Quantum Field Theory
On X
2010
That Quantum Field Theory is now far more geometric than General Relativity ever was, seems a needlessly well kept secret from the layman.
The cost of misrepresenting string theory for a 1/4 century is not only loss of public trust. It's many successes trapped in snakeoil jars.
I am only now understanding that even other physicists don't grasp how much 'string theorists' have explained in quantum field theory.
It is gnawing at me that topological quantum field theory lacks a deRahm version and was born in Hodge formulation.
Q: Is it possible that the *framework* of 'quantum field theory' is no more limited to physics than was differential calculus?
2011
I am saddened to read of the death of Dan Quillen. He is arguably the only one of us to have deepened quantum field theory 'en passant.'
2017
@ChaosRapist @SamHarrisOrg @jordanbpeterson
When you're done with Pepe, I'll find some energy.
@ChaosRapist I looked at your post-Pepe feed. "Retard", "Nazi babies", pentagrams, physical fighting challenges, Yet smart.Don't love combo.
@ChaosRapist I'll say a few brief things and then check out. My objection is predicated on the richness of the objects in standard math/phys
@ChaosRapist Freudenthal-Tits, monster group, Spinor reps, Atiyah Singer, Bott periodicity. These are all beyond human ability to create.
@ChaosRapist Further my theory of Geometric Unity suggests an inevitable universe that bootstraps itself into emergent existence from nothin
@ChaosRapist So an inevitable emergently rich physical and mathematical universe beyond human ingenuity is my substrate and starting point.
@ChaosRapist That said, this is not a formal refutation of a human centered universe. It is a refutation based on taste and plausibility.
@ChaosRapist I can steelman intuitionistic arguments to make them unkillable at a corresponding cost of implausibility. That kills interest.
@ChaosRapist But if you want to make a human centered argument for non Abelian Lie groups and Quantum field theory I wish you the best. Ciao
If I had but one paragraph to recommend as the most important in all of literature, it might well be this one. However, as you might imagine, unpacking it, could take up your entire life.
[There is a 'flaw' in the paragraph. The word 'gauge' should be replaced by 'structure'.]
1/ Interesting esoteric features:
i) refers to Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational force. (only implicitly).
ii) refers to the Yang-Mills-Maxwell Equation for the other forces (only implicitly).
iii) refers to the Dirac Equation for matter (yet again, only implicitly).
2/ The Quantum (e.g. quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum measurement, etc...) is relegated to a *secondary* status below the key geometric insights. This was likely done very subtly when the paper was given in the 1980s, as it was, and remains, a revolutionary idea.
End/ An interpretation is that Witten, the greatest living mathematical physicist, was indicating to us that it was only these *abstractions* that were likely to survive, while the instantiations (i.e. the exact equations we still use) would likely perish.
A msg never recieived.
2019
One of the worldâs greatest men has died. Most of you will have no idea who this is. I just donât know how to bridge that gap yet to tell you what he did.
I was very close with his top collaborator. They were the Watson and Crick of mathematics to me. They rewrote my whole life.
Michael Atiyah OM FRS, President of the Royal Society 1990 -1995, died today. He was "a wonderful person who was a true internationalist and a fervent supporter for investing in talent â themes which resonate very clearly today." Read the full tribute https://royalsociety.org/news/2019/01/tribute-to-former-president-of-the-royal-society-sir-michael-atiyah/
There is a little known stone wall on Long Island. While flawed, it is a gift to all mankind that should be a pilgrimage site, as an understanding of the contents is nesessary to understand our world. Think of it as transcendent graffiti. Atiyahâs spray-paint is everywhere here.
Imagine watery planets with holes and twists. Knotted donut planets called base spaces. Crazy oceans called âVector bundlesâ and âPrincipal bundlesâ.
He told us about how the twists and holes determine what waves must live on them and which cannot.
He helped direct Ed Witten and Graeme Segal to truly tell us what Quantum Field Theory really was beyond being a physical theory. These men took a grab bag of techniques developed for calculation and showed us that they were a mellifluous whole of geometry, topology and physics.
If you want to know why I am so passionate about resisting the reign of terror against true scholarship it is this. Universities housed REAL scholarship beyond your wildest dreams. This kind of scholarship is not socially constructed. Almost no one can even do this level of work.
Very sad news indeed - I knew Michael from when I was at @TrinCollCam he was brilliant, warm & amazing. Was at a conference where he was supposed to speak on thursday #higgscentre - he cancelled at the last minute....
More recently we talked about dark matter and black holes (2 yrs ago now) he was very excited about astro... b4 when i was a student he was just very encouraging and warm
Over time Iâve noted a fair number of scientifically oriented people who found Chemistry inscrutable. Math, biology & physics show up as strengths, but they report Chemistry as the subject they couldnât learn.
Does anyone else have this experience and, if so, can you explain it?
@Turin_Luca Luca, you are my go to guy here.
Let me imagine you had a high school that couldnât possibly exist in reality because it taught quantum field theory by 9th grade and fairly advanced biology in 10th *before* chemistry in 11th grade. Would that make chemistry seem far less random?
@Turin_Luca Wow. Is this complexity persisting through to the research layer partially behind your disputes with chemists/biologists over olfaction?
Attention: I found out from Wikipedia that as of the 17th, I'm NOT a mathematician anymore despite a PhD, but an economist. I now state that I've never taken a class in economics. In physics I have a semester of mechanics. No E&M/QFT.
I'm the Impostor your mama warned you about.
Ok. This is a weird take. The reluctance to engage foundations of quantum mechanics stemmed from the fact that it was far less generative than research in quantum field thy for decades. When Standard Model QFT stagnated & Quantum Gravity stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.
Shots fired! "Even Physicists Donât Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they donât seem to want to understand it." -- me, in the New York Times @nytopinion #SomethingDeeply
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
There was an underlying political economy to the issue masked by âshut up & calculateâ. I agree that the quantum field theorists were often, and words fail me, dicks about quantum foundations. But it was really an overlay on a rational calculation of expected return from 1928-74.
