Editing Scientific Method (section)

=== 2024 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767903028420444347
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@truth_soup_ @martinmbauer @elonmusk Yes. That. Thanks.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763283270935027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted. 

But @martinmbauer is clearly also not right here either! Examples:

1915: Einstein’s first explicit equation for General Relativity was mathematically wrong; it set a divergence free 2-tensor equal to a non-divergence free 2-tensor.  But it wasn’t fundamentally wrong. It needed a small fix reversing the trace component. 

In the 1920s E. Schrödinger’s theory  didn’t agree with experiment. Why? Because the spin wasn’t properly incorporated. It wasn’t fundamentally wrong, and was patched. Same theory.

In 1928, P. Dirac’s Quantum Field Theory gave nonsense answers? Why? A small goof conflating bare and dressed masses. Harder to fix…but in no way a fundamental error. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED still stands. 

Etc. Etc.

Not a big deal…but this point is just so wrong as to be unsalvageable. Very curious error to make.

Martin (with whom I usually deeply disagree) is normally pretty great. But sometimes I think pretending that all outsiders talking about the current physics disaster are cranks, causes insiders to say very simplistic unnuanced and wrong things. This feels like that. And I’m not even a physicist. 

It’s like the insiders don’t realize that the outsiders have any validity. All outsiders don’t immediately become cranks by virtue of disagreeing at a profound level with the abjectly failing communities from which they came.

[Note: this is *NOT* a gotcha. I fully expect Martin to realize the error and just admit it. No big deal. We all say incautious things. And this is just obviously wrong. Not an indictment.]
|timestamp=4:03 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767768104690499763
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@codeslubber @elonmusk @martinmbauer Ken Wilson kinda did. He sorta created a new one. But that is different. I think he succeeded pretty well.
|timestamp=4:22 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767768881450320225
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@codeslubber @elonmusk @martinmbauer 1984.
|timestamp=4:25 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767902861025845708
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=You wrote: “In physics, theories are "fundamentally wrong" if they're mathematically inconsistent or contradict experimental evidence.” 

That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way…but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them.

Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the [[Scientific Method]] was the entire point of Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon: 

“I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.”

P.A.M. Dirac

I have no illusion that the point will ever die. But I was scratching my head when YOU made it, just as I was scratching my head watching you and @CburgesCliff hosted by some guy who seems to rely on strawmanning and personal invective as his schtick or act. I find you are usually pretty reasonable. That discussion was painfully biased and was pretty anti-collegial low level internet bullshit in my opinion. Yuck.

Anyway, here is the source:

https://t.co/9InwecZXuT
|timestamp=1:17 PM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
|timestamp=1:18 PM · Mar 13, 2024
}}