The Portal Wiki

Theory of Geometric Unity: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Theory of Geometric Unity (view source)

Revision as of 17:52, 26 September 2025

8,901 bytes added ,  26 September
→‎2024
Line 1,841: Line 1,841:
}}
}}
|timestamp=6:53 PM ¡ Mar 27, 2024
|timestamp=6:53 PM ¡ Mar 27, 2024
}}
=== 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.
|timestamp=4:13 PM ¡ May 24, 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=@HeathHimself 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=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.
|timestamp=3:02 PM ¡ May 28, 2025
|media1=GsC3W3NaoAEe59K.jpg
|media2=GsC3W3NbwAAUnRf.jpg
}}
{{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 >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/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.
|timestamp=1:47 PM ¡ May 29, 2025
|media1=GsHv4ISaUAcvL0z.jpg
}}
{{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 & 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 & 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/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
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/22476"