Effective Field Theory (EFT): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803710551290047 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=And @grok, can you make this argument understandable to anyone claiming to be confused by this analogy? Thx partner. |thread= {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803710551290047 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 02:06, 13 November 2025
Here is what is wrong with Effective Field Theory, to me, as explained by Wheel Of Fortune.
Imagine this puzzle was the information at some low energy (Standard Model), and the number of letters left to find matched the orders of magnitude from where we are to (UV) completion.
Effective Field Theory says “Be modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it can’t be guessed from so far away.”
@EricRWeinstein it could be interesting if you clarify your position on the EFT doctrine. To me it is basically a "planck-scale first" doctrine, that tells that any experimental result is not important, and than renormalizability of theories is just an amusement.
GU says: “That is eminently reasonable & sober, and is thus good solid science. Now get this defeatist mindset the hell away from me, go peer review each other, and hold my beer. Send lawyers, guns & money: let’s get back to American Cowboy science.”
🤠
When it comes to Ed Witten/Lenny Susskind vs John F. Donoghue/Ken Wilson, I’m just not in that game. Not my colleagues. Not my rodeo.
I belong to the Bruce Willis school of fundamental physics:
“I was always kinda partial to Roy Rodgers actually.”
And @grok, can you make this argument understandable to anyone claiming to be confused by this analogy? Thx partner.