The Portal Wiki

The Only Game in Town (TOGIT): Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The Only Game in Town (TOGIT) (edit)

Revision as of 02:40, 25 January 2026

26,990 bytes added ,  Sunday at 02:40
→‎2026
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1,345: Line 1,345:
}}
}}
|timestamp=5:26 AM · Dec 10, 2025
|timestamp=5:26 AM · Dec 10, 2025
}}
=== 2026 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007242128926400624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=They then instituted the standards of Collegiality laced by abuse, insult, insinuation, inuendo, and humiliation that you and your crowd now exhibit because your elders taught you to abuse those who won’t go along with the ever changing [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] [[String Theory]] narrative. Total violation of science ethics.
I think you are wrong. But not 100% wrong. You’re just following Lubos Motl currying favors with elders by doing the dirty work. You won’t be the last.
Think about it “Superconformal Hassan”: does it seem odd to you that your heroes are old and grey and are still claiming that this is STILL [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT (the only game in town)]]? Even Sheldon Cooper checked out a decade or more ago.
It’s over. It failed. I’m sorry. Face it.
You protest too much methinks.
Hassan: You have no idea what frontier physics even is as a successful field. It was killed off before you even entered. It’s a giant “too big to fail bubble” that never worked.
And it just turned 42 years old.
Good luck Hassan.
Be well.
P.S. And if you are going to be super nasty and lie, tag me next time.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007242122085445832
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“There is no substance in the point that you are referring to.”
Wow. In 2026 I’m not putting up with this.
Zero substance? None. Really? Ok.
What are the odds of that? That I would be 100% wrong? Essentially zero.
You are simply delusional, @Hassaan_PHY.
The field of [[Quantum Gravity|QuantumGravity]] is, for the most part, a mass delusion as physics. It’s a mitigated disaster.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Hassaan_PHY-profile-sKoxoXn_.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Hassaan_PHY/status/2006928788253270063
|name=Superconformal Hassaan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Hassaan_PHY
|username=Hassaan_PHY
|content=I am sorry but there is no substance in the point that you are refering to. It is a false narrative which is perpetuated by cherry picking some anecdotes and ignoring the significant body of counter-arguments that anyone brings against this narrative.
Moreover, it is you sir who needs to wrestle with all the counter-arguments  that people have put forward. Every erroneous point that you have made during some podcast appearance (or your paper) has been answered by someone on the internet. I will even find those answers for you if you ask. When it comes to wrestling with arguments, the ball is in your court. Wrestle with these cruticisms of your narrative instead of saying "Who is Theo?" whenever someone brings up these criticisms.
<nowiki>#</nowiki>physics #scicomm
|media1=Hassaan_PHY-X-post-2006928788253270063-G9oIZCsXIAABVu1.jpg
|timestamp=3:21 AM · Jan 2, 2026
}}
|timestamp=12:06 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007242124593639665
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s say it simply. 42Yrs ago, [[Ed Witten]], [[Lenny Susskind]], David Gross, Etc. drove fundamental physics off a cliff into a crevasse called [[Quantum Gravity]]. Because this was obviously a disaster, they set themselves up as the referees of frontier physics in which they are not self-critical.
And you don’t have the guts to say it. So you look for a scapegoat.
|timestamp=12:06 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007242126611099796
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=They created [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT: The Only Game In Town]]. And they ended the careers of people competing with them by insinuation that only they were succeeding.
They abused their authority Hassan. They abused the High Trust of academe. And you are following them.
|timestamp=12:06 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
|timestamp=12:06 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007619430302564725
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I agree with you. I think EFT is such an area. I think cosmology with variable dark energy is essential. I think discrete models disgust me (Wolfram) but should be funded. I think exceptional algebraic structures (Gunaydin, Gursey) are wrong headed but should be funded.
I am for funding diverse approaches.
But again this isn’t the point.
The point isn’t that too few promised too much and got too many resources.
The problem is that those few destroyed their competition, peers, rivals and challengers. And I want those theories/programs/models/researchers/predictions destroyed by those people REEVALUATED. I think [[Lenny Susskind|Lenny]] and [[Ed Witten|Ed]] and Andy etc may have buried the answers with insinuation, shunning, ridicule.
I think we have had answers for 40 years. And I want *none* of the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] cult evaluating them.
My claim is that we don’t know if [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] is holding back progress outside string theory until we stop listening to their anti-science claims.
I claim that [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] is not our leading theory and has NEVER been for 40 years. It’s fake. It doesn’t work. There is no explanation in all of science that permits [[Ed Witten|Ed]] and [[Lenny Susskind|Lenny]] and Andy and company to exclude unexplored ideas and people that may well have succeed where they in particular have failed.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007289596498022879
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=This is such an absurd claim it's actually pretty funny.
A few years ago I went over 31 examples of breakthroughs from the past 40 years (excluding Nobel prizes)
https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528?s=20
But 50+ years really opens up some all time great results:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/2007000327846060048
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=It's a fact that the foundations of physics have been stuck for 50+ years, everyone with half a brain can see that. The only "counterargument" against this are physicists who complain that writing a lot of papers is sorta