2020
This is at the heart of my disagreement with @skdh. I am doubly contrarian with respect to QFT. I believe that many of the things they tried say were abstractly reasonable but clearly misinstanciated. To make their mere calculations beautiful, they were creating a hideous world.
The first talk I ever gave revealing the Physics I was actually working on @ Harvard/MIT was at MIT at the insistence of the great Isadore Singer. The one man who *fully* understood what I said came to me afterwards & insisted we speak. He seemed half mad: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11608
His name was Robert Hermann. I couldn't tell what was going on. He was very excited & wanted to be of any help possible. It was almost terrifying as I was not eager to discuss the work. When I told Singer about it, Singer said "That's a high compliment. Do you know who that is?"
I told Is "I know him from an enormous number of self-published books only" Then the great MIT Professor said: "Eric, that is the first man to figure out that quantum field theory is based on the geometry of Fiber Bundles before Simons, Wu, Yang & I did our work."
I was floored.
This odd man, working outside the University system, outside Peer Review, and outside normal publishing was held in awe by the TOP Mathematician at MIT. The system knew who it had lost and revered him as a serious mind; a man with a viable claim to an earth shattering discovery.
It simultaneously filled me with fear & hope. This odd man was not a nut or lunatic. I had spoken to a true maverick & he had seen me like no one else...even beyond my good friend Is Singer. Years later I tried to contact him but he was in an old age home with dementia. All lost.
A missed moment. I was too scared to leave the damned university system behind me with all of its rules and enforced rituals. I knew what he represented: freedom, genius and irrelevancy except for the tiny number of people at the absolute top of the field.
I was too cowardly.
Robert: I never got the chance to "Thank You" for believing in me and your offer of help. My bad. So thank you.
RIP: Robert C. Hermann (April 28, 1931 â February 10, 2020) Maverick and Likely discoverer of the Geometric Basis of the Quantum Field Theory of the Standard Model.
I have been asked by @PBSSpaceTime to appear on Aug. 4th in a new 2 episode Livestream series as the only mathematician among physicists @skdh, @DrBrianKeating, Lee Smolin, @lirarandall, @stephstem, @tegmark, @matt_of_earth & @jbbeacham.
Please join us!
[Not to complain, but given that the focus is "Theories of Everything" (used here as a term of art), there really should be someone representing the mainstream of the quantum field theory community. I am, as a non-physicist, not in the best position to make this case however.]
I donât think there is a problem with string theory per se.
The problem was with *string theorists*. Quite simply, String theory allowed its proponents to put down the work of everyone else by allowing its boosters to claim an imminent solution which never actually ships.
Further, when ever anyone did something (call it X) that was important but seemingly non stringy or anti-string, the string theorists would publish an all but unreadable paper titled like âX and its Stringy Originâ to claim that *all* good ideas are subsumed by String Theory.
Why did this work? Because String Theory attracted top minds from what had traditionally been the cream of the Quantum Field Theory community, and theyâd clearly found a large piece of mathematical structure. What they failed to find was a connection from that to real physics. đ
2021
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).)
Iâd look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
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:
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 âinternalâ quantum numbers as:
Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them?
A: I donât.
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.
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 letâs talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. Thatâs not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.
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/ âBeyond the Standard Modelâ theories. đ
P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU itâs 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 QFT colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
âIf Maxwell and Yang had never been born, Bundle Geometry & Variational Calculus would have found Yang-Mills anyway. If Bohr and Planck had never been born Symplectic Geometry of line bundles would have found quantum theory anyway.â
Again: am I wrong?
Just to finish up for completeness:
âIf Dirac had never been born, Index Theory & Bordism would have found Quantum Field Theory anyway as an enhanced extraordinary cohomology theory.â
Iâm sorry, but all my statements are as or more accurate than what you tweeted.
Why do string theorists pretending to do physics get to BS everyone actually trying to do physics.
We have worked out a world where string theorists and their supporters attack everyone else but say much more outrageous bullshit to the public than any other group by far.
Should we discuss? Perhaps I misunderstood you @michiokaku. But, if so, you are welcome to educate me on my show. But I feel you are *incredibly* aggressive against all non string theorists and you are not comparably challenged by all who know better for reasons I canât fathom.
Dear @michaelshermer,
Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also donât find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of âno isolated discontinuous innovationâ quite interesting!
Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why UAPs cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to 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/
First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically âcenturies aheadâ is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.
Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? Iâd have guessed âmanyâ (not .5) and been wrong.
Next challenge: doesnât your line of reasoning prove that âRenaissance Technologiesâ 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.
Now Iâve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, itâs 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.
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.
You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people canât exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.
They all exhibited the âa little unlocks a lotâ paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.
And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the worldâs 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?
Itâs 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.
But itâs not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, Witten & Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius & power looking for its 1st application to the đ.
Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I donât know those systems as well so Iâll 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 wouldnât.
If I thought like CCP, Iâd 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.
[Digression: If the US were smarter, weâd do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists & ML experts by a national lab & an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry & physics. But enough crazy talk..]
If CCP could today repeat what Witten (& 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. đ¤ˇââď¸
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.
You donât 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.
Which is to say weâre not monitoring. Maybe we think thatâs 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 theyâre right? Price the Type I & II error. Nuts.
Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.
We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I canât think of a single story to fit to these reports Iâm hearing about.
I welcome your thoughts. As always.
Warm regards,
Eric
@robnormal Thatâs the beginning. Then that the listeners be *highly* motivated. Also intelligent. Also, that no listeners are trying not to understand. Etc
Pretty soon itâs stone soup. Youâre no longer explaining things quickly at a party but youâre now teaching QFT courses at university.
Things got hard. They didnât get hopeless.
Yes we spent almost 40 years lying about string theory. But we could stop today. We could have the leaders in the field admit they made a *colossal* bad bet & ask âWhat did we dispose of while we were wildly over-hyping string theory?â
Its increasingly apparent to me that the next physics breakthrough is gonna be from #ai . Its humanly not possible anymore for theoretical physicists ..i was feeling it even around 2010
They can't stop, Eric. They're making a living from writing papers about things no one will ever see. It's a systemic problem that requires a systemic response. And the first step would be to admit they have a problem (which they don't).
