can blame the messenger. But we need to talk about getting STEM moms a LOT more money for help in the house &amp; make more allowances for staying home for 5-10 years.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Feb 26, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1100427795551813633
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And yes, Dads can be more present. But before you go too far down that road, consider that some of the STEM women we spoke to said that they would have WANTED to be at home, particularly with little children (&lt;7) and what they really wanted was a way back to research afterwards.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Feb 26, 2019
}}
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Feb 26, 2019
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111083048114618369
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You should answer his call because he clearly doesn’t have my number. He’s a few digits off.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111073860789501952
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ [[Sabine Hossenfelder]] has done an impressive job collecting and rebutting the arguments for building a new particle accelerator. I find them partially convincing. Let me give the big reasons that no one ever mentions as they are not in her list.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1110957808537739264
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Nonsense arguments for building a bigger particle collider that I am tired of hearing (The Ultimate Collection)

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html
|media1=skdh-X-post-1110957808537739264-D2rqN8IWwAAElyN.jpg
|timestamp=5:32 PM · Mar 27, 2019
}}
|timestamp=1:13 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111073862412730368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ 

I) The physics community gave us both the hydrogen bomb and the Einsteinian speed limit. Humans who acquire the Bomb never lose the ability to make them and they only get cheaper with technology. Further, the speed limit of 'c' traps us on three rocks: Earth, Moon and Mars.
|timestamp=1:13 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111073863666823174
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/

The combination of these twin gifts likely doom humanity over the long run unless we can, somehow, get around the speed of light 'c'. For that we will need to make physics a *top* priority unless we want to pretend we are going to become wise, colonize Titan, etc..etc..
|timestamp=1:13 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111073864774107136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ 

II) Theoretical physics practically created the modern economy: 

Chemistry</br>
Semiconductors/Transistors</br>
World Wide Web</br>
Electrification</br>
Wireless</br>
Nuclear Power/Weapons</br>
Molecular Biology

These are not simply taxpayer dollars. They began as physics dollars. We are being absurd.
|timestamp=1:13 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111073866091134976
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=End/ 

III) We are at the end of this thread...but also at the end of what may be the last chapter of physics. The three main equations (Dirac, Einstein, Yang Mills) are provably, in some sense, the best possible. No one would walk out just before learning the end of our story.
|timestamp=1:13 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=StefanTarr-profile-Vv6PH1rR.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/StefanTarr/status/1111076112686145536
|name=Calcifer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/StefanTarr
|username=StefanTarr
|content=I) "We gotta get FTL"</br>
II) "Might be unexpected bonuses"</br>
III) *appeals to emotion*
|timestamp=1:26 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111077016747401216
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I) Not exactly FTL...but that is fair from what I wrote. I was using shorthand. Guilty. 

II) No. We have obligations to this community. We don't allow them to fully participate so they have economic rights that we are abusing. This is a foreign idea to most. 

III) No: Meaning.
|timestamp=1:26 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Fourliquin-profile-Ttjat29v.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Fourliquin/status/1111080759463301121
|name=Fourliquin
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Fourliquin
|username=Fourliquin
|content=Curious... I just reviewed the 'Dirac Sea' issue last night.

@EricRWeinstein , could you 'lightly' outline the 'provably the best possible' claim? w/o definitions for dark matter/ energy/ fluid, etc. how can we be near the end of the 'story'? thx
|timestamp=1:41 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1111082487541686272
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Briefly: 
A) Dirac operator actually generates K-theory. 

B) Einstein theory from Hilbert Lagrangian is simplest possible Lagrangian in pseudo-riemannian geometry (just scalar curvature).

C) YangMills Lagrangian simplest in Ehresmannian geometry (just norm square of curvature).
|timestamp=1:48 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=David2APatriot-profile-l-0tvz6-.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/David2APatriot/status/1111075555800166406
|name=Wyvern
|usernameurl=https://x.com/David2APatriot
|username=David2APatriot
|content=Lord Kelvin called from the past.
|media1=David2APatriot-X-post-1111075555800166406-D2tVVFaWwAEHsig.jpg
|timestamp=1:20 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}
|timestamp=1:50 AM · Mar 28, 2019
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1177580655460241408
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That said, I think she’s much harder to beat as she gains confidence in her ability to stand for science. It’s an impressive act of conscience &amp; bravery to go it alone like this, and I wish the physics community saw it for what it is.  I may disagree at times, but my hat is off.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1177580652293570561
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We oddly now live in a Hossenfelder era of Theoretical physics. Sabine is almost distinguished by a near total unwillingness/inability to sit quietly through the hype machines in Theoretical physics that feed the demands of lay people, journalists &amp; physicists. But is she right?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1177459169168773121
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=In my new video, I explain why I am not a fan of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
{{#widget:YouTube|id=kF6USB2I1iU}}
|timestamp=1:48 PM · Sep 27, 2019
}}
|timestamp=1:48 PM · Sep 27, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1177580654495617025
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My take is that she is usually right. Not only that, many in the community rail against her when *they* know she is making sense.

But where she‘s wrong could be very significant. I would love to *try* to defend the role of beauty in physics (tarnished by [[String Theory|string theory]]) from her.
|timestamp=1:48 PM · Sep 27, 2019
}}
|timestamp=1:48 PM · Sep 27, 2019
}}