Standard Model: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→2018) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== 2018 === | === 2018 === | ||
{{ | {{Tweet | ||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958045232150425600 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=END/ My bet is on Type III for a reason: | |||
Type I is not unified.</br> | |||
Type II is possible, but appears to be unworkable in details.</br> | |||
Type IV appears to lack sufficient guidance from Quantum theory to actually 'ship' despite consuming resources for yrs.</br> | |||
Types V & VI lack any progress. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958021546718633984 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=1/ "Theories of Everything": A Taxonomy. | |||
It is often said that "Theories-of-Everything are a dime a dozen" or that "All theoretical physicists worth their salt have several in a drawer." So far as I can tell, this is simply untrue. We've barely ever, if at all, seen candidates. | |||
|timestamp=4:58 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-958021546718633984-DUuQCV3UMAAmV4G.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958022612390563842 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=2/ The Escher Lithograph used in the first tweet points to the core of why TOEs are rare. A candidate TOE has to have some quality of "a fire that lights itself", which is difficult to think about beyond the equations that would instantiate it. Hence very few such theories exist. | |||
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958026235736567808 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=3/ I'm going to lean on the following dictionary of analogies: | |||
Physical Paper = Void | |||
Pictured Canvas = Manifold and/or Einsteinian Spacetime | |||
Ink=Matter & non-gravitational force fields | |||
Pencils = Pre-Conscious Lego (e.g. amino acids) | |||
Hands = Consciousness | |||
Paradox = Self-awareness | |||
|timestamp=5:17 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958028114180714496 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=4/ In my taxonomy, Type I TOEs are our least ambitious but they best match our state of the world. They are distinguished by two *separate* sources of origin: one for the Canvas ([[General Relativity]] or [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] point i) ) & one for the Ink ([[Standard Model]] or [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] point ii) ). | |||
|timestamp=5:24 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-928296366853328896-DOE8P81U8AA_MBe.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958032334346862592 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=5 Type II TOE's are more ambitious & seek to derive the Ink from the choice of a mathematically distinguished Canvas that is anything but blank. My arch-nemesis @garrettlisi's theory is Type II. E8 is his 248 dimensional canvas. The intricacy is there, but doesn't quite match up. | |||
|timestamp=5:41 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-958032334346862592-DUucltrVoAAvF2u.jpg | |||
|media2=ERW-X-post-958032334346862592-DUucnc5VAAAtoC1.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958034414167982080 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=6/ In Type III TOEs the ink is to be derived from canvas, but the canvas is essentially blank; it simply permits mathematics to happen (e.g. calculus and linear algebra). In such theories the ink has to be bootstrapped into existence. My lectures on [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]] were Type III. | |||
|timestamp=5:49 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-958034414167982080-DUufH-dVAAAD8jD.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958037099457871872 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=7/ Type IV TOE's try to change the question from Einstein's "Unified Field Theory." In [[String Theory|String Thy]], [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantizing Gravity"]] became substituted for "Unified Field." For this crowd, many are now betting that the canvas & ink are both *emergent* from some deeper fundamental quantum thy. | |||
|timestamp=6:00 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-958037099457871872-DUuhS VVMAA3FyW.jpg | |||
|media2=ERW-X-post-958037099457871872-DUuhXHwUQAAEICu.jpg | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958039046239928320 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=8/ Type V TOEs are of a type I've never been able to fully contemplate; they are without boundaries or origins. There is no "Why is there something rather than nothing" within them. That which is not forbidden is compelled into existence. Void creates canvas & canvas begets void. | |||
|timestamp=6:08 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958041865386827776 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=9/ Type VI TOEs begin with the hands. Religions are of this type. I pass over this in silence as they aren't scientific. | |||
I will leave open higher types, but I've really only seen attempts at I-IV & I wouldn't call [[String Theory|String-Thy/M-Thy]] a full TOE try since events of the last 15 yrs. | |||
|timestamp=6:19 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/958043587349901312 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=10/ I believe fundamental physics is stalled out because we are finally at the doorstep of a TOE and we haven't really bothered to think about what that would actually mean because we've never been here before. A final step need not look like any previous one. In fact, it cannot. | |||
|timestamp=6:26 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=6:32 PM · Jan 29, 2018 | |||
}} | |||
=== 2019 === | === 2019 === | ||
Revision as of 07:40, 25 November 2025
2009
2017
2018
1/ "Theories of Everything": A Taxonomy.
It is often said that "Theories-of-Everything are a dime a dozen" or that "All theoretical physicists worth their salt have several in a drawer." So far as I can tell, this is simply untrue. We've barely ever, if at all, seen candidates.
2/ The Escher Lithograph used in the first tweet points to the core of why TOEs are rare. A candidate TOE has to have some quality of "a fire that lights itself", which is difficult to think about beyond the equations that would instantiate it. Hence very few such theories exist.
