The Portal Wiki

Theory of Geometric Unity: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Theory of Geometric Unity (view source)

Revision as of 06:43, 23 September 2025

9,874 bytes added ,  23 September
→‎On X
Line 121: Line 121:
== On X ==
== On X ==


{{#widget:Tweet|id=6278988958}}
=== 2009 ===
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6279709455}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6279911456}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6280465212}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6280629176}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6278988958
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6280927467}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6281076723}}
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6295147507}}
|username=EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6295170729}}
|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
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6295990314}}
|timestamp=7:49 PM · Dec 2, 2009
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6296172311}}
}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6296353056}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6296431642}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6774395098}}
{{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
}}
 
=== 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 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
}}


<!--
<!--
{{#widget:Tweet|id=8269427373}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=18986647659}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872173033017346}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872184387039232}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872184387039232}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872186740080647}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872186740080647}}
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/22346"