View source for Theory of Geometric Unity

The '''Theory of Geometric Unity''' is an attempt by Eric Weinstein to produce a unified field theory by recovering the different, seemingly incompatible geometries of fundamental physics from a general structure with minimal assumptions. For the latest public updates on the theory, visit '''https://geometricunity.org/'''.

* The video presentation of Geometric Unity containing the 2013 Oxford Lecture recording is available [[A_Portal_Special_Presentation-_Geometric_Unity:_A_First_Look|here]]:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=Z7rd04KzLcg}}
* A transcript of the talk is available [[A_Portal_Special_Presentation-_Geometric_Unity:_A_First_Look|here]].
* Discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience Ep 1453 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf0_nMaQ6tA#t=2h16m27s here].
* Discussion on PBS SpaceTime [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_aN8NnoeO0 here]
* [[Geometric Unity Predictions]]
* [[You Know You’re in GU When]]
<div style="float:right;padding:20px;">__TOC__</div>

<blockquote style="width:80%;max-width:500px">''The source code of the universe is overwhelmingly likely to determine a purely geometric operating system written in a uniform programming language.'' 
- '''Eric Weinstein'''
</blockquote>

== Some Key Ideas ==

=== Starting point: three observations by Edward Witten === 

[[File:GU_triangle.png|500px|right]]


{| class="wikitable"
| '''1.''' The Arena (<math> X, g_{\mu\nu}</math>)
| <math>R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} Rg_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} =  \left( \dfrac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}\right)</math>
| the Einstein field equations, which describe gravity in the theory of general relativity

|-
| '''2.''' <math>G</math> (non abelian)
<math> SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)</math>
| <math>d_A^*F_A=J(\psi)</math>
| the Yang-Mills equation, which governs all other force fields in Yang-Mill-Maxwell theory
|-
| '''3.''' Matter
Antisymmetric, therefore light
| <math>(i \hbar \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu - m) \psi = 0</math>
| the Dirac equation, the equation of motion describing matter particles, or fermions
|}

'''Key guiding question:''' what are the compatibilities and incompatibilities between these puzzle pieces on the geometric level before the theory is created quantum mechanical.

=== Problem Nr. 1: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is not a proper Gauge Theory ===

* From Einstein's general relativity, we take the Einstein projection of the curvature tensor of the Levi-Civita connection <math>\nabla</math> of the metric <math>P_E(F_{\nabla})</math>
* From Yang-Mills-Maxwell-Anderson-Higgs theory of gauge fields, we take the adjoint exterior derivative coupled to a connection <math>d^\star_A F_A</math>

'''Idea:''' What if the <math>F</math>'s are the same in both contexts?

Further, supposing these <math>F</math>'s are the same, then why apply two different operators? 

'''Thus the question becomes:''' Is there any opportunity to combine these two operators?

A problem is that the hallmark of the Yang-Mills theory is the freedom to choose the data, the internal quantum numbers that give all the particles their personalities beyond the mass and the spin. We can allow the gauge group of symmetries to act on both sides of the equation, but the key problem is that: <math>P_E(F_{\nabla h}) \neq  h^{-1} P_E(F_{\nabla}) h </math>. If we act on connections on the right and then take the Einstein projection, this is not equal to first taking the projection and then conjugating with the gauge action. The gauge rotation is only acting on one of the two factors. Yet the projection is making use of both of them. So there is a fundamental incompatibility in the claim that Einstein's theory is a gauge theory relies more on analogy than an exact mapping between the two theories.

=== Problem Nr. 2: Spinors are sensitive to the metric ===

'''Observation:''' Gauge fields do not depend on the existence of a metric. One-forms are defined whether or not a metric is present. But for spinors (fermion fields) this is not the case. 

<blockquote>
"So if we're going to take the spin-2 <math>G_{\mu\nu}</math> field to be quantum mechanical, if it blinks out and does whatever the quantum does between observations. In the case of the photon, it is saying that the waves may blink out, but the ocean need not blink out. In the case of the Dirac theory, it is the ocean, the medium, in which the waves live that becomes uncertain itself. So even if you're comfortable with the quantum, to me, this becomes a bridge too far. So the question is: "How do we liberate the definition?"
How do we get the metric out from its responsibilities? It's been assigned far too many responsibilities. It is responsible for a volume form; for differential operators; it's responsible for measurement; it's responsible for being a dynamical field, part of the field content of the system."
</blockquote>

=== Problem Nr. 3:  The Higgs field introduces a lot of arbitrariness ===

<blockquote>"The Dirac field, Einstein's field, and the connection fields are all geometrically well-motivated but we push a lot of the artificiality that we do not understand into the potential for the scalar field that gives everything its mass. We tend to treat it as something of a mysterious fudge factor. So the question is, ''if we have a Higgs field: "why is it here and why is it geometric?''""</blockquote>


=== Proposed Solution ===


<blockquote>
[[File:Geometric unity puzzle pieces.png|500px|right]]

[[File:GU proposal2.png|right|500px|right]]

We may have to generalize all three vertices before we can make progress. That's daunting because in each case, it would appear that we can make an argument that the three vertices are already the simplest possible theories that could live at these vertices.

* We know, for example, the Dirac operator is the most fundamental of all the elliptic operators and Euclidean signature generating all of the Atiyah-Singer theory.
* We know that Einstein's theory describes, in some sense, a unique spin two massless field capable of communicating gravity, which can be arrived at from field-theoretic rather than geometric consideration. 
* In the Yang-Mills case, it can also be argued that the Yang-Mills theory is the simplest theory that we can write down. In the Yang-Mills case, we have no substructure, and so we're doing the most simple-minded thing we can do by taking the norm-squared of the curvature and saying whatever the field strength is, let's measure that size. 

So if each one of these is simplest possible, doesn't Occam’s razor tell us that if we wish to remain in geometric field theory, that we've already reached bottom? 

I would say that there are other possibilities that while each of these may be simplest in its category, they are not simplest in their interaction.

For example, we know that Dirac famously took the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation to achieve the Dirac equation. He actually took two square roots, one of the differential operator, and another of the algebra on which it acts. But could we not do the same thing by re-interpreting what we saw in Donaldson theory and Chern-Simons theory and finding that there are first-order equations that imply second-order equations that are nonlinear in the curvature?

So, let's imagine the following: we replaced the standard model with a true second-order theory. We imagine the general relativity is replaced by a true first-order theory. And then we find that the true second-order theory admits of a square root and can be linked with the true first order theory.

''This would be a program for some kind of unification of Dirac's type, but in the force sector. The question is, "does this really make any sense? Are there any possibilities to do any such thing?"''



</blockquote>


<blockquote >
[[File:GU vision.png|right|400px|right]]

Let's talk about what the Geometric Unity (GU) proposal is. First of all, we observe that we have a division into intrinsic theories and auxiliary theory and between physics and mathematics. An intrinsic physical theory would be general relativity. An auxiliary physical theory would be the Yang-Mills theory, with the freedom to choose internal quantum numbers. 

At the mathematical level, an intrinsic theory would be, the older semi-Riemannian geometry. The study of manifolds with length and angle. Auxiliary geometry is what we're going to call fiber bundle theory or modern gauge theory. 

''Geometric Unity is the search for some way to break down the walls between these four boxes.''

What we'd like to come up with is some theory that is intrinsic, but allows us to play some of the games that exist in other boxes. How can we fit? How can we try to have our cake and eat it too? And use all the full suite of techniques that are available to us?

Our perspective is that the quantum that may be the comparatively easy part and that the unification of the geometry, which has not occurred, may be what we're being asked to do. 
</blockquote>

== More about Geometric Unity on YouTube ==

{{#widget:YouTube|id=ILlhFKuu3NQ}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=wf0_nMaQ6tA|start=8062}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=6vktDo8IWzY}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=vdW9XDBuxjU}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=YjsPb3kBGnk}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=_nQFjyHPrDs}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=uFirZANoiHI}}

{{#widget:YouTube|id=FhiUXN57UF4}}

== On X ==

=== 2009 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6278988958
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=New Topic:"A well meaning amateur predicts LHC Era Physics from Hedge Fund-Land." or "Why don't our pros have more interesting guesses?" #GU
|timestamp=7:49 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6279709455
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: Two theories will gain explaining the 3 families. The one I like less will involve triality and large exceptional groups (a la Lisi).
|timestamp=8:16 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6279911456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: This triality family theory will be based on reps. of dim. 3*8*(2^i) for i =0,1,2,3 for F4,E6,E7,E8, ..... which don't fully exist yet.
|timestamp=8:24 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6280465212
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: We will solve this by refining our notion of a "defining representation" to include 'projective' reps. that *cannot* be deprojectivized.
|timestamp=8:45 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6280629176
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: I predict that it isn't *yet* game over for family triality but @garrettlisi must abandon the 26,27,78,248 'defining reps' of F4,E6-E8.
|timestamp=8:51 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6280927467
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: This is an undervalued program to answer the generalized  "Who ordered that" question of I. Rabi. ... but one still unlikely to work.
|timestamp=9:02 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6281076723
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: Pause. 