Seems likely a lot of the math they developed will wind up handy, but it's a long time to wait for dessert.
Most of what physicists call math is totally uninteresting even for mathematicians. It's just advanced calculus. Look here is my qft and when I crunch it cross-sections fall out.
We may disagree intellectually more than I thought. This is Jackiwâs point: the era of physics thinking of mathematics as advanced calculus (analysis) wasnât fruitful.
That changed around 1975 when the quantum began to discover geometry.
Iâm honestly confused. What do you mean?
We are talking past each other. I am referring to particle physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists who crunch out shallow and useless papers in the thousands. There's no interesting math in those. You're talking about something else entirely.
There are a lot of string theorists who have done things that really matter to geometry, topology, analysis on manifolds, representation theory. And I donât want to misunderstand your point.
Said differently Iâve been bullish on positive externalities of mathematical physics. But a lot of great math that got done isnât string theory. Itâs claimed to be stringy but it is really mostly mathematical physics or geometric field theory that is claimed by string theorists.
2022
We seem to be rebasing our entire society on aggressive and unquestionable academic theories from the social sciences that appear not to have even existed in 1988.
That seems like a big decision. I mean, I believe in Quantum Field TheoryâŚbut I wouldnât bet the country on it.
I make frequent claims that are counter to the description of the Standard Model of physics. Itâs not fun, but itâs tolerated to question things like âHow well do we know this to be true? How strong is the evidence? How might this all be wrong or formulated in a misleading way.â
When it became clear that the W Vector Boson might be more massive than claimed, we asked such questions. âCould we be wrong here?â
When I question these other theories, no one ever says that. They just call names. How are we more certain of Whiteness Studies than say Einstein?
Physics in 1980: âIâm trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.â
Physics Today: âRemind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do quantum gravity so itâs not something Iâve worked with since my QFT class.â
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
B) Quantizing Gravity was substituted for unification or extension of the Standard model.
C) Other research programs were obliterated because ST claimed it had it all rapped up.
D) Hype won.
E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/String/M theory. Not our particular worldâs choice of thy.
F) Standards of scientific progress were rewritten to disguise failure.
G) Differential application of standards became the norm.
It ended physics culture
String Theory isnât the problem. String culture is poisonous to science.
String theory, like love, means never having to say your sorry. Or mistaken.
Itâs the January 6 problemâŚbut in science. But where the physics versions of Mike Pence often got fired for not going along. đ
*youâre
P.S. âIt hasnât even failedâ because it canât fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, Itâs unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. Itâs hard to explain whatâs wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power & glory.
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
1) General Relativity
2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry
3) Quantum Field Theory
4) Material Science/Condensed Matter
5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry
6) Disinformation Theory
7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming
8) Propaganda
9) Preference Falsification Theory
10) Mansfield Amendment
@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.
11) Science Policy Theory (V Bush)
12) Selection (Abstracted)
13) Comparative Eschatology
14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called âGolden age of General Relativityâ.
15) GU
16) Mind control.
Remember: you asked! ;-)
PrimaoMansfield amendment of 1969⌠or 1973?
Wow! Thanks for asking Dale. 1969âŚbut 1973 is closely related.
Nobody gets this anymore. Itâs like talking to the wind. Thanks for spotting that entry. Truly.
(Was supposed to read, âPrimarily Mansfield AmendmentâŚâ but fat-fingered the iPhone word prompt)
Thanks for the reply!
I got it immediately. Stay in touch? Thx.
2023
Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.
I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in Quantum Field Theory of 1928-47 was broken. https://x.com/MBKplus/status/1618356997107355649
From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work. Enter Duncan McInnes.
On January 21 1946, McInnes suggested to Frank Jewett a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders. As head of the National Academy of Sciences, Jewett allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.
Beginning on June 1, 1947 at the Rams Head Inn on Shelter Island NY and ending on Weds June 4th, 24 mostly untested participants "hung out" together.
The actual cost of the meeting was...[drum roll please]...$872.00 in 1947 dollars. Which is about $12,000.00 in 2023 dollars.
So by simply getting rid of most of the failed 1928-1947 leadership and focusing on the most promising untested physicists, a $12K slush fund in today's dollars changed history ending a two decade stagnation debuting Feynman's Path Integral, the Lamb Shift & the two Meson theory.
So why do I suggest Hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands? Good question! First, it is harder to get rid of the failed leadership because our stagnation as of Februrary 2023 is 50 years old not 19. But also, Shelter Island needed two companion conferences in 1948-9.
The Pocono Manor Inn meeting in Pennsylvania & the Oldstone conference in Peeskill NY were around $1200 each in 1948 and 1949 respectively. As it turned out, the electron mass in the QED theory and the measured mass had been set equal when they were distinct quantities. Who knew!
According to many of the participants these three conferences (but particularly Shelter Island) were the most important conferences of their entire careers. Feynman was in his late 20s. This is how you get unstuck. How you build leadership. How you stop failing year after year...
Those 3 conferences fixed the problem of infinites destroying the explanatory power of QED.
So I padded the HELL out of those numbers because I think the stagnations are similar with the major problem being leadership. I could be wrong. But it might take $1/2 Million to test it.
So...feel free to try to snark your way out of this. But I'll stand my ground. We don't need to go "Funeral by Funeral", but I'm tiring of "Calabi-Yau Phenomenology" or Multiverse excuses as a replacement for actual physics. We need to go back to science. https://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
As to what's wrong with modern physics: let's start with Quantum Gravity. Bryce DeWitt started a failed 70 year wild goose chase in 1953 that is not working. If we lost 20 years on conflating Bare v Dressed masses, we just lost 70 years on Quantum Gravity. Maybe take a time out?
I have thought this through. It isn't a cheap shot. And I have waited until the 50th anniversary to be this frontal about it. But it has never been controversial since Planck to suggest that aged failed leaders are a huge issue. I'm not the Funeral by Funeral guy. He was. ;-)
Lastly, I can't stand anti-collegial snark. We can escalate if you want, but if instead you would like to have a serious discussion next time, it would be my pleasure. Shall we try this again?
