Editing Quantum Field Theory (section)

=== 2023 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618767037672861698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=On January 21 1946, [[Duncan McInnes|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]], [[Frank Jewett|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=That isn't the issue. The issue is that the leadership is not passing the baton and there are no [[Duncan McInnes|McInnes]] or [[Frank Jewett|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/1621198036608389120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=And I don’t want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach. 

It’s basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] culture.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic 🧵. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tuned…
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1621066085826166785
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view. 

I'll leave this here https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|media1=DrBrianKeating-X-post-1621180690976079872-Fn-W-EeaMAIquVs.jpg
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=But Martin, with Eric in my experience, it’s always good faith… l’Shem Shamayim as we say!
|timestamp=4:20 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621196551434682368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Of course! We all fail…or we aren’t pushing ourselves. We have to confront what happened. But, to give @martinmbauer his due, his papers are genuine attempts to understand the physical world. He is one sort of theorist we need more of. 4D [[Standard Model|SM]] + extensions. That’s not [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] theology.
|timestamp=5:19 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621197260238503937
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I’m much more concerned by brilliant theorists who…and I am not kidding at all…refer to the [[Standard Model]] as “Oh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] class.” That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
|timestamp=5:22 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:25 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621293652936105985
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] wasn’t built in a day after all. 

But my point stands along side your point. We don’t seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054161885499395
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1621066085826166785
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view. 

I'll leave this here
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=I am trying an experiment.

Every day in December, I will post 1 result from the past 40 years (ie 1983-present) that fundamentally changed my corner of (fundamental) physics

Here are my rules</br>
- Nothing already earning a Nobel prize</br>
- Not a ranking, just my preferences
|timestamp=3:02 PM · Dec 1, 2022
}}
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1621204677156278273
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=Thanks for the shout-out @martinmbauer

I suspect the response will be that the items on my list "aren't fundamental". A common trend is that people want revolutionary ideas, but demand that the next revolution must look like the last one (and hence isn't revolutionary at all)
|timestamp=5:51 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621292942110638080
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I actually really enjoyed your list. It was quite varied. It included changes in the understanding of the techniques (e.g. RG) and other advancements. And, as you hint at, it dovetails with my point about the stagnancy of fundamental theory. I do not think all physics stagnated.
|timestamp=11:42 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=11:45 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the [[Standard Model|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=“IMO objectively true”

As with so many of these [[String Theory|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 Theory|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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 stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that  is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg [[Quantum Field Theory|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 [[Quantum Field Theory|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 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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the [[Standard Model|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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/1681535402082009088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|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.

[[String Theory|ST]] has taught us many things (e.g.  dualities in [[Quantum Field Theory|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|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.

[[String Theory|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. 🙏

https://x.com/_abitterorange/status/1681528357790310400
|timestamp=5:24 AM · Jul 19, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682982386936565762
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=So you have my list. It is incomplete and idiosyncratic. I’d love to have your corrections and additions. 

So….Where is yours? Thanks again.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977588484947969
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=It is an interesting question as to who inspires us in physics. Here is a list of 20th century giants whose work inspired me that might work as protagonists with interesting stories that deserve to be considered along with the best known Einstein/Hawking/Oppenheimer/Etc.:

[[CN Yang]] (with Lee and Simons)</br>
[[Paul Dirac]]</br>
Ernst Stueckelberg</br>
[[Madame Wu]]</br>
David Bohm</br>
Abdus Salam</br>
[[Ken Wilson]]</br>
[[Emmy Noether]]</br>
Ettore Majorana</br>
Carlo Rubio</br>
Shin'ichirō Tomonaga</br>
[[Lev Landau]]</br>
Simon Van der Meer</br>
Freeman Dyson</br>
Julian Schwinger</br>
Paul Ehrenfest</br>
John VonNeumann</br>
Feza Gursey</br>
Wolfgang Pauli</br>
Louis and [[Ed Witten|Edward Witten]]</br>
Hans Bethe</br>
George Sudarshan</br> 
Vera Rubin</br>
Gerard 't Hooft 

Not all of those stories are…uh…simple.

Would be curious to hear names from others.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=sama-profile-k43GMz63.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/sama/status/1682809958734131200
|name=Sam Altman
|usernameurl=https://x.com/sama
|username=sama
|content=i was hoping that the oppenheimer movie would inspire a generation of kids to be physicists but it really missed the mark on that.

let's get that movie made!

(i think the social network managed to do this for startup founders.)
|timestamp=5:48 PM · Jul 22, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:54 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977591836196866
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=But let’s face facts: inspiration is not the issue. Fundamental Physics needs to be a good life. What is holding us back is:

A) Terrible Pay. 

B) Worse Odds of Survival

C) Decoupling of Success at Physics from Success in Physics

D) The Matthew Effect.

E) Math and Physics Pricks

F) Tyranny of large programs over individuals.

G) Multi Decade Stagnation

H) Un Scientific And even Anti-scientific behavior.

I) The Matilde Effect

J) The Sudarshan Effect

K) Ethics Collapse

L) Needlessly long pedagogical sequence (e.g. intro physics -> Classical Mechanics -> Grad Classical Mechanics -> Symplectic Geometry)  driven by history.

M) Socializing physics into a team sport in areas dominated by individuals and iconoclasts.

N) Tolerance for Program level failure (e.g. *obsessive* use of toy model physics to evade a reckoning).

O) Intolerance for individual error and failure by those in programs.

P) Failure to reward early contributions (e.g. *Abelian* Chern Simons [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]).

Q) Atrocious MSM journalism distorting the public understanding.

R) Relentless discussion of woo physics in public and 3-5 real topics (e.g. somebodies cat).

S) Learned Helplessness coming from over-learning [[Ken Wilson]].

T) Inability to support motherhood of female physicists.

U) Inability to keep physics marriages easily together with jobs.

V) DEI loyalty oaths and loss of autonomy.

W) Flooding of markets with disposable labor and abuse apprenticeship as labor.

X) Kicking up on attribution.

Y) Overpaying for cherry topping.

Z) Fetishizing the quantum when innovation in classical field theory remains the heart of [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]].
|timestamp=4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977595321720832
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=But lastly, if outsiders want to fund and fix movies, you will find that going to the “Leading physicists” won’t work. [[Peer Review|Peer review]] can’t work when the leadership *is* the problem. You get more failure. 

You need to hold meetings where you get disagreement. So choose the leaders and iconoclasts with great care. Patrick Collison isn’t terrible at this. B+. Best I have ever seen. Start there. Good luck. 🙏
|timestamp=4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}