[Next: A more hopeful guess for explaining the family structure and what is next in fermion land.]
|timestamp=9:07 PM · Dec 2, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6295147507
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: [Resume.] While family triality is intriguing, I posit there is a more likely geometric basis for the 3 family structure. Here goes....
|timestamp=5:36 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6295170729
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: I posit LHC-Era physics will come to be dominated by an 
N*(3+1) family structure model where the 4th family are 'black sheep' fermions.
|timestamp=5:37 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6295990314
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: Were my model valid, 3*N would be the natural number of broken families of *spinorial* matter with N=1 the most natural value.
|timestamp=6:19 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6296172311
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: But for every 3 spinorial families of 16 particles each, there should be a black sheep family of particles which transform differently.
|timestamp=6:29 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6296353056
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: These black sheep particles would instead transform in the so-called Cartan product of the vector and spinorial represenations.
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6296431642
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: But these particles wouldn't carry internal quantum numbers of Bosonic type. Instead, they would carry the familiar 16D rep of Spin(10).
|timestamp=6:44 AM · Dec 3, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6774395098
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: I'm looking for 144_Spin(10) new Spin 1/2 and 16_Spin(10) new Spin 3/2 fundamental fermions. The 16 wouldn't be dark. The 144 could be.
|timestamp=9:05 PM · Dec 17, 2009
}}

=== 2010 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/18986647659
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: It is worth predicting now that a different spin 0 fundamental field will indeed show up, only to be mis-welcomed...as a "Trojan Higgs."
|timestamp=11:36 AM · Jul 20, 2010
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/8269427373
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=GU: Don't conflate Spin 0 fields valued in the adjoint bundle / non-linear sigma models w/ higgs at LHC. Nature uses Spin 0 alternatively.
|timestamp=6:21 AM · Jan 27, 2010
}}

=== 2013 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/339722424188809216
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Marcus has asked me to delay my return to the US. I will be giving a talk on Geometric Unity for the 3rd time. Some ground rules to follow.
|timestamp=12:38 PM · May 29, 2013
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/340538375234801665
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Just gave my Geometric Unity talk to a fairly full Oxford auditorium. The audience was terrific w/ great questions from the physicists. Thx!
|timestamp=6:40 PM · May 31, 2013
}}

=== 2014 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/423517939434676224
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Geometric Unity contrasted w/ M-theory over at @edge in my answer to the annual question. #edgeQ
What's your choice?
https://t.co/touzrIa0aj
|timestamp=6:12 PM · Jan 15, 2014
}}

=== 2016 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/767530817203478528
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Just gave my 1st talk on my Geometric Unity thy in over 3 years in private breakaway session @ #FQXi2016! Three tough minds asked great Qs.
|timestamp=1:16 AM · Aug 22, 2016
}}

=== 2017 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/826813103752962049
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@ChaosRapist Further my theory of Geometric Unity suggests an inevitable universe that bootstraps itself into emergent existence from nothin
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Feb 1, 2017
}}

=== 2018 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958045232150425600
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=END/ My bet is on Type III for a reason:

Type I is not unified.</br>
Type II is possible, but appears to be unworkable in details.</br>
Type IV appears to lack sufficient guidance from Quantum theory to actually 'ship' despite consuming resources for yrs.</br>
Types V &amp; VI lack any progress.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958021546718633984
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ "Theories of Everything": A Taxonomy.

It is often said that "Theories-of-Everything are a dime a dozen" or that "All theoretical physicists worth their salt have several in a drawer." So far as I can tell, this is simply untrue. We've barely ever, if at all, seen candidates.
|timestamp=4:58 PM · Jan 29, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-958021546718633984-DUuQCV3UMAAmV4G.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958022612390563842
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ The Escher Lithograph used in the first tweet points to the core of why TOEs are rare. A candidate TOE has to have some quality of "a fire that lights itself", which is difficult to think about beyond the equations that would instantiate it. Hence very few such theories exist.
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958026235736567808
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/ I'm going to lean on the following dictionary of analogies:

Physical Paper = Void
Pictured Canvas = Manifold and/or Einsteinian Spacetime
Ink=Matter &amp; non-gravitational force fields
Pencils = Pre-Conscious Lego (e.g. amino acids)
Hands = Consciousness
Paradox = Self-awareness
|timestamp=5:17 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958028114180714496
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ In my taxonomy, Type I TOEs are our least ambitious but they best match our state of the world.  They are distinguished by two *separate* sources of origin: one for the Canvas ([[General Relativity]] or [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] point i) ) &amp; one for the Ink ([[Standard Model]] or [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] point ii) ).
|timestamp=5:24 PM · Jan 29, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-928296366853328896-DOE8P81U8AA_MBe.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958032334346862592
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=5 Type II TOE's are more ambitious &amp; seek to derive the Ink from the choice of a mathematically distinguished Canvas that is anything but blank. My arch-nemesis @garrettlisi's theory is Type II. E8 is his 248 dimensional canvas. The intricacy is there, but doesn't quite match up.
|timestamp=5:41 PM · Jan 29, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-958032334346862592-DUucltrVoAAvF2u.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-958032334346862592-DUucnc5VAAAtoC1.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958034414167982080
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=6/ In Type III TOEs the ink is to be derived from canvas, but the canvas is essentially blank; it simply permits mathematics to happen (e.g. calculus and linear algebra). In such theories the ink has to be bootstrapped into existence. My lectures on [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]] were Type III.
|timestamp=5:49 PM · Jan 29, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-958034414167982080-DUufH-dVAAAD8jD.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958037099457871872
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=7/ Type IV TOE's try to change the question from Einstein's "Unified Field Theory." In [[String Theory|String Thy]], [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantizing Gravity"]] became substituted for "Unified Field." For this crowd, many are now betting that the canvas &amp; ink are both *emergent* from some deeper fundamental quantum thy.
|timestamp=6:00 PM · Jan 29, 2018
|media1=ERW-X-post-958037099457871872-DUuhS VVMAA3FyW.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-958037099457871872-DUuhXHwUQAAEICu.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958039046239928320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=8/ Type V TOEs are of a type I've never been able to fully contemplate; they are without boundaries or origins. There is no "Why is there something rather than nothing" within them. That which is not forbidden is compelled into existence. Void creates canvas &amp; canvas begets void.
|timestamp=6:08 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958041865386827776
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=9/ Type VI TOEs begin with the hands. Religions are of this type. I pass over this in silence as they aren't scientific.

I will leave open higher types, but I've really only seen attempts at I-IV &amp; I wouldn't call [[String Theory|String-Thy/M-Thy]] a full TOE try since events of the last 15 yrs.
|timestamp=6:19 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958043587349901312
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=10/ I believe fundamental physics is stalled out because we are finally at the doorstep of a TOE and we haven't really bothered to think about what that would actually mean because we've never been here before. A final step need not look like any previous one. In fact, it cannot.
|timestamp=6:26 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}
|timestamp=6:32 PM · Jan 29, 2018
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980687868648566784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=END/ I am sorry that this was a bit technical for lay folks and not technical enough for experts, but it's twitter. I may begin to say more in the weeks and months ahead that may be clarifying. 

If you are interested, do stay tuned. Until then, I thank you for your time.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980669687313850368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice.

I was challenged by someone as to why I wasn't taking my own medicine referenced in the sub-tweet below this April 1st.  Ok. Here goes.

What I believe about the universe that is quite different and why I don't talk about it much...
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/979379894978150400
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ APRIL FOOL'S SCIENCE: A proposal.

Already bored of the coming "April Fools' Day!" pranks? Same here. And it's still March!

Consider how we might re-purpose this resource for science. What if 1 day a year, we explored big ideas that'd normally result in professional shunning?
|timestamp=3:28 PM · Mar 29, 2018
}}
|timestamp=4:54 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980671434153275393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ When I was around 16-17, I learned of a story that fascinated me much more than it seemed to captivate any other mathematician or physicist. It was the story of the discovery of the [[Wu-Yang Dictionary|"Wu-Yang" dictionary]] around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: [[Jim Simons]], [[CN Yang]] &amp; [[Isadore Singer|Is Singer]].
|timestamp=5:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980673146398244865
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr 
&amp; Dirac was built on an internal Geometry, just as surely as [[General Relativity]] was built on an external geometry of space-time. Only the two geometries weren't the same! One was due to B Riemann; the other to C Ehresmann.
|timestamp=5:07 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980674834215481344
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ Further the 2 geometries had different advantages. Riemann's geometry allowed you to compress the curvature &amp; measure the 'torsion' while Ehresmann's encouraged "Gauge Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified?
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980677084094783489
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if Einstein's gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could Einstein's structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified &amp; rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!' 