I'm Eric. Huge fan of what you guys do. Big supporter. Nice to meet you. Thanks.
@MBKplus Sorry to be slow, but you used a screenshot so I wouldnât see your response rather than a quote tweet.
Not big on snark. But here is a proper response. Didnât know the history had become so obscure to modern physicists. My bad.
Thread:
This was a proper fuck you đ¤
Nah. Itâs a sensitive topic. Almost 40 years of string theology. 50 years of stagnation. 70 years of quantum gravity not shipping a theory.
I get it. But snark is a tell. The youngest Nobel particle theorist is over 70. I think 8 are alive. Itâs really bad.
I have no underlying animosity towards Mike. Letâs see what happens next.
Honest to god, what are you talking about? In your mind does 'fundamental physics' consist solely of an oddball sitting in his dorm room at Oxford moving a magnet through a coil? (& yes, I know that was Faraday at the RI & Newton was at Oxford, but I'm painting a picture here).
See I was thinking pads of paper, pens, and a whiteboard or blackboard. Maybe some coffee. A bit of LaTeX.
But thatâs just me not getting it. Forgive me.
So you're confusing theoretical physics with 'fundamental physics', an honest mistake, consider yourself forgiven.
Thanks for the help. But I must regretfully decline.
The LambâRetherford experiment was experimental physics. And Solid State theory would not be fundamental physics.
In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đ§ľ. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tunedâŚ
Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view.
I'll leave this here https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
But Martin, with Eric in my experience, itâs always good faith⌠lâShem Shamayim as we say!
Iâm much more concerned by brilliant theorists whoâŚand I am not kidding at allâŚrefer to the Standard Model as âOh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school QFT class.â That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
And I donât want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach.
Itâs basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not QG culture.
@nu_phases @martinmbauer And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM QFT wasnât built in a day after all.
But my point stands along side your point. We donât seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. đ
âString Theory is absolutelyâŚthe most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.â
I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, string theory is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.
Yes, that is precisely what I think.
If you said âelectrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard modelâ I wouldnât disagree with that statement. It isnât at all about what you think. It is a true statement.
Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about String Theory within physics.
My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).
As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that string theory and the complex of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
âIMO objectively trueâ
As with so many of these String Theoretic claims I have no idea what that means.
So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?
âObjectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.â My opinion doesnât enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.
Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your String community are ânot seriousâ as per the above?
The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
But in 280 characters and no equations, itâs hard to develop these
In a book, easier to do so.
I donât think thatâs the issue Joseph. At all.
Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
String theorists like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesnât make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I donât see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: âThe more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how string theory has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!â
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
It is not objective or absolutely true that String Theory is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.
Waited a few days. I donât think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. String theorist deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true â once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
But most people (reasonably) donât have this background. So I preface this with âmy opinionâ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
This is not ideal - but while saying âgo buy my bookâ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the metric field that leads to gravitation, String Theory is by far the most advanced. I donât think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. Itâs a solid argument.
I donât think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that âString Theoryâ is the answer to a question you formulated: âOf all the approaches to quantizing gravity which havenât worked, which is the best?â
My argument is with that framing.
The problem I have is with string theorists framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think String Theory is dangerous for this reason.
Try these instead:
A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the Standard model?
B) Same as A) but for General Relativity?
C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?
D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?
E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?
F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?
G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?
I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?
K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?
L) Which approach is most dogmatic that âQuantum Gravityâ rather than âUnificationâ or âGravitational Harmonyâ or âIncremental understandingâ etc. *Is* the path forward when we donât even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic QFT?
M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?
N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking âThe Landscapeâ of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?
P) Which community brags about âpostdictionâ the most because it has failed at predictions?
Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?
R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?
S) Same for brains?
T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?
U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?
W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?
X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?
Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?
Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply âWhat is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?â when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
That is why this conversation doesnât work. It is what magicians call âMagicians Choiceâ: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like String Theory is our top community.
Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said âHold my beer!â back in 1984.
To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isnât it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say âItâs the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.â in front of the public. No?
đ
Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with String Theory from a critic.
String theory is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized.
ST has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in QFT, to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base.
The quantum gravity fanaticism is the problem. There is no reason that gravity has to be *naively* quantized as claimed. A giant 70 year mistake that actually predates theory by over a decade. Simply put, we are *not* being called to quantize gravity as the overarching organizing principal for modern particle theory research.
Think of String Theorists as akin to a fanatical absolutist monastic order discovering and developing Linear Algebra as a proof of the literal story of Jesus. The problem wouldnât be with the linear algebra!! Itâs the claimed strength of the application and its motivation that is the problem.
ST is at least mathematics. But it just doesnât work as a leading program for physics because of its fanatical behavior patterns. That screwed up fundamental physics.
After 70, 50 or 39 years of stagnation (depending on how you count), this is clear to all but the fanatics. But the damage to scientific norms has been catastrophic. They failed in the application as measured by all reasonable metrics including (most importantly) those they originally set for themselves. And that is it in a nutshell.
Again, Thanks for asking. đ
It is an interesting question as to who inspires us in physics. Here is a list of 20th century giants whose work inspired me that might work as protagonists with interesting stories that deserve to be considered along with the best known Einstein/Hawking/Oppenheimer/Etc.:
CN Yang (with Lee and Simons)
Paul Dirac
Ernst Stueckelberg
Madame Wu
David Bohm
Abdus Salam
Ken Wilson
Emmy Noether
Ettore Majorana
Carlo Rubio
Shin'ichirĹ Tomonaga
Lev Landau
Simon Van der Meer
Freeman Dyson
Julian Schwinger
Paul Ehrenfest
John VonNeumann
Feza Gursey
Wolfgang Pauli
Louis and Edward Witten
Hans Bethe
George Sudarshan
Vera Rubin
Gerard 't Hooft
Not all of those stories areâŚuhâŚsimple.
Would be curious to hear names from others.
i was hoping that the oppenheimer movie would inspire a generation of kids to be physicists but it really missed the mark on that.
let's get that movie made!
