The Portal Wiki

String Theory: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

String Theory (edit)

Revision as of 08:25, 18 November 2025

10,186 bytes added ,  18 November
→‎2021
Line 990: Line 990:
I think we have much on which we agree and no shortage of things that divide us. Would be lively. Up to you.
I think we have much on which we agree and no shortage of things that divide us. Would be lively. Up to you.


#StringTheory #GodEquation #TOE
<nowiki>#</nowiki>StringTheory #GodEquation #TOE
|timestamp=4:40 PM · Apr 27, 2021
|timestamp=4:40 PM · Apr 27, 2021
}}
}}
Line 1,176: Line 1,176:


Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1403837966305300481
|name=Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why [[UAP|UAPs]] cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to [[UAP|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/
|timestamp=10:13 PM · Jun 12, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
}}
Line 1,186: Line 1,196:
|content=First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically “centuries ahead” is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.
|content=First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically “centuries ahead” is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.


Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? I’d have guessed “many” (not .5) and been wrong. https://t.co/Fb9rWGAHNQ
Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? I’d have guessed “many” (not .5) and been wrong.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
|media1=E3x6JmrVUAIlPwv.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-1.jpg
|media2=E3x6JpQVEAIhlP_.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-2.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 1,369: Line 1,379:


C) Root level access.
C) Root level access.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=mishaperiphery-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/mishaperiphery/status/1409618467024560129
|name=Misha Mansoor
|usernameurl=https://x.com/mishaperiphery
|username=mishaperiphery
|content=I see your point, but I would ask, wouldn’t there be a difference between basic recognition and categorization, and actively studying and interacting?  One would assume that other species would still be resource and time limited, therefore forced to prioritize their attention?
|timestamp=9:03 PM · Jun 28, 2021
}}
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
|timestamp=2:15 AM · Jun 29, 2021
}}
}}
Line 1,449: Line 1,469:
Look at Nov 1, 1952 from Nov 1 1902: you don’t have powered flight, know what relativity or the quantum is, know that neutrons exist, know about anti-matter, etc.
Look at Nov 1, 1952 from Nov 1 1902: you don’t have powered flight, know what relativity or the quantum is, know that neutrons exist, know about anti-matter, etc.


From ‘02, ‘52 IS millennia. https://t.co/YiRc1AbkcU
From ‘02, ‘52 IS millennia.
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
|timestamp=2:16 AM · Jun 29, 2021
|media1=E5BAESFVUAIAcSf.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1409697128490831877-1.jpg
|media2=E5BAESEVkAYAhLd.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1409697128490831877-2.jpg
}}
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 1,634: Line 1,654:




{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454493530223636485
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This isn’t an obscure idea or in any way original to me or particular to you or physics:
“Wer mit Ungeheuern kĂ€mpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
F. Nietzsche
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173969863430145
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My colleague Peter Woit at Columbia Univ and @notevenwrong, has an interesting idea for unifying physcis. I am shocked that those claiming to do physics are not interestied in those actually trying to do physics.
Let me take a quick stab at Peter's idea:
https://t.co/7wmgNWMS9f
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173971453124608
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you start with the mystery of non gravitational forces, up to a small lie, you have three symmetries for three forces:
A) U(1) --&gt;  ElectroMagnetism
B) SU(2) --&gt; Weak Force (Beta Decay)
C) SU(3) ---&gt; Strong Nuclear Force
But SU(3) is special here.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173972753309697
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=U(1) and SU(2) have many names:
U(1) = S^1=SO(2)=Spin(2)=Circle=Unit Complex #s
SU(2) = S^3 = Sp(1) = Spin(3) = Unit Quaternions
But SU(3) is distinguished among small symmetry groups by having only one known avatar.
So Woit/Penrose make it's explanation central.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173973923520513
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Woit replaces spacetime with CP^3=SU(4)/U(3) where SU(3) is inside U(3). This makes SU(3)'s appearance totally natural, by making it the (unmotivated) starting point.
He then finds both Euclidean &amp; Einsteinian space-times inside this CP^3 locating SU(2) inside the Euclidean ST.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173975160889345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=He finds another U(1) as well so he cobbles together a copy of the forces of nature, a copy of Flat SpaceTime and a copy of the Euclidean 'WickRotated' SpaceTime physicists need to tame some calculations.
I don't want to share criticism here. It's a neat idea for real physics.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173976347901952
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I've heard very little interest in his idea. I would like to know why. I have been going to physics seminars in LA recently and this is MUCH closer to actual physics than most of what is being discussed. This idea that people are too busy to waste time on real attempts is absurd.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173977425833986
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think those of us interested in working on the physical world should have a thumbnail sketch of each other's ideas given that most claiming to do physics are not doing any real physics at all. Would love to hear @garrettlisi, @skdh, @stephen_wolfram, @DrBrianKeating on this.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454173978549899264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think it's a cool idea. I can share criticism another time but the most important thing to say is I tried reading it and was glad to see a new kind of unification attempt. Nice ideas Peter! cc: @DavidDeutschOxf, @tegmark, @FQXi, @seanmcarroll, @SimonsFdn, @KITP_UCSB @lexfridman
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1454339988456361986
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Eric, I have literally written an entire book explaining why theories of everything and grand unified dreams are a waste of time. If you and Peter want to pursue this, fine with me, it's your life. But I have my own research to do.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454478919688605706
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I read your book. I didn’t agree with it in some very important places. But I found a lot in it. As I recall, we flew people to LA to hold an entire mini-conference around your ideas in it, where we were worried that you were being treated as a waste of time.
You sound busy now.
|timestamp=4:02 PM · Oct 30, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1454478919688605706-FC9Y3gSVUAMfe04.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454480059226488836
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You don’t have to read Peter’s paper. But it’s interesting. I too have my own work, but part of not signing on to the string program for me was not adopting their “This is a waste of time.” Approach to colleague’s work. Because that is what they have done to all other approaches.
|timestamp=4:07 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454480944778268679
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So feel free to keep going as you are. But Peter is a colleague. And he’s on to something. I don’t think it’s right and I don’t think it will work. But it’s a respectable idea. And you won’t know that It’s not even a “theory of everything” as you say, until you read it. As I did.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1454493992587087876
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=I was explicitly referring to TOEs and GUTs above. As I have said before, solve a problem and I'll look at it. And so will thousands of other physicists.
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454495924042960902
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s leave me aside.
Peter’s Penrose approach solves a few problems.  But you won’t know that unless you read it. I have spent more time in this back and forth than I did to see that. But, of course, feel free not to read it. He’s a solid colleague so I spent the 15 minutes.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454497465915170825
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One problem is explaining the uniquely asymmetric nature of Weak Isospin. Peter gets asymmetry to come out of a kind of Wick rotated Euclidean theory that is co-equal to the Lorentzian by virtue of Spin(4)’s semi-simplicity. Picks up a U(1) as well.
But I’m not here to sell it.
|timestamp=5:16 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1454497736028426243
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sounds like you have moved quite a bit over the years. Maybe I just need to update. Be well.
|timestamp=5:17 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=HiFromMichaelV-profile-mv_scaled1.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1454478755984916483
|name=Michael Vassar
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HiFromMichaelV
|username=HiFromMichaelV
|content=Sabine, your book was great, but I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of the thesis you very compellingly argues for.  Mostly you establish that we shouldn’t put all eggs in the string theory basket, and more excitingly, in the ‘naturalness’ basket.
Reality is still one.
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
Line 1,640: Line 1,856:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@HiFromMichaelV @skdh @garrettlisi @stephen_wolfram @DrBrianKeating The great danger in being a String Theory critic is that you take on their mindset when you fight them. Their “Waste of time.” mantra was their modal response to why they didn’t have to read Woit and Smolin’s String-critical books in 2006 and 2007. And Sabine’s in 2018. So odd. https://t.co/EiR950XauZ
|content=The great danger in being a [[String Theory]] critic is that you take on their mindset when you fight them. Their “Waste of time.” mantra was their modal response to why they didn’t have to read Woit and Smolin’s String-critical books in 2006 and 2007. And Sabine’s in 2018. So odd. https://t.co/EiR950XauZ
|media1=ERW-X-post-1454483937900650503-FC9dbncUcAEziAZ.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1454483937900650503-FC9dbndVgAoHjrW.jpg
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Oct 30, 2021
|timestamp=4:22 PM · Oct 30, 2021
|media1=FC9dbncUcAEziAZ.jpg
}}
|media2=FC9dbndVgAoHjrW.jpg
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Oct 30, 2021
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23887"