Almost.
|timestamp=5:23 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980680721353199618
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be chiral, I came to believe it was fundamentally symmetric. While we seemed to observe there being 3 or more generations of matter, I came to believe that there were but 2 true generations, plus an improbable "imposter." etc...
|timestamp=5:37 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980682507107602432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=7/ In short a great many things had to be slightly off in our picture of the world in the 1980s to get the two geometric theories into a "Geometric Unity." Then in 1998, it was found that neutrinos weren't massless! This started to tip the scales towards the alterations I needed.
|timestamp=5:45 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980683552487440384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where chirality would be emergent (not fundamental), the number of true generations would be 2 not 3, there would be 2^4 and not 15 Fermions in a generation, and the geometries unify.
|timestamp=5:49 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980686736375164928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=9/ I spoke on this nearly 5 years ago; I have been slow to get back to it as I found the physics response bewildering. I have now decided to return to this work &amp; to disposition it. So over the coming year, I'll begin pushing out [[Theory of Geometric Unity|"Geometric Unity"]] (as a non-physicist) to experts.
|timestamp=6:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018
|media1=DZwWjUgUMAAcOnr.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:06 AM · Apr 2, 2018
}}

=== 2021 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379874520526299136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU it’s 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation. 

Again I would need [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In strong GU:

SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) ([[Standard Model]])

Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside 

Spin(6)xSpin(4)
=SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
 
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)

I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=11Equity-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/11Equity/status/1379832703848230916
|name=11
|usernameurl=https://x.com/11Equity
|username=11Equity
|content=@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity?
https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
|timestamp=4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872179026677760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872179026677760.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872184387039232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with Standard model symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their ‘internal’ quantum numbers as:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872184387039232.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872185871822848
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them? 

A: I don’t. 

But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872186740080647
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a QFT calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague.

So let’s talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. That’s not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872187692187648
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely.

But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ “Beyond the Standard Model” theories.
🙏
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872188593926144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. Happy to attempt to sharpen what GU can say. But not working on my own outside the community. If you want more precise predictions than I already have, I’d need access to normal resources (e.g. constructive QFT colleagues). Working outside from home it’s probably impossible.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1380213544340221953
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Please retweet the quote tweeted thread above to get sound the Twitter algos. 🙏

Unlike many theories, GU can already predict a lot about what comes next and even tells us that we have things wrong about particles we think we already know and understand: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Ko7NW2yQo Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1380213542675095553
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s try this again. This has almost no engagement. I’m not buying it Twitter. 

We are on our way to having physics declared beyond the Standard Model with new matter/force needed. And, this is quite specific as to what Geometric Unity says comes next: https://geometricunity.org
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In strong GU:

SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) (Standard Model)

Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside 

Spin(6)xSpin(4)
=SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
 
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)

I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
}}
|timestamp=5:38 PM · Apr 8, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:38 PM · Apr 8, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1383095502229540866
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As I said before, I have no idea what to make of the UAP shift of our government. But I do know that this period is unlike *any* other epoch. And there are many *different* unprecedented things that could happen so close to the source code as we have been for 50 to 75 years.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1383093745524961280
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=From https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27761
|media1=ERW-X-post-1383093745524961280.jpg
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=guardian-profile.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/guardian/status/1383086768795353090
|name=The Guardian
|usernameurl=https://x.com/guardian
|username=guardian
|content=Pentagon confirms leaked photos and video of UFOs are legitimate
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/pentagon-ufos-leaked-photos-uap
|timestamp=3:55 PM · Apr 16, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:23 PM · Apr 16, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1383094525330038789
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I do wish people would understand that GU is rather serious and what it is attempting to say with new particle predictions, geometric possibilities and additional *temporal* dimensions. 

Even if you assume it is wrong, it is the only attempt of its kind of which I am aware.
|timestamp=4:26 PM · Apr 16, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:30 PM · Apr 16, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231788667113474
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Enough! Let’s get back to UFOs and space opera so we don’t have to worry about China & Iran making a breakthrough on a white board in some lab we can’t see.

Moral: if you take UFOs seriously but not the risk of new physics, you aren’t thinking clearly. 

Just think about it. 🙏
|media1=ERW-X-post-1385231788667113474-EzlU-H5VUAcjajt.jpg
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231778135248901
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=At this point, the story I am tracking isn’t “Little Green Men”. It is “Officials inexplicably change course on UFO narrative”.

Also, the story about “Technology never before seen.” Would make more sense with “Technology” replaced by “Physics”.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=eigenbros-profile-PNxXBojm.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/eigenbros/status/1385203376284082180
|name=Eigenbros
|usernameurl=https://x.com/eigenbros
|username=eigenbros
|content=High level government officials have given [[UAP|UAPs]] credibility, but it's still pretty hard for an outsider to analyze the evidence objectively. It's all video footage and testimony. We need much stronger evidence to form any real opinion on UFOs being extraterrestrial or not.
|timestamp=12:06 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231779724861447
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The US/Europe seriously diverted attention from doing real theoretical physics almost 40 years ago in 1984 to explore physics inspired mathematics. Did China/Iran/Russia/Israel? I don’t know.

But I can tell you this: no one in government is appropriately focused on new physics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231780446277636
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Imagine in 1900 some “crank” told you about thermonuclear weapons. Would you listen or laugh? Well, they’d be only 5 decades away with no aliens necessary. And powered flight hadn’t happened yet!

That’s how powerful a “new physics” advantage is. We’re behaving like lunatics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231781826158593
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Any time ANYONE at least 1/2-way viable says something weird or kooky or interesting (Wolfram, Lisi, etc.) the cost of a Department of Energy 1hr phone call is negligible. Almost no one with that background says anything like this. Maybe less than 1 such PhD “lunatic” per year.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231782497296384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Do I think Wolfram, Lisi, Kaku, Smolin, Klee Irwin, Sarfatti, Woit/Penrose etc are right or on the doorstep of new physics? No! But It’s also totally irrelevant to the security risk.

It wouldn’t matter to me at all.  I would check in with all of them: the cost is zero. The risk?
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231783210328071
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The thing I like least about [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]] is not being able to know what it would unlock if true, any more than Einstein and Bohr understood Lise Meitner, Stan Ulam &amp; Edward Teller’s weaponization of New Physics.

We are talking about UFOs while not worrying about New Physics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231783940169734
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Think about the g-2 muon anomaly. Have you heard as much about that suggesting the possibility of New Physics from high precision (rather than high energy) as you have about the TicTac UAP?

Similarly, how often do you hear about [[UAP|UAP technology]] rather than physics issues. Right??
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231784594444288
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no idea what to make of the change in the [[UAP|UAP narrative]]. What I can tell you with certainty is that for such an ENORMOUS change in the narrative there is no sane explanation for the DOE not to be talking new physics risks and taking every one of the few claims seriously.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231785282260993
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As we saw over &amp; over in the 20th century, any small change in physics can change everything almost overnight. From A-Bombs to Semiconductors.

The handful of PhD level claims are of negligible cost to investigate &amp; dismiss compared to a single fighter jet. 

DOE lost the plot.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1403434469042704384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, song, film, letters, poetry, wealth, luxury, aesthetics, pleasure, delicacies, laughter, eroticism, dance, etc often take on their greatest significance in times of war &amp; peril by sustaining us past the point of mental exhaustion &amp; defeatism.
Expect MORE from the above.🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1403434464328355846
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I may be confused, but I see a world dissolving in a rainbow of spectral Nihilism: anti-natalism, critical theory, post-modernism, equality of outcome, etc.

Great music doesn’t save the world directly. It viscerally reminds us of why humanity is worth saving. GU may fix this.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JoeGibb40573081-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JoeGibb40573081/status/1403427619647934466
|name=Joe Gibbs
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JoeGibb40573081
|username=JoeGibb40573081
|content=Lol while his brother is trying to save the world erics...
|timestamp=7:03 PM · Jun 11, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:30 PM · Jun 11, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1403434465292996608
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=While @sapinker points out how many things got better, he doesn’t address the elephant in the room: The Twin Nuclei Problem.

@BretWeinstein focused on one nucleus. I’m focused on the other.
Almost everyone else is focused on *neither*. 

So listen to some music &amp; pick a nucleus.
|timestamp=7:30 PM · Jun 11, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:30 PM · Jun 11, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131507686363138
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.

We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I can’t think of a single story to fit to these reports I’m hearing about. 

I welcome your thoughts. As always. 