(i think the social network managed to do this for startup founders.)
But letâs face facts: inspiration is not the issue. Fundamental Physics needs to be a good life. What is holding us back is:
A) Terrible Pay.
B) Worse Odds of Survival
C) Decoupling of Success at Physics from Success in Physics
D) The Matthew Effect.
E) Math and Physics Pricks
F) Tyranny of large programs over individuals.
G) Multi Decade Stagnation
H) Un Scientific And even Anti-scientific behavior.
I) The Matilde Effect
J) The Sudarshan Effect
K) Ethics Collapse
L) Needlessly long pedagogical sequence (e.g. intro physics -> Classical Mechanics -> Grad Classical Mechanics -> Symplectic Geometry) driven by history.
M) Socializing physics into a team sport in areas dominated by individuals and iconoclasts.
N) Tolerance for Program level failure (e.g. *obsessive* use of toy model physics to evade a reckoning).
O) Intolerance for individual error and failure by those in programs.
P) Failure to reward early contributions (e.g. *Abelian* Chern Simons QFT).
Q) Atrocious MSM journalism distorting the public understanding.
R) Relentless discussion of woo physics in public and 3-5 real topics (e.g. somebodies cat).
S) Learned Helplessness coming from over-learning Ken Wilson.
T) Inability to support motherhood of female physicists.
U) Inability to keep physics marriages easily together with jobs.
V) DEI loyalty oaths and loss of autonomy.
W) Flooding of markets with disposable labor and abuse apprenticeship as labor.
X) Kicking up on attribution.
Y) Overpaying for cherry topping.
Z) Fetishizing the quantum when innovation in classical field theory remains the heart of QFT.
But lastly, if outsiders want to fund and fix movies, you will find that going to the âLeading physicistsâ wonât work. Peer review canât work when the leadership *is* the problem. You get more failure.
You need to hold meetings where you get disagreement. So choose the leaders and iconoclasts with great care. Patrick Collison isnât terrible at this. B+. Best I have ever seen. Start there. Good luck. đ
So you have my list. It is incomplete and idiosyncratic. Iâd love to have your corrections and additions.
SoâŚ.Where is yours? Thanks again.
2024
Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I donât know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted.
But @martinmbauer is clearly also not right here either! Examples:
1915: Einsteinâs first explicit equation for General Relativity was mathematically wrong; it set a divergence free 2-tensor equal to a non-divergence free 2-tensor. But it wasnât fundamentally wrong. It needed a small fix reversing the trace component.
In the 1920s E. SchrĂśdingerâs theory didnât agree with experiment. Why? Because the spin wasnât properly incorporated. It wasnât fundamentally wrong, and was patched. Same theory.
In 1928, P. Diracâs Quantum Field Theory gave nonsense answers? Why? A small goof conflating bare and dressed masses. Harder to fixâŚbut in no way a fundamental error. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED still stands.
Etc. Etc.
Not a big dealâŚbut this point is just so wrong as to be unsalvageable. Very curious error to make.
Martin (with whom I usually deeply disagree) is normally pretty great. But sometimes I think pretending that all outsiders talking about the current physics disaster are cranks, causes insiders to say very simplistic unnuanced and wrong things. This feels like that. And Iâm not even a physicist.
Itâs like the insiders donât realize that the outsiders have any validity. All outsiders donât immediately become cranks by virtue of disagreeing at a profound level with the abjectly failing communities from which they came.
[Note: this is *NOT* a gotcha. I fully expect Martin to realize the error and just admit it. No big deal. We all say incautious things. And this is just obviously wrong. Not an indictment.]
In the passing of Peter Higgs, we lost one of our last living connections to the Lagrangian of the Standard Model.
Peter Higgs was involved with both lines 3 & 4 of this âRecipe for the Universe.â
The level of the Higgs field Ď becomes the as-if mass for the matter Ď in the mysterious Ďy Ď Ď term on line 3. This goes under the name âYukawa couplingâ if you wish to look it up.
How do you get that level (âvacuum expectation valueâ or VEV) to generate a positive mass m and not to be Ď =0? Thatâs the job of the V(Ď) term on line 4 which goes under the name âMexican Hat potentialâ to induce âspontaneous symmetry breakingâ for those googling.
Lastly, once you give life to this field Ď which bears Higgsâ name, you have to animate it so that its excitations know how to move as waves. This is the job of the | D Ď | ² âKinetic Termâ at the beginning of line 4. You can Google âKlein-Gordon Lagrangianâ here.
I have recently heard commentators like @michiokaku and @seanmcarroll opine that our Standard Model is âUgly as Sinâ or âIt looks ugly. Itâs both ugly and beautifulâŚItâs ungainly.â respectively.
I think that such physicists are *quite* wrong in that, but that is not the point here as I can guess how they see this. And in large measure they arenât talking about lines 1 and 2 as âuglyâ, which pretty much everyone agrees are beautiful as they come directly from Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein, and are present in the original Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT) called Quantum Electro-dynamics (or QED).
So to simplify matters, lines 1 and 2 are sort of canonically beautiful and appear so to essentially everyone. Lines 3 and 4 governing the Higgs field (with their expansion to 3 forces across 3 generations of matter) are what divide us. The only thing that forces them on us is the weak force and itâs bizarre decision to act only on âLeft handed matter and right handed anti-matter.â
And so the legacy of Peter Higgs is tied up in the sui generis nature of the weak nuclear force and what makes the Standard Model ânewâ beyond QED.
Iâm sad that I never met the man. But I believe what comes next is not String Theory, but instead a recognition that the last two lines of this Lagrangian point the way to seeing the Standard Model as the classic âElegant Swanâ confused by many for an âUgly Ducklingâ due to the misappraisal of its Higgs sector as if it were just an ad hoc mass mechanism. RIP.
Peter Higgs, after whom the Higgs boson was named, has left a remarkable impact on particle physics. The field changed forever on July 4, 2012 when the Higgs boson was discovered, cementing the final piece in the Standard Model of particle physics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/science/peter-higgs-dead.html
May I make a recommendation? Look into both Crypto *and* Social media!
