Editing Gauge Theory (section)

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983887154989429188
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“The top priority is that the [[Standard Model]] has Internal Symmetry while [[General Relativity]] does not.”

“The top priority is that the [[Standard Model]] is a full [[Gauge Theory]] while [[General Relativity]] has no gauge invariance.”

“The top priority is that [[General Relativity|GR]] allows contraction across the tensor product of bundles while the [[Standard Model]] does not.”

“The top priority is that [[General Relativity|GR]] has well defined Contorsion tensors while the [[Standard Model]] does not.”

Those are all possibile research programs within A. Not within B.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983883269314855156
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There is a tell when listening to physics folks as to whether they’re captured by the [[Quantum Gravity|1984 Quantum Gravity virus]]. 

They either say: 

A) “[[General Relativity]] has to be reconciled with the [[Standard Model]].”

or

B) “[[General Relativity]] has to be reconciled with Quantum Theory.”
|timestamp=1:06 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983883272808727001
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, what is the difference? 

In the latter case of B), the diagnosis has already been definitively made. The problem is thus at the level of frameworks, not the level of theoretical models of the actual world. The issue has been made into “*THE* problem is that the classical theory of Gravity must be quantized.” That is, the classical framework of gravity must be dragged into our general quantum framework as the top priority. Seen this way, it is more of a technical math problem rather than something hyperspecific about our two theories of our physical world.

OPINION: There is absolutely no basis for this B) being an absolute whatsoever. This is a madness which started appearing as a [[String Theory]] mantra around 1984 and has led to a crisis.

In the case of A) that definitive diagnosis has *not* been made.  The case is still
Open. The issue is thus that “We have two specific physical theories that don’t quite fit together for multiple reasons. We need to figure out a physical framework to accommodate them both. That may be a third framework that harmonizes them rather than forcing one into the framework of the other. We need to consider all clues before reaching a definitive diagnosis.”

OPINION: It made absolutely no sense to have closed the case in 1984…and after 40 years of continuous failure, the issue is the leadership of the field. Opening the case and saying “[[General Relativity|GR]] and the [[Standard Model|SM]] have multiple issues. Not just quantization. Why are we not considering that the strong leadership forced THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS on the entire community??”

This is like saying “Maybe COVID came from NIAID/NIH/DTRA/EcoHealth/Daszak/Fauci/Collins/Baric…can we consider that??”

And the answer is “No”. 

But that is why we are stuck in my opinion. We are stuck because we can’t question physics leadership without being thrown out of the community. 

The dogmatic zealous leadership of physics totally failed. That is what happened. That cost us 41 years. 

We can’t get to COVID origins for the same reason we can’t get to [[String Theory]] origins as [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“the only game in town.”]]

The imposed absolutist central narrative is simply a lie.

One man’s opinion.
|timestamp=1:06 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TheMattSeaton-profile-VDx5fLf6.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TheMattSeaton/status/1983885048450281554
|name=Matt Seaton
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TheMattSeaton
|username=TheMattSeaton
|content=I don't see the difference.  Seems to me one could interpret B the same way you are interpreting A.
|timestamp=1:13 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
|timestamp=1:22 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}