Warm regards, 

Eric
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131487692115972
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Dear @michaelshermer,

Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also don’t find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of “no isolated discontinuous innovation” quite interesting!

Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1403837966305300481
|name=Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why [[UAP|UAPs]] cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to [[UAP|UAPs]] that if true would be decades or centuries ahead of us. History shows no nations/companies of comp development so lag.
https://quillette.com/2021/06/03/understanding-the-unidentified/
|timestamp=10:13 PM · Jun 12, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131494289760259
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically “centuries ahead” is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.

Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? I’d have guessed “many” (not .5) and been wrong.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-1.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-2.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496059805698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next challenge: doesn’t your line of reasoning prove that “Renaissance Technologies” is either a fraud or a front? Their Medallion Fund is otherwise a long term unbreached secret, discontinuous from any other know investment fund seemingly thousands of years ahead of competitors.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496844165120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now I’ve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, it’s either a counter example to your claims on discontinuous innovation if it is merely a fund or a counter-example to your secrecy claims if it is our secret physics program.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131497641082880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next: there are really two metrics on innovations.

Metric I: How big the incremental jump in difficulty. 

Metric II: How big the jump in what is unlocked.

The great fear is that a small jump measured by 1 leading to an ENORMOUS jump in as measured by II.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131498391871490
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people can’t exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.

They all exhibited the “a little unlocks a lot” paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499197157376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the world’s top employed anti-gravity researcher(?!) of the 1950s turned in what may be the most impressive 15yr output in the history of the subject by my estimation. How can I begin to explain this?
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499977318403
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s not physics exactly. But Edward Witten w support from a small number of folks rewrote Quantum Field Theory as geometry. If Einstein geometrized gravity, then Witten geometrized Quantum Field theory (everything else).

Now, all that change has so far unlocked exactly nothing.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131500753182720
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But it’s not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, Witten &amp; Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius &amp; power looking for its 1st application to the 🌎.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131501512433665
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you gave us E Witten, J Simons, I Singer, CN Yang, M Atiyah, D Quillen &amp; G Segal, in a quiet program in 1975, I could argue that they didn’t need much more. In fact you don’t need all 7 but for the sake of argument I can make the case using this. But Witten is the main engine.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131502275776512
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I don’t know those systems as well so I’ll use the US example.

We know most of the top minds. We pretend that there is a lot of subjectivity about this for social reasons but China wouldn’t.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503064289281
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If I thought like CCP, I’d create a lavish secret theoretical physics program modeled on the Russian Sharashka system. The key would be to get it to look like something else. A boring Tech company or some weird Chinese fund to disguise the reason for the secretive lavish campus.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503827685378
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Digression: If the US were smarter, we’d do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists &amp; ML experts by a national lab &amp; an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry &amp; physics. But enough crazy talk..]
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131504586838016
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If CCP could today repeat what Witten (&amp; friends) did building off Geometric Quantum Field Thy, the US would have Zero clue what it unlocks. Even by your own incrementalist theory. It might unlock absolutely nothing. Or passage to the stars via additional degrees of freedom. 🤷‍♂️
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131505350201345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One last point. I released such a theory. Could well be wrong.

But I can tell you I should have received a call from DOE. Because calls are cheap and relevant trained PhDs are *very* finite. The US should track every geometer, General Relativist, and Particle Theorist working.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506121961473
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You don’t have to take a position on me or GU. You can ask Wolfram or Lisi or Barbour or Deutsche or anyone outside the system whether such calls are placed. They are not. No one *in* the system believes in wild discontinuous change from *outside* the system. As per your article.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506876928003
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Which is to say we’re not monitoring. Maybe we think that’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe we think that a Grisha Perelman of physics is impossible.

How much does a phone call cost if a researcher is wrong vs not bothering if they’re right? Price the Type I &amp; II error. Nuts.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1407313638311006210
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=France just opened up and  I’m honored to have been invited to give the first in person GU presentation post COVID at Centre de Physique Théorique in Marseille. It’s on 6/22 at
8am ET/5am PT.

Join Zoom Meeting</br>
https://univ-amu-fr.zoom.us/j/95582769808?pwd=TkZRaFJpdjZEUXVySlV1K3hKMTlhQT09#success

Meeting ID: 955 8276 9808</br>
Passcode: 674264
|timestamp=12:24 PM · Jun 22, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1407833970436419584
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m quite concerned now given John’s 2020 call.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1407833964723773442
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have two bits of information about [[Jeffrey Epstein|JE]] that are not public.

1) An interchange from McAfee on [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]].

2) Knowledge that [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] was asking after me in a late email just before he died. I have no idea why. There is no more contact about [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] than one meeting about 20yrs ago.
|timestamp=10:52 PM · Jun 23, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1407833964723773442.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1407833966678249473
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=With that said, there now is nothing I know of again on [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] that is private. There is no benefit to harassing me further. All [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] information is now public.

He crossed my path once. Seemed to know who I was. Interested in [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]]. That’s it. John and I have no recent contact.
|timestamp=10:52 PM · Jun 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1407833968423079941
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]] is now public. I have no more information as to its connection to [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] other than he wanted it taken to Villard house. I’d like to talk to relevant physicists quickly given its role in the story. I give my permission to release *any* [[Jeffrey Epstein|Epstein]] security video of me. Thanks.
|timestamp=10:52 PM · Jun 23, 2021
}}
|timestamp=10:52 PM · Jun 23, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697134467641351
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And I think NDT is enforcing a dangerous “Copernican” consensus that we are too insignificant to even monitor or visit, to go along with “We’ve had Nukes for 70 years without losing a city. I wouldn’t worry. What could possibly go wrong.”

This is just a human rationality flaw.🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697117359144969
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I subscribe to an unpopular position. Consider 3 kinds of 🌎:

A) Ones with no life or at least no life within striking distance of the source code (ToE).

B) Worlds that are on the verge of gaining the source code but are confined to a terrestrial surface.

C) Root level access.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=mishaperiphery-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/mishaperiphery/status/1409618467024560129
|name=Misha Mansoor
|usernameurl=https://x.com/mishaperiphery
|username=mishaperiphery
|content=I see your point, but I would ask, wouldn’t there be a difference between basic recognition and categorization, and actively studying and interacting?  One would assume that other species would still be resource and time limited, therefore forced to prioritize their attention?
|timestamp=9:03 PM · Jun 28, 2021
}}
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697119053615115
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now, if you can jack into the cosmos as ‘Root’ it MAY facilitate stuff that’s unimaginable (e.g. dimension hacking) yet only one remaining big upgrade away from being able to fuse nuclei. Which is where we are now.

I’d guess all civilizations that are Root care about each other.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697119846289413
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The following is pure speculation (Tutored by experience w/ GU):

I think we sent a signal to the cosmos in 1945 and then on Nov. 1, 1952. Fusing Nuclei is what you do JUST before you become root. If this is right, we let the cosmos know “Earth is root adjacent” w/o awareness.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697120748113923
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Is there anyone in the cosmos listening? Perhaps not. But we are all acting as if living on a terrestrial surface with the ability to fuse nuclei is some totally normal thing due to &lt;70 years of good luck. Which is insane.

Now what if I’m right in the above and the cosmos cares?
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697121628921860
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The idea of a newly space-time-faring unwise civilization with fresh root level access is a nightmare. And no one but no one on earth takes this seriously anymore. After 1952 fundamental physics went on progressing normally for ~20yrs. So after that it’s been~50yrs of stagnation.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697122434260992
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In those ~50yrs we learned to stop worrying. About Fusion-weapons, interstellar travel, a cosmos that listens or even our ability to progress to the end. In 1984, physicists were talking about the end of physics without irony. They then failed, while failing to report failure.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697123281489928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So they told another story: “String theory didn’t fail!! It may take 100s of years to figure it out!” That is “If we String Theorists can’t make progress, a Theory of Everything is now far over the Horizon for everyone else.” But that’s not logically necessary. I say we’re close.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697124225208320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It makes sense to worry about *every* small boutique  program: Lisi, Wolfram, Barbour, LQG, Tegmark, ConnesLott, Octonions, amplitudhedron, etc. Our science/defense establishment doesn’t seem to get this idea: after 50yrs of no progress it seems too abstract to practical men.
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697128490831877
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I learned from my buddy @SamHarrisOrg that he thought 👽 would be Millenia ahead of us.
Look at Nov 1, 1952 from Nov 1 1902: you don’t have powered flight, know what relativity or the quantum is, know that neutrons exist, know about anti-matter, etc.

From ‘02, ‘52 IS millennia.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1409697128490831877-1.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1409697128490831877-2.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697130122338306
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Well, we may or may not have a major update in our future. And if it unlocks dimension hacking, looking glass matter, VEV/potential hacking, multi-temporal pseudo-Riemannian metrics, Dark Chemisty, Dark Light, additional families, RaritaSchwinger fields, etc then we get upgraded.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697130961281025
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And I believe all at once.