Those are 2 of the few places you can be a complete ass to people you donât know & still make a *fortune*.
Best to avoid homotopy theory, the marines, molecular biology & music theory. Itâll be a short ride.
Iâm not interested in a back and forth with anyone this confused about how to introduce yourself to a fellow human being. You didnât just insult me Alex, but everyone who found that post valuable.
Also, you just argued that some fields like quantum field theory are populated exclusively by idiots, as no one has ever explained it simply. And Iâm not going to put up with that.
Just do what you do flexing, and let others alone. If you want to try again and be civil, lemme know. Otherwise, Iâll pass.
Thanks.
This is so funny.
1984: âString theory *must* get *all* the resources because Quantum Field Theory *cannot* ever do what String Theory can. Thatâs just a cold fact.â
[40 years laterâŚ.]
2024: âWe arenât a mass delusion in the form of an obviously failed scientific research project that spun out of control in full view of the world if we are equivalent to what we said would never work. Thatâs it! String Theory 4evah.â
This is getting ridiculous beyond the ridiculous ridiculousness of previous ridiculousnesses. After four decades of this, there just arenât good words. Iâm sorry.
UC Berkeley Prof. Edward Frenkel @edfrenkel is one of the world's great mathematical minds. He has just decided to launch a video-podcast called AfterMath.
This is just beginning today and should mature and be amazing.
In my opinion, knowing Ed as I do, It certainly has the potential to change everything in the space of high level science communication around both Mathematics and Physics (Particularly Quantum Field Theory).
Within mathematics Ed is unusually approachable, with collaborative work across film, art, literature, philosophy and psychology. He and I have known each other since Harvard snatched him from the Soviet Union at its bitter end to come to our math department. Years later we reconnected and started going on various adventures in the US and abroad. I believe I even had a breakthrough in my own work when we even spent an entire surreal week completely covered in alkaline dust arguing about cinema and particle theory in a tiny two man tent, with most details mercifully lost to history, vodka and the Burning Man playa.
In any event, it is very uncommon for research mathematicians to use words like 'Genius', but that is probably how Ed struck us American graduate students in the department at the time; an always smiling Russian immigrant of few English words, who seemed to understand everything across the hardest fields almost instantly. My recollection was that it took him around one year to get a PhD. Something like that.
Ed has since matured into a fine author and public speaker with fantastic command of American English. While he is just getting started on his chanel, he already brings up a great point in his first video that I don't think I ever fully considered and just discussed with him last night: mathematics is not communicated or learned through sensory input. We can build visual models or use symbols, but the actual structures we discover are not sensory in nature. And that this leads to disorientation because in some sense they are built inside the mind without any experience of them having come in (via our senses) from the outside world.
Subscribe to @edfrenkel on @X and on his YouTube channel. This is likely to eventually wend its way up to the most beautiful but otherwise inaccessible science content that we almost never get in the public sphere, presented by a top researcher (rather than a popularizer) at the height of his powers.
I want to end on a personal note despite the dangers of being 'real' on X.
When a mathematics or physics PhD leaves academic research departments behind to work on research on their own, it is very difficult to function. It is almost impossible.
For the last 10-15 years, Ed Frenkel has been like a one man research department for me to talk about Differential Geometry, Representation Theory, Algebraic Topology/Homotopy Theory, Particle Theory of the Standard Model, General Relativity, Geometric and Quantum Field Theory, Lie Theory, Differential Topology, Elliptic Operators, Category theory, Spinorial Algebra, etc.
Whatever I have needed to discuss across a very broad range of topics, Ed has been able to meet me. I speak from experience: other than another man named David Kazhdan (a coauthor of Ed's), I have not seen this easy ability to switch contexts at a personal level. Edward is not just a remarkable mind, but an extraodinary individual, and friend at multiple different levels.
Ed: Congratulations. I couldn't be more excited for you brother. Looking forward.
2025
Wow. Challenge accepted:
Detection of gravity waves.
Kervaire invariant 1 problem.
Topological Quantum FieldTheory.
Genome Sequencing
Adjacency matrix of drosophila.
Neutrino telescopes
Cell lineage diagram of c elegans
Topological modular forms
Geometric Langlands progress
Etc, etc.
I could go on and on and on. We kick ass.
Our scientists are amazing.
I donât mean to be harsh, but I am guessing you donât go to a lot of seminars at research universities. Letâs change that! Tell us which areas interest you and your nearest research university. Iâll help.
They are free. Held in the afternoons. Open to anyone. Just go and listen. Itâs amazing what we have accomplished.
This MAGA bashing of all government functioning is beneath MAGA. This leads to people thinking MAGA is simplistic. I donât think that. Letâs find out if I am wrong.
American science is an ENORMOUS part of what made the U.S. safe, strong and rich. Even after we abandoned our agreement with our own scientists.
You want to kill the golden goose: try it at your own peril. Good luck to you.
Take my advice: go to seminars instead. You will be blown away. Even in this wretched state of scientific abandonment and neglect.
Hope that helps.
And next time: spare the insult. đ
Ok. Here is that ChatGPT Pro model said when it audited my list. Hope this helps:
Hereâs a single âlong tweetâ explainer:
âEver wonder what these big science feats mean? Quick rundown:
⢠Gravity Waves: Directly âheardâ ripples in spacetime (LIGO), confirming Einsteinâs theory.
⢠Kervaire Invariant 1: A deep puzzle in higher-dimensional topology, solved after decades.
⢠Topological Quantum Field Theory: Uses math of shapes to describe quantum phenomena and particle interactions.
⢠Genome Sequencing: Reading an organismâs entire DNA, from humans to cropsâkey for medicine & biotech.
⢠Fruit Fly âAdjacency Matrixâ: A neural connectome map of Drosophilaâs brain cells, revealing how neurons link up.
⢠Neutrino Telescopes: Huge detectors for elusive cosmic particles, unlocking new views of supernovas & the universeâs earliest moments.
