Geometric Unity Predictions: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 17:29, 27 September 2025

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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):

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

11

@11Equity

@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677

4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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:

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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:

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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. 🙏

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Eric Weinstein

@EricRWeinstein

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.

7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021

This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.

Related Pages[edit]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{#widget:YouTube|id=PYRYXhU4kxM|start=4261}}
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872173033017346}}
+{{Tweet
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872184387039232}}
+|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872186740080647}}
+|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379874520526299136
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872188593926144}}
+|name=Eric Weinstein
-{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379874520526299136}}
+|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
+}}
 {{stub}}
@@ Line 12: / Line 116: @@
 * [[You Know You’re in GU When]]
+* [[Early is another name for wrong]]
 * [[Gauge Theory]]
 * [[General Relativity]]
+* [[I’ve Got a Good Feeling About This]]
 * [[Peer Injunction]]
 * [[Peer Review]]