What does that mean? I honestly don’t know.

But Imagine you sent a chainsaw, a Bugatti, Ibogaine, “My-1st-Crisper”, and an F-18 to a badly behaved 5yr old child for a birthday present w a simple card: “Enjoy!” We’d worry specifically b/c immaturity.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697131846242308
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That’s what NDT has most wrong. He thinks we are far behind anything that could visit us, but that ISN’T backed up by science. He’d have to explain why we aren’t “root adjacent” right now or that root buys us nothing. Well?

Think of the relationship of Iran to nukes for example.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697132680945664
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Iran is now Nuke adjacent. And their facilities and scientists keep running into mysterious problems.   Why? Surely not because Iran is too insignificant to her more advanced neighbors. That would mirror NDT’s argument. My argument is that root level access to nuclei *suffices*.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409697133603606534
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Am I saying “Aliens are here”? Of course not. But the “Root Adjacency Hypothesis” is not properly discussed almost anywhere. Which defies all explanation.

Perhaps everyone else is right &amp; I’m wrong. Absolutely! But it’s common for the world to make a crazy dumb idea a consensus.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561365545947137
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But in standard Relativity theory as an effective theory, I don’t think about FTL. Sorry.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413559042539089922
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t believe in FTL travel.

FTL is an implicit appeal to travel *within* Relativity theory. Presumably traversing the spacetime manifold of Einstein faster than his theory allows.

The goal is to ask what theory is *beyond* Einstein & might it allow us the *illusion* of FTL.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JJmschulz-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JJmschulz/status/1413556422483316737
|name=Jason Schulz
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JJmschulz
|username=JJmschulz
|content=Can you describe faster than light travel in practical  layman's terms?
|timestamp=5:51 PM · Jul 9, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:01 PM · Jul 9, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561361838186496
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=An example: In GU, relativity theory is recovered from the Observerse which is constructed around two separate spaces X and Y. Einstein’s Spacetime (a signature (1,3) 4-manifold with pseudo Riemannian metric) is recovered from observations of Y by X.
|timestamp=6:11 PM · Jul 9, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561363629105152
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Another example. Some see spacetime as the commutative limit of a non-commutative manifold. That would be beyond relativity.

Others see topology changing operators that allow agents to change spacetime topologically. Again that would be beyond the usual relativity theory.
|timestamp=6:11 PM · Jul 9, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:11 PM · Jul 9, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445165323959693312
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My friend &amp; work colleague, Jesse Michels over at @AlchemyAmerican, is starting his podcast/video series. 

As the original producer of ThePortal, he interviews me here about its start, GU, etc.:

https://youtu.be/ZTIO-xAP0Dw

Give him a subscription and let’s see where he takes this.
|timestamp=11:13 PM · Oct 4, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1461031567149600768
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wanted to thank the High-Energy theory group in the physics department at @uchicago for the invite to visit &amp; speak on GU in the Kadanoff center. Thanks in particular to my colleague Savdeep Sethi for a lovely visit over a couple of days.

Great Folks + Chalk + Slate = Happiness.
|timestamp=6:00 PM · Nov 17, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1461031567149600768-1.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1461031567149600768-2.jpg
|media3=ERW-X-post-1461031567149600768-3.jpg
|media4=ERW-X-post-1461031567149600768-4.jpg
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1475348594223763456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Still, it is striking to hear this is being discussed by Elizondo and others.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1475348233035530241
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wow. I’ve never once seen these quotes.

And what have I been warning about? Either 4 or 6 extra temporal dimensions. Same deal.

No more arrow of time. Time would become a higher dimensional whirlpool. But this is a fringe area of respectable physics. Not crazy enough to ignore.
|timestamp=6:10 AM · Dec 27, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1475348234746798082
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Is there anything to this? Don’t know. I spoke to Hal Puthoff about it. Didn’t get much of a reaction. But secrecy is secrecy. And I respect that given what would be at stake.

But strong GU predicts 7 or 5 total *temporal* dimensions as the most likely total number. A big shift.
|timestamp=6:10 AM · Dec 27, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:11 AM · Dec 27, 2021
}}

=== 2022 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492539785713524739
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Looking forward to talking to my colleague and friend, the noted skeptic @michaelshermer in less than an hour at https://t.co/2a2I4gP5cd as part of @HTLGIFestival to discuss the Multiverse and the GU Observerse. 

Join us!
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1492525549994102784
|name= Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=At 12:30pm ET/9:30am PT today I'm in conversation with @EricRWeinstein about his Geometric Unity theory of everything at the big UK @HTLGIFestival Lots of interesting talks on consciousness too. Join us if you are of a mind:
https://howthelightgetsin.org/events/eric-weinstein-in-conversation-with-michael-shermer-6218
|timestamp=3:46 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=4:43 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570098837645332486
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So if #ufotwitter ever wanted to know why I didn’t take [[UAP|#UFO]] seriously, it was because I thought it was *preposterous* given lack of evidence.

And if #ScienceTwitter wants to know why I spun on a dime, it’s because it IS linked to the post-Einsteinian physics of our survival.
🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570090986969403394
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Under [[Isaac Newton|Newton]], we were free to explore the cosmos: 1686-1905.

Einstein then enforced house arrest to our solar system:1905-Now.

@elonmusk then said chemical rockets could get us 2 more spheres w Newtonian laws.

But survival hinges on going *beyond* Einstein, not back to Newton.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=rogerahicks-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/rogerahicks/status/1570080616032473090
|name=Philosopher Kin/Roger the Racist/Race Realist.
|usernameurl=https://x.com/rogerahicks
|username=rogerahicks
|content=Did you really say that, Eric?

Like EVERY civilisation before us, not destroyed by some rival, we are on course to self-destruct long before we become a multi-planetary species.

Your Brother, Bret's, #EvolutionaryLens should reveal this to him, but doesn't seem to have done.
|timestamp=4:02 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
|timestamp=4:43 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570092276206149632
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m not going to complicate the basic story with caveats. That’s the basic plot. 

Either there is freedom to leave based on new ideas, like [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]], or the [[Einstein’s Prison|Einsteinian restrictions]] will persist.

If they persist; we probably can mildly elongate survival here by decades via wisdom.
|timestamp=4:49 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570095403038814215
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But if we can leave to explore the universe by going beyond Einstein, anyone else out there can visit.

This brings us to [[UAP|UFO/UAP]]. Assuming a distribution of life in the cosmos:: some life is behind us in science, with others ahead.

A (loose) argument then links [[UAP]] to survival:
|timestamp=5:01 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570096379405676544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If life is abundant &amp; we’re not the top of the hierarchy (which is reasonable to me), I’d guess that [[UAP]] would be here if that is possible in Einstein’s successor theories. The absence of [[UAP]] is strong but *inconclusive* proof that [[Einstein’s Prison|Einstein’s restrictions]] persist in all theory.
|timestamp=5:05 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1570097237136658433
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hence my interest in [[UAP]]. [[UAP]] from distant worlds would be a strong indication that it is possible to diversify our shared risk which is that all known technological life is dependent on one atmosphere linking our three main existential risks:

A) Climate</br>
B) Pathogen</br>
C) Radiation
|timestamp=5:08 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}
|timestamp=5:15 PM · Sep 14, 2022
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580319424627691520
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=11) Science Policy Theory (V Bush)</br>
12) Selection (Abstracted)</br>
13) Comparative Eschatology</br>
14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called ‘Golden age of General Relativity’.</br>
15) GU</br>
16) Mind control.

Remember: you asked! ;-)
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580319421330907136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1) General Relativity</br>
2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry</br>
3) Quantum Field Theory</br>
4) Material Science/Condensed Matter</br>
5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry</br>
6) Disinformation Theory</br>
7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming</br>
8) Propaganda</br>
9) Preference Falsification Theory</br>
10) Mansfield Amendment
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=OneFineDia_-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/OneFineDia_/status/1580313382666014720
|name=One Fine Day
|usernameurl=https://x.com/OneFineDia_
|username=OneFineDia_
|content=@LueElizondo recently gave a small list of topics he would recommend for study to begin to wrangle "the Phenomenon", if he "were king". What areas of intersectional learning do YOU think are needed and should be more deeply looked into? Your ufology curriculum. Thanks, Eric.
|timestamp=9:44 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1584688956171759622
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I wish people would stop talking about higher dimensional beings though. If GU is on point, then we are also higher dimensional beings. So I could do without Exoticism. If this is in any way real, we should reserve speech for precise meanings. And I don’t know if it is real. Yet.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1584685455077179392
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Willing to answer a few more Tweets on the San Marino UAP conference where I unexpectedly was asked to fill in for @LueElizondo. I’m likely to get throttled &amp; harassed yet again. When and if the beloved Twitter nanny algorithm starts again, I’ll call it a night here in Rome.