3/ I'm going to lean on the following dictionary of analogies:
Physical Paper = Void Pictured Canvas = Manifold and/or Einsteinian Spacetime Ink=Matter & non-gravitational force fields Pencils = Pre-Conscious Lego (e.g. amino acids) Hands = Consciousness Paradox = Self-awareness
4/ In my taxonomy, Type I TOEs are our least ambitious but they best match our state of the world. They are distinguished by two *separate* sources of origin: one for the Canvas (General Relativity or Witten's point i) ) & one for the Ink (Standard Model or Witten's point ii) ).
5 Type II TOE's are more ambitious & seek to derive the Ink from the choice of a mathematically distinguished Canvas that is anything but blank. My arch-nemesis @garrettlisi's theory is Type II. E8 is his 248 dimensional canvas. The intricacy is there, but doesn't quite match up.
6/ In Type III TOEs the ink is to be derived from canvas, but the canvas is essentially blank; it simply permits mathematics to happen (e.g. calculus and linear algebra). In such theories the ink has to be bootstrapped into existence. My lectures on Geometric Unity were Type III.
7/ Type IV TOE's try to change the question from Einstein's "Unified Field Theory." In String Thy, "Quantizing Gravity" became substituted for "Unified Field." For this crowd, many are now betting that the canvas & ink are both *emergent* from some deeper fundamental quantum thy.
8/ Type V TOEs are of a type I've never been able to fully contemplate; they are without boundaries or origins. There is no "Why is there something rather than nothing" within them. That which is not forbidden is compelled into existence. Void creates canvas & canvas begets void.
9/ Type VI TOEs begin with the hands. Religions are of this type. I pass over this in silence as they aren't scientific.
I will leave open higher types, but I've really only seen attempts at I-IV & I wouldn't call String-Thy/M-Thy a full TOE try since events of the last 15 yrs.
10/ I believe fundamental physics is stalled out because we are finally at the doorstep of a TOE and we haven't really bothered to think about what that would actually mean because we've never been here before. A final step need not look like any previous one. In fact, it cannot.
END/ My bet is on Type III for a reason:
Type I is not unified.
Type II is possible, but appears to be unworkable in details.
Type IV appears to lack sufficient guidance from Quantum theory to actually 'ship' despite consuming resources for yrs.
Types V & VI lack any progress.
2019
2020
2021
2022
One of the questions about UFOs that needs to be asked, and that I don’t hear much about, is: “Has the US government built fake UFOs?”
UFO people are so focused on whether there are real UFOs that they don’t push hard enough on this question.
Allow me to share a thought or two.
When I first realized I was totally wrong about UFO/UAP, I was shocked by how many folks have very similar stories about recovered crashes of very similar advanced vehicles.
It was mind blowing in 2 ways.
A) We have real crashed vehicles. And/Or B) We built fake alien vehicles.
At this point I’m reasonably sure there are things that look like cool alien vehicle in some hangers. But I also grew up near Hollywood and remember super cool looking fake space cars visible off the Hollywood freeway.
So: does anyone have stories of building fake UFOs for USG?
As you likely guessed, all the photos in this thread are fake military equipment. The airbase is totally fake. The dummy tanks are often inflated on the battlefield. The fake tank pieces are bolted on to real cars.
Q: Did we build fake UFOs in places like Wright-Patterson AFB?
After studying this issue for 2yrs, I’m pretty convinced that there ARE wild looking vehicles in secret high security locations. But I also find NO SIGN OF OUR TOP PHYSICISTS. That is a huge red flag. If you had fake UFOs, you would have a puzzle for physics: What is the science?
A true recovered interstellar craft would be like LHC or LIGO data: potential scientific data for physics beyond the Standard Model and General Relativity.
But if the crafts are fake, you would be crazy to let the A-team physicists near them. It would blow up in your face.
So my ignorant question is this: are there stories of building fake UFOs for sites in Nevada? Ohio? Are there fake retrieval teams? To what extent does faking military equipment spill into faking a UFOgasm for decades?
Because there are too many very similar craft stories.
So, at this point, the stories of craft kept at secret locations is most likely to be true in my opinion. But it is also true that all the top physics talent that was working only semi-covertly on suspicious gravity projects left by the early 1970s. So any craft may be faked.
Either way, it’s a big deal. Everything changed in the early 70s. It’s impossible to say how much. The moment the Mansfield amendment came in, physics began to stagnate. And “Quantum Gravity” destroyed our culture of science. We don’t even whisper about its “Anti-Gravity” origin.
Note Added: many readers are making wild inferences about me talking about flying fakes. I was very clear that this was about apparent crafts on the ground and in Hangars in Nevada, Ohio & elsewhere.
Wild or bad inference patterns will get you blocked. I don’t have time. Thx.
2023
2024