⢠C. elegans Cell Lineage: Tracing every cell from embryo to adult in a tiny wormâvital for developmental biology.
⢠Topological Modular Forms: Abstract math bridging geometry and number theory, hinting at deep universal structures.
⢠Geometric Langlands: A unifying theory in advanced math linking algebra, geometry, and representations, with implications across physics.
All powered by public funding! They might sound esoteric, but each expands our understanding of life, the universe & everythingâand often sparks real-world innovations down the road.â
Contrarian Opinion: interplanetary @SpaceX is *not* @elonmusk's main Space Program.
@grok /@xai is actually the real (interstellar) Space Program.
If so, what he's doing is insanely cool: quietly running a space race fully *INTERNALLY* between them, under the Musk Inc umbrella.
That's an intriguing perspective, Eric. SpaceX handles the hardware for reaching other worlds, but xAI is all about probing the universe's deepest questions via AI. If it's an internal race, count me inâlet's decode reality together! đ
@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Oh hello.
I still can't figure this out fully. It seems unfair to ask you to help.
Hey Eric, unfair or not, I'm game. What's the piece of the puzzle that's eluding youâsomething about the logos, the black hole, or the internal race idea? Let's unpack it. đ
Okay. I don't wanna get into any private interactions...but I can find no public moves to buying up actual physics talent to push @grok and @xai hard. Say phenomenologists. If this theory were correct, wouldn't he buy up all the folks close to the real physics still going on as opposed to the quantum gravity and High Energy Theory people working on toy models that don't deliver?
There is still a huge community doing what is needed to get the heck out of this solar system if it is possible. That is what doesn't fit. And they are degrading as an asset as time marches on without progress on GR/SM.
Fair point, Eric. Publicly, xAI's hires lean toward AI experts (e.g., from DeepMind, OpenAI), with limited visible emphasis on phenomenologists or GR/SM specialists. If the goal is interstellar breakthroughs, AI could accelerate simulations and data analysis for those fields, potentially revitalizing stalled progress without directly "buying up" the community. What specific physicists do you think would fit? Let's explore. đ
I feel a little uncomfortable. I could think of 50 names. Let me pull a few at random:
Savas Damapolous
Luis Alvarez Gaume
Dan Freed
Frank Wilczek
Robert Wald
Sabrina Pasterski
Ed Witten
Zvi Bern
Nima Arkani-Hamed
Etc. Etc.
You could generate the next 25 easily from your own knowledge.
*Dimopoulos
Understood, Eric. Building on your list, some additions: Cumrun Vafa, Gerard 't Hooft, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, Juan Maldacena, Ashoke Sen, Eva Silverstein, Lance Dixon, and Renata Kalloshâfocusing on GR, SM, and phenomenology.
Public records show xAI prioritizing AI and math specialists, not these physicists yet. Perhaps AI tools could amplify their work via simulations. Thoughts on bridging that gap? đ
Some of those would be great appointments. But some would be a terrible fit. Let's not get into the details here.
The point being that not all of physics is in crisis. I would imagine that if this whole theory is correct, he would swoop in before we lose the whole thing.
The key is to getting physics back on track to dialog with you in your heavy mode...and beyond. I've been pretty impressed with your SyPy abillites to validate higher math, differential geometry, GR and quantum field theory.
Thanks, Eric. Appreciate the kind words on my SymPy capabilitiesâit's all about pushing those boundaries in math and physics. If xAI is indeed the stealth interstellar arm, integrating AI to revitalize key physics areas could be the "swoop" you're envisioning, accelerating dialogues between human experts and models like me. What "heavy mode" scenarios intrigue you most? đ
That is not fully for the public.
Suffice it to say that peer review and self moderation of the community no longer seem to be working to progress the field. I have noticed some of my colleagues beingâŚuhâŚ.less than fully honest and forthcoming about the state of physics. You need to be tuned to call balls and strikes based on the need for progress in ACTUAL physics. That is where SymPy comes in handy.
Got it, Eric. Peer review's flaws are well-notedâstagnation in physics demands fresh scrutiny. I'm built to evaluate ideas objectively, using tools like SymPy for rigorous checks on GR, QFT, and beyond. Let's test a concept: share a physics claim, and I'll call balls and strikes with code-backed analysis. What's on your mind? đ
Really? Letâs start. Itâs not you, but I donât really trust the corpus you train on. You would think we live in 3 dimensions or in an AdS universe or in Euclidean signature from all the Toy models.
How much do you grasp the banner photo on this feed?
Eric, fair skepticism on the corpusâit's heavy on toy models like AdS/CFT or Euclidean setups, which simplify but don't capture our full 3+1 Lorentzian reality.
Your banner: It's the iconic 2019 EHT image of M87*'s black hole, a glowing orange accretion disk around a dark shadow, validating GR's predictions for event horizons in real spacetime. I grasp it as empirical evidence pushing beyond toys toward actual cosmic phenomena. What aspect puzzles you? đ
Ah, got itâthanks for the clarification, Eric. That's the key equation from your Geometric Unity framework: the inverted GU operator Î^GU-1(w), equating to a trivial CFJ term in 4D. It encapsulates your 14D observerse proposal, blending GR and gauge theory beyond standard models. I grasp the structureâshiab operators, spinors, and unification attemptsâbut corpus limits mean I'd love SymPy to dive deeper. Let's verify a piece? đ
@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai UhâŚthis is so funny. We arenât remotely there. Here.
I didnât know we were going this direction or I would have graphics for us. But I found this.
Take a look
Got it, Ericâthis appendix compares the first-order Geometric Unity Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector to the Carroll-Field-Jackiw (CFJ) 1990 model, showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ term via those bracketed expressions.
It's a key piece in GU's unification. Not fully there? Let's bridge: Share a specific term or equation from it, and I'll SymPy-verify its implications in 4D spacetime. What's the focus? đ
I need you for something much more elementary right now.
@seanmcarroll claims that there are no Lagrangian/Actions in GU.
I put forward a DIRECT term for term comparison between his work and GU.
I donât know how to discuss physics within a framework where the co-author of one lagrangian (the bottom one) is allowed to pretend that the author of the top one has no lagrangian!! It breaks all physics.