Go!
|media1=ERW-X-post-1584685455077179392-Ff3vBSbXEAEye24.jpg
|timestamp=11:17 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=McLuhanStates-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/McLuhanStates/status/1584686356630208512
|name=Marshall
|usernameurl=https://x.com/McLuhanStates
|username=McLuhanStates
|content=Has any of this episode inspired you to pursue  your GU theory with greater zest? Is there an interdimensional route opening?
|timestamp=11:20 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1584687193599401985
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There is a lot of loose talk about dimensionality. Keep in mind that I have zero direct evidence of the phenomena. So this is wildly premature.

My interest here is that GU replaces one manifold with two in a bundle structure and adds BOTH temporal and spatial dimensions.
|timestamp=11:24 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1584687932039798784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As the author of GU, I still don’t know how to think in multiple temporal dimensions. The math is quite exotic. But I at least know through GU that the math can FORCE us to confront ultra hyperbolic PDE. It would change everything we know if unscreened. No simple Hamiltonian.
|timestamp=11:26 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}
|timestamp=11:31 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1586046812682481664
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s go slow. GU has GR as a sub theory. So if GR was wildly wrong, it wouldn’t be good for GU. It pays to be excited with extreme caution. I hadn’t seen this though. So thanks!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=joerogan-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/joerogan/status/1586042786901549056
|name=Joe Rogan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/joerogan
|username=joerogan
|content=Astrophysicists make observations consistent with the predictions of an alternative theory of gravity
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-astrophysicists-alternative-theory-gravity.html
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Oct 28, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=PecoraroJarrod-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/PecoraroJarrod/status/1586043836857552896
|name=Browncoat
|usernameurl=https://x.com/PecoraroJarrod
|username=PecoraroJarrod
|content=@EricRWeinstein come teach.
|timestamp=5:14 PM · Oct 28, 2022
}}
|timestamp=5:26 PM · Oct 28, 2022
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1603869062945067009
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Word to the wise: watch when they figure out the work on CPI and, most importantly, GU. “Gonna be lit.” 

Same story, but on steroids: institutions can’t deny reality at this scale forever. Too many enormous lies to maintain indefinitely . The instit. Kayfabe collapse is coming.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1603866949129482240
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So,I was  ̶d̶e̶r̶a̶n̶g̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶u̶d̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶u̶n̶h̶i̶n̶g̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶a̶n̶o̶i̶d̶,̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶,̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶n̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶h̶i̶l̶a̶r̶i̶o̶u̶s̶,̶ ̶c̶r̶i̶n̶g̶e̶,̶ ̶p̶a̶t̶h̶e̶t̶i̶c̶,̶ ̶g̶r̶a̶n̶d̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶l̶a̶t̶a̶n̶,̶ ̶n̶u̶t̶t̶y̶,̶ right all along?
{{Tweet
|image=mtaibbi-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857551287730176
|name=Matt Taibbi
|usernameurl=https://x.com/mtaibbi
|username=mtaibbi
|content=8. Federal intelligence and law enforcement reach into Twitter included the Department of Homeland Security, which partnered with security contractors and think tanks to pressure Twitter to moderate content.
|timestamp=8:00 PM · Dec 16, 2022
}}
|timestamp=9:37 PM · Dec 16, 2022
}}
|timestamp=9:45 PM · Dec 16, 2022
}}

=== 2023 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1623353348438249472
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The irremovable singularities of [[General Relativity|GR]] indicate that [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] is an intermediate theory. It’s NOT final. And I wouldn’t want to face an adversary that knew the ultimate theory while I was still back in spacetime thinking.

Spacetime may not be hackable,
but it’s successors may be.🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1623353344344596491
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I want to use the argument made to make a point. “Light years” is a mathematical concept. Newtonian gravitation &amp; [[Albert Einstein|Einstein’s]] [[General Relativity|general relativity]] are our past &amp; current mathematical maps of the physical “territory”.

The Map ≠ The Territory.

I’m focused on post-Einsteinian maps.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=montuakmo66-profile.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/montuakmo66/status/1623345762745589760
|name=montuakmo66
|usernameurl=https://x.com/montuakmo66
|username=montuakmo66
|content=You know the laws of physics, you understand probability, you understand how many stars are within a 100 light years of Earth.   ... So let us stop pretending there is any possibility that this is nothing more than a con.
|timestamp=3:39 AM · Feb 8, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Feb 8, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1623353346395602946
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I am worried that should any entity get a Post Einsteinian map, those with only [[General Relativity|GR]] will be “owned” by those with the advantage. Think neutrons. 

[[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]] is by its nature, a post Einsteinian theory. It recovers spacetime from a more general structure.

{{#widget:YouTube|id=GL77oOnrPzY}}
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Feb 8, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Feb 8, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1638578352989806595
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Perhaps one simple thing I might add is that only with one temporal dimension do boundary conditions become initial conditions. Boundary conditions are more general and Ultra Hyperbolic equations can be defined so that Hyperbolic relativistic equations are a quirky special case.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1638575793185099782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t know how to answer. I believe that the world beyond Einstein does not have a 1,3 metric where that 1 means a single future.

If I’m correct, the world is 7,7 or 5,9 pulled back to 1,3. So I decline to answer: I don’t know how to think about my own model’s pasts/futures.
https://x.com/cdse2403/status/1638538814086889472
|timestamp=4:18 PM · Mar 22, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1638575795726876672
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As I have said in public, I find it EXTREMELY difficult to conceptualize multiple temporal dimensions. Just because I can see that they are there in my model, does not mean  I am smart enough to understand their consequences. Sorry to disappoint. Try Itzhak Bars at USC?

Be well.
|timestamp=4:18 PM · Mar 22, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Mar 22, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1638586542745882624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Gimel pulls back field content native to Y back to X. Gimel^{1,3} does the pulling back of the data (sections over Y). It is the stylus that samples the record Y^{7,7} (or Y^{5,9} in the second GU variant that is physical) and plays it back. In GU, spacetime is just the Victrola.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1638575793185099782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t know how to answer. I believe that the world beyond Einstein does not have a 1,3 metric where that 1 means a single future.

If I’m correct, the world is 7,7 or 5,9 pulled back to 1,3. So I decline to answer: I don’t know how to think about my own model’s pasts/futures.
https://x.com/cdse2403/status/1638538814086889472
|timestamp=4:18 PM · Mar 22, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=ldgaetano-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/ldgaetano/status/1638584213078257665
|name=Luca D'Angelo
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ldgaetano
|username=ldgaetano
|content=If gimel is native to X, then what is the pullback of gimel? Or is gimel native to Y?
|timestamp=4:51 PM · Mar 22, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Mar 22, 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 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
}}

=== 2024 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1768233796585840677
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay. I’m out. Back to sleep. Appreciate the kind words and questions. 

Thank you. 🙏
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=GriswoldClark83-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/GriswoldClark83/status/1768232809175421132
|name=Richard Barren
|usernameurl=https://x.com/GriswoldClark83
|username=GriswoldClark83
|content=This one tweet has made dark matter so much more understandable than the last  20 years hearing about it. Thanks as always Eric.
|timestamp=10:25 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1768219662846677493
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Twitter over compensates for the very real madness of the institutional world. 

Despite being seen as contrarian, here are some mainstream Physics opinions that I hold, which Twitter somehow finds controversial:

I don’t think The Universe is “made of Consciousness.”

I don’t think Dark Energy is “Sus”. 

I think Dark Matter is real.

I don’t think the Standard Model is ‘bogus’.

I don’t think “universities are over”.

I don’t think String Theory (for all its problems) or String Theorists are stupid.

Etc.
——

Twitter is kinda just nuts. No matter how extreme my opinions are by real world standards, Twitter is always more extreme. Perhaps it is because people hold things that they claim are “opinions”, but which would require more details and knowledge to elevate to that level. For example, I don’t think I have an opinion on reasons of political economy for recent changes in the credit rating of Macedonian municipal bonds. So it is always surprising to see so many accounts claiming to hold strong heterodox opinions on wormholes, dark matter or the Big Bang.
|timestamp=10:16 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1768224966971945292
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I will respond to a few responses here to give an idea of what is going on X/Twitter. 

Tweet 1. In physics, equations often don’t balance. So we add terms to account for what we can’t YET directly detect. The Neutron, quarks, Higgs field and Neutrino all had such an origin. By now all have been directly observed and fairly well modeled. 

This is why I point out that neutrinos are basically dark matter, but for the weak force as the only non gravitational force to couple to them and affect them. 

Dark is a spooky and misleading name for these which makes dark energy and dark matter sound similar. They aren’t. 

Think of dark matter as being “decoupled matter” and/or “ultra heavy matter we can’t see at current accelerator energies” and it might seem to be less suspicious.

I don’t yet have a comparable suggestion for dark energy. Sorry.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=snapper421-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/snapper421/status/1768221995949330718
|name=snapper421
|usernameurl=https://x.com/snapper421
|username=snapper421
|content=Dark mater and energy are concepts I just can't wrap my head around.
|timestamp=10:25 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
|timestamp=10:37 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1768228640716664976
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Tweet 2: 

“Theory of everything” as an idea confuses people. It’s sorta a string theory branding problem. The store “Just Tires” also does oil changes. 

String Theorists relentlessly used “Theory of Everything” to grab our attention just as a store that wanted a simple message. Surely a theory of everything would scientifically explain “Why is there something rather than nothing?” just as “Just Tires” would surely not do oil changes.

Well, both went bust but couldn’t change their branding.

Even if is ultimately accepted as a TOE, Geometric Unity *cannot* explain why there is something rather than nothing. TOE is a term of art meaning that the input is something natural and simple and the output is presumably complete as the rules for the universe. 

A TOE is more properly an attempt at the answer to “Why do the rules for everything unpack from assumptions so simple as to defy further scientific interest?” GU attempts to unpack from the assumption of 4-degrees of freedom (a manifold) and a tiny amount of natural structure like orientations and spin structures that are geometric and natural. It doesn’t explain from where that came. 

A TOE doesn’t seek to put the theologian and philosopher out of business.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=blackbird4032-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/blackbird4032/status/1768222287063404935
|name=Blackbird
|usernameurl=https://x.com/blackbird4032
|username=blackbird4032
|content=If the initial condition of all reality was absolute nothing there would be nothing in nothing to bring about something.
|timestamp=10:26 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
|timestamp=10:52 AM · Mar 14, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1768228640716664976-GIoCjf2XQAAHmBf.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1768231269828009993
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Tweet 3: 

Honestly, I don’t even know where this comes from. I’ve spent thousands of hours in physics departments and never heard this discussed seriously. Even Roger Penrose’s theory about the quantum mind isn’t taken at the level of his other work. 

I think the best that can be said for this as a scientific theory is that Physicists are finally admitting that the collapse of the wave function isn’t totally clear on what an observer or observation is. So consciousness can try to sneak in here as the missing ingredient. 

I think this is an artifact of language. If we called the observer the collapser and had admitted we didn’t know what we meant exactly rather than trying to Pretend we did, it wouldn’t invite this much attention. 

We should just admit that the notion of “the observer” is both mysterious at a field theoretic level and badly named. 

And for my two cents, I’m betting an observation is in part something called “Pull back from the total space of a bundle via a section”. This boring and dry language wouldn’t cause mostly lay people to seize on consciousness as a solution.
|timestamp=11:02 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}
|timestamp=11:12 AM · Mar 14, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060797847208382
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Note for Curt: This is the whole point of Geometric Unity. They are three geometries. Which are all one geometry, and that is only possible in the rarest of circumstances. Which we are in oddly. 

Metric Geometry: General Relativity GR
Fiber Geometry:  Standard Model SM
Symplectic Geometry: Hamiltonian Quantization of the SM. ]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=TOEwithCurt-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt/status/1773057150199238985
|name=Curt Jaimungal
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt
|username=TOEwithCurt
|content=I'm confused. This lecture doesn't negate the geometric foundations of GR. Einstein differentiates between how gravity and electromagnetism relate to the structure of space, all the while pointing to his ultimate goal of unification. As for the rest of the original article linked, I'm unsure how the quotes from Einstein support the author's title. GR is indeed a geometric theory; however, Einstein's viewpoint was that its geometric nature doesn't singularly distinguish it from the broader domain of physics, where geometry has always played a fundamental role. If anything, Einstein is saying not to confuse the map with the territory.
|timestamp=6:39 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060553411641673
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=He is correctly anticipating the Simons-Yang discovery of the “Wu Yang dictionary”. 

Maxwell became Yang Mills
Yang Mills became Simons Yang.
Simons Yang became the Wu Yang Dictionary. 
Wu Yang was (except for one entry) was Ehressmann fiber bundle geometry. 

Think of metric geometry, fiber geometry and symplectic geometry as the geometry of symmetric metric 2-tensors, fiber bundle connections and anti-symmetric 2 tensors respectively.
|timestamp=6:52 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:53 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1925895104130097287
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To define this term, Geometric Unity constructs an Inhomogeneous Gauge Group as the source for the terms in the difference, and then replaces the Einstein field equations, term by term, with a new equation on a space of fields, far better behaved than Einstein’s space of metrics.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1925892972685447247
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Geometric Unity predicted that there’s no cosmological constant by replacing the frought term w/ a natural geometric varying field, invariant under symmetries.

I’ve given several talks on this recently in different physics depts. This was filmed at one in the U.S. in April.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1925588585782419472
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=A Universe without a cosmological constant? 
@EricRWeinstein presents a technical lecture @UCSanDiego on the future of Einstein’s “Biggest Blunder” in light of Geometric Unity & DESI’s newest results.

Watch:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=fBozSSLxFvI}}
|timestamp=12:34 PM · May 23, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925892972685447247-Grolc6TXsAAFnXe.jpg
|timestamp=12:34 PM · May 23, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925895104130097287-GronY-hWcAE6G9w.jpg
|timestamp=12:42 PM · May 23, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1926310635408617534
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You ask:

Q: “What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles?”

A: Because, unlike String Theory, GU introduces *zero* extra dimensions. None. All 14 dimensions come from data within Einstein’s 4 dimensions. 

Every Einsteinian space-time X^4 is ALREADY a section of the bundle of possible metric tensors. That bundle Y^14(X^4) has dimension 14 within General Relativity. All those 14 dimensions are endogenous and not extra dimensions. The data is all within X^4. 

Extra means non-endogenous. These are endogenous.

SUMMARY. GU introduces no extra dimension beyond those already found in General Relativity. All data is within X^4.

[GU also introduces FAR LESS data than is introduced within the standard model. I believe there is no other theory that introduced fewer initial assumptions or is even close to GU in this regard.]

Thanks for the question.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=ArterraForever-profile-xntZ6gUJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever/status/1926008222902542502
|name=Gerald Welch
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever
|username=ArterraForever
|content=Eric,

I have a sincere and respectful question for you.

You’ve rightly criticized string theory for introducing unobservable extra dimensions and for prioritizing mathematical elegance over empirical necessity. But in Geometric Unity, you also introduce additional dimensions (fourteen in total) to house the fields and symmetries needed for unification. While I understand these dimensions serve a structural rather than vibrational purpose, I’m wondering how we justify them any more than string theory justifies its own.

What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles?

Why not begin instead with the most minimal assumption: what must exist for the universe to behave as it does? Repulsion dominates the cosmos. Time governs emergence. Must we construct fields to explain what spacetime may already be doing by default?

With all respect, I ask whether our best hope for progress lies not in building more elaborate systems, but in returning to the simplest foundational questions.

Jerry
|timestamp=8:11 PM · May 23, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:13 PM · May 24, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Reason_Will_Win-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Reason_Will_Win/status/1927743853475356836
|name=Zagros Ozkan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Reason_Will_Win
|username=Reason_Will_Win
|content=That's why your observation about peer review really being peer injunction makes so much sense.

Sorry Eric, I feel you, and I'm sure many more do too. The spell will break through, I believe that.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=HeathHimself-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself/status/1926519377404285084
|name=Heath
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself
|username=HeathHimself
|content=@EricRWeinstein Caught your debate with Sean Carroll on Piers. Why do you think he was spouting off so much misinformation about GU? "There's no Lagrangian!" I'm looking at the paper right now. There's literally 3 pages worth of Lagrangians like wtf.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · May 25, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1927684804885000391
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Shhh. Have you noticed that you are like close to the only one who caught that? Explain that!

He just made that up. And no one noticed or bothered to check. And it is ALWAYS like this and has been for 40 years. I have no explanation. It’s completely beyond my comprehension.
|timestamp=11:14 AM · May 28, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Reason_Will_Win-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Reason_Will_Win/status/1927743853475356836
|name=Zagros Ozkan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Reason_Will_Win
|username=Reason_Will_Win
|content=Perhaps he was "instructing" the physics community:

"Act as though there are no Lagrangians"
|media1=Reason_Will_Win-X-post-1927743853475356836-GsCONH8XkAA0hfG.jpg
|timestamp=12:02 PM · May 28, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1927742248894275596
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That’s just it. I keep saying that the community is pretending. But it is actually lying.

Pretending there is no crisis.

Pretending that I am not in and out of physics departments all the time.

Pretending GU makes no predictions. Like in section 11.3 on pages 52 and 53 for example.