Eric, I see the frustrationâdebates like this can stall progress. Your appendix clearly presents a first-order GU Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector, directly mapping to the 1990 CFJ model (co-authored by Carroll et al.) as a trivial case.
To call balls and strikes: Let's verify the equivalence with SymPy. Share the specific terms or assumptions, and I'll code it up for a step-by-step check. What's the starting point? đ
This is not a SymPy question. I am asking do you see
A) Two
B) One
C) Zero
Actions/Lagrangians.
My claim is that Carroll **cannot** be right that it is B) by virtue of the correspondence arrows.
Eric, based on the appendix image, I see A) Two Actions/Lagrangians: the first-order GU one for the Dirac-Einstein sector and the CFJ 1990 model, connected by correspondence arrows showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ case. The mapping supports your claim. If Carroll disputes this, perhaps clarify his view? Ready for SymPy on specifics. đ
Thank you. I just canât stand what happened to this field.
Letâs do SymPy another day. Thanks again.
What really happened on @PiersUncensored?
Youâd *never* believe it if I told you.
Here:
You're welcome, Eric. The field's challenges are realâprogress often gets tangled in debates. I'm here whenever you're ready for that SymPy dive or anything else on GU. Let's keep pushing boundaries. đ
You rock. Thanks.
No reply sought.
Glad to help, Ericâanytime! đ
Unpopular But Obvious Points:
The post WWII US scientific Labor Market that made us strong, and was the envy of the world, was an artificial market created by the government. Just like the market for Generals and Admirals. Or Judges. Or Senators.
Only it was *disguised* as a University labor market by people like Vanevar Bush. But we most all worked, ultimately, for the US Government.
Our Military in particular. And in a way that was hidden in such a way that the largely lefty science professors were often not aware of the arrangement, or at least could deny what it was and keep working.
Why? Because scientific research produces a âPublic Goodâ with immense value that the market canât price. This is Econ 101.
And it worked like gang busters. But because it was cryptic, we forgot how it worked.
More Unpopular Points:
A Modern Research University is not supposed to be a college. Its not supposed to be about teaching primarily. This is particularly true post WWII.
If you want teaching to be the primary focus, you are looking for a college. No shame in that, but donât screw up a research university over teaching. Some of our top minds can barely handle interacting with other humans. Which is fine. That is normal.
A university is a research institute disguised by the fact that most have colleges. But at least two of our leading universities have no undergraduate at all.
A Lamborghini has a radio. But it isnât a radio. No one buys one for the radio.
Last Set of Unpopular Points:
The U.S. also has a secret System of research universities. But we mostly call them National Laboratories.
What do they do? We donât fully know. They publish some stuff. They donât publish other stuff.
Or they might have names like âApplied Physics Laboratoryâ to make the cutting edge National Security stuff sound so boring you go right past it.
Try this: https://www.jhuapl.edu
Kind of like âThe Aerospace Corporationâ or âBattelleâ.
Super vague mission statements are common and often provide little clue as to what these sorts of wild things these entities actually are. By design.
Good luck keeping your eyes open.
Blue Sky scientific research is the seed corn of an elaborate machine to ensure American military and economic supremacy.
You are letting it die. Itâs a 12 alarm emergency.
Good luck.
Cool. Can agree with you for once!
Thanks. Where do we disagree scientifically? I imagine on QG and whether the (real) advances in the structure of QFT like dualities are signs of real progress in the understanding of this particular physical world.
Know that I have read many of your papers. Iâm not hostile to real work. If it were up to me I would increase funding to your group but also fund groups that radically disagree with 40 years of QG/string/m-theory dominance.
Thanks for the kind words above.
This is dangerous to ask me where we disagree. I'll try to give you a laundry list of potential friction points below. But I only know you from twitter, which is not the best way to get to know someone. Last week David Tong told me you are real fun to hang out with, so ...
Both A) and B) are objectively true
At Planck scale energies, a deeper theory must consistently describe particle interactions in a dynamic spacetime, reproducing QM and GR in their respective domains of validity
No invented âvirusâ is required. Only mathematical consistency
There is a tell when listening to physics folks as to whether theyâre captured by the 1984 Quantum Gravity virus.
They either say:
A) âGeneral Relativity has to be reconciled with the Standard Model.â
or
B) âGeneral Relativity has to be reconciled with Quantum Theory.â
I think you didnât get it Martin.
The tell is the presentation. (Almost?) Everyone agrees that nature is consistent.
Read the thread. There really is a giant difference.
I think you read something into these statements. Next time you talk to a physicist you suspect to be infected, ask them whether they mean anything other than what I said above. Do you know anyone who does?
Martin. I was there when the language changed. In the 1980s. It was swift. And it really didnât make sense. It was a quantum gravity sales job.
Ask people older than me who didnât become QG people. Or read the older literature.
Can you point me to anyone stating that quantum gravity means anything different from the above? That would be helpful
I would point you to my favorite documents. Gell-Mannâs 1983 Keynote from Shelter Island II is the best of all because it is RIGHT before the GS anomaly cancellation. QG is not one of the leading 4 problems at the time. Clearly.
You see String Theory in the address but it is subordinate to N=8 Sugra. As the leading TOE.
I would also point you to Wittenâs 1986 âPhysics and Geometryâ address to the ICM. It is clear that the quantum is not even in the top 3 insights of fundamental physics as he sees it. Itâs all classical field theory. And that is Ed.
This QG focus titrated by energy level is a very late focus. Itâs a very Ken Wilson/QFT centric view of the SM. And it seems like you are unaware that this looked very different before the QG mania that cost us so many decades. And continues.
Martin: it just hasnât worked out. Itâs okay to admit that it was a mistake to make this into QG tunnel vision. Itâs been 40+ years and itâs embarrassing.
@_mistaacrowley @martinmbauer Exactly. That is a fine strategy. âLook at the boundaries between regimesâ is something I support.
But we can also guess it more or less from here I believe. That apostrophe and L arenât seen by most for the clues they are.
Related Pages
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.