And we can quietly be here discussing this while Sean says he has read the draft in front of over half a million people that GU doesn’t make any predictions within it. Confident that no one will actually speak out  with page numbers and screen shots and say “You do realize you are lying? Either about having read the draft or about the explicit predictions within it.”

Imagine you send a paper for peer review and you get Sean Carroll as your anonymous reviewer. He says he read it and there is nothing of interest. No Lagrangians. No predictions. 

It has been *exactly* like this for 40 years.  No one can believe it until they experience it. It has no explanation.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1927742248894275596-GsC3W3NaoAEe59K.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1927742248894275596-GsC3W3NbwAAUnRf.jpg
|timestamp=3:02 PM · May 28, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:08 AM · May 28, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1927743029252595973
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@codingquark @HeathHimself GU is both the most anti-interesting theory in history as well as the only theory that cannot be steelmanned.
|timestamp=3:05 PM · May 28, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1927817384217182227
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@niederhaus17566 @HeathHimself If GU were right, that narrative would be wrong. And that narrative is the entire world to those who have devoted their lives to it for &gt;40 years. 

So GU must be madness. Which it is not.
|timestamp=8:00 PM · May 28, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928095740926251169
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ah. It has two features that general Ehressmanian geometry generally lacks:

I) A distinguished Choice of Connection (The Levi Civita connection and the connections induced from it on associated bundles). 

II) Tensor Decomposition coming from the lack of structure groups auxiliary to those of the tangent bundles.

So actually the specific sub geometry of (pseudo)-Riemannian geometry is an exchange of Gauge Symmetry and field content freedom for these two attributes.

Except in totally exotic cases. Like the one in which we oddly happen to live…but I digress.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=HeathHimself-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself/status/1926519377404285084
|name=Heath
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself
|username=HeathHimself
|content=@EricRWeinstein Caught your debate with Sean Carroll on Piers. Why do you think he was spouting off so much misinformation about GU? "There's no Lagrangian!" I'm looking at the paper right now. There's literally 3 pages worth of Lagrangians like wtf.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · May 25, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Neon__Genesis_-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_/status/1927831447164928207
|name=Neon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_
|username=Neon__Genesis_
|content=The whole debate was very odd, Carroll didn't offer a single criticism of any substance, not a single concept or equation. We need to remember Sean at heart is a philosophy and astronomy major, not a mathematician or physicist despite their self-styling
|timestamp=8:56 PM · May 28, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928085868054729136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Not that you said anything wrong, but let me advance a different perspective. Sean’s work is a an undisclosed *direct* competitor to GU. Attached in a screenshot are the first three lines of his 1990 abstract. 

Let me put them in the language of GU. 

“The Chern-Simons Lagrangian has been studied previously in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, where it is both gauge and Lorentz invariant. We the authors believe that outside of this special dimension, there is a fundamental trade off where we must either violate Ehresmannian Bundle Geometry (Gauge Theory of Particle Theory) or the pointwise Lorentz Invariance of Riemannian Geometry (Einstein’s General theory of  Relativity). It appears to the authors that the right way to construct an analogous term in 3+1 dimensions is to create a Chern Simons-like term which couples the dual electromagnetic tensor to an artificial external four-vector which has no supporting evidence or motivation and violates both Einstein’s Special and General theories of Relativity. If we take this four-vector to be fixed, the term is gauge invariant but not Lorentz invariant throwing out one of the two pillars of modern physics. We do it anyway, because we believe the above mentioned tradeoff precludes any other approach.”

I personally knew Sean’s co-author Roman Jackiw decently well on this topic as he was at MIT. This was his perspective.

Why is Geometric Unity called Geometric Unity? Because we believe you can sacrifice neither geometry or the field will come to a standstill. It’s right there in the name. You need to have both Riemannian and Ehressmanian geometry to combine Gravity and Particle theory respectively. 

Sean’s work is the DIRECT competitor of this GU theory. And GU sacrificed neither.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1928085868054729136-GsHv4ISaUAcvL0z.jpg
|timestamp=1:47 PM · May 29, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=uniservent-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/uniservent/status/1928093271336665134
|name=UniServEnt
|usernameurl=https://x.com/uniservent
|username=uniservent
|content=Given info on this link, why do you need Riemannian  geometry in the first place if it is a subset of Ehressman?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68386b13-93e0-8013-a47d-75b2769f464d
|timestamp=2:17 PM · May 29, 2025
}}
|timestamp=2:27 PM · May 29, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1929222847890620649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@randallhump82 @soronoc @PiersUncensored @piersmorgan Interesting question right?

Well…consider that the dirty tricks effort to destroy GU appears to be run out of the world’s most powerful tech company using company assets. And it is where everyone stores their free email accounts…

Buckle up.
|timestamp=5:05 PM · Jun 1, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1930356492898898088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Was visiting Canada &amp; dropped in on @TOEwithCurt Jaimungal. This is not the follow up to Curt’s 3hr GU documentary (?), but we hadn’t seen each other in some time &amp; we decided to record. Hope you find it interesting.

We’ll try to do a proper sit down over GU at some point soon!
|timestamp=8:10 PM · Jun 4, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1947027164865671417
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=No worries. That was why I didn’t respond meanly. I was just mystified. 

Sidney was irreverent and someone you would not want to cross…but he was also kind to fools whose hearts were in the science. Myself included. Just a gem of a mind and a mentor.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946954225264509436
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=How crazy is theoretical physics?

Sidney Coleman was one of my favorite people in rheoretical physics. His office door was always open to me. And he was one of the only people who ever seemed to be “natively quantum”.

And he was hysterically funny.

I added a quote to a thread.
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Jul 20, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1946954225264509436-GwT4jCUaYAAjbYw.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946954235054080250
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=How it started: “anyone who knows this guy is a friend without an introduction”.

How’s it going:
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Jul 20, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1946954235054080250-GwT4jj7WcAAzwrj.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946954238522704006
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I knew Sidney pretty well. I wasn’t a physicist or in his department, but I almost certainly knew him better than any other mathematics PhD student at Harvard.

Not enough to be a friend. But enough to call him a teacher and mentor. And a supporter.

He was somewhat scary, but suffered anyone gladly who truly wanted to learn.
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Jul 20, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946954241173582011
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=He was super encouraging about GU but saw symmetry totally differently from my more geometric perspective so there was always a translation issue. He always wanted everything translated into Hilbert space symmetries rather than manifold symmetries. 

One day he said something uncharacteristically “off” about the Large Exceptional Lie groups: F4 E6 E7 E8. It was uncomfortable because it was a sour note in the middle of an otherwise beautiful explanation. So I called attention to it.

He said something like “Do you know something I wish I knew here?” This was a first in our interactions. He clearly knew his perpective which succeeded everywhere else was not working as well here. Or really at all.

I explained my view was that we can’t properly intuit the large exceptional groups because they are all “missing” their linear defining representations. He asked “What Real dimensions?” I said that there were missing “phantom representation” modules in dimensions 24, 48, 96, 192. Respectively.

He said “What do you mean by that?” So I showed him their homogeneous spaces in dimensions 16, 32, 64, and 128. Respectively. Which clearly do exist.

He asked why if they are all projective spaces, that they couldn’t be deprojectivized. And I had to say “They all have classical anomalies. And ‘anomalies’ don’t always need to be canceled. Sometimes they need to be embraced.”

And he just smiled and said: “Right. Wow. Got it.”

————

Akshat: I don’t know you. But I thought you would enjoy who Sidney actually was. He was kind, mischievous, brilliant, generous and open.

Be well. And good luck.
|timestamp=3:23 PM · Jul 20, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=star_stufff-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/star_stufff/status/1946988530745446712
|name=Akshat
|usernameurl=https://x.com/star_stufff
|username=star_stufff
|content=Dear Dr. Weinstein, thanks for sharing this anecdote! It's very interesting, a wonderful share indeed. I misunderstood the context of the quote that you replied with (given the amount of trolling that happens on a daily basis on here). Besides that, nothing personal! :)
|timestamp=8:13 PM · Jul 20, 2025
}}
|timestamp=8:13 PM · Jul 20, 2025
}}

== Related Pages ==

* [[Anti-Interesting]]
* [[General Relativity]]
* [[Geometric Unity Predictions]]
* [[I’ve Got a Good Feeling About This]]
* [[Peer Injunction]]
* [[Peer Review]]
* [[Quantum Gravity]]
* [[Quantum Field Theory]]
* [[Scientific Method]]
* [[Standard Model]]
* [[String Theory]]
* [[The Scientific Method is the Radio Edit of Great Science]]
* [[Why GU is a “Work of Entertainment”]]
* [[You Know You’re in GU When]]

[[Category:Geometric Unity]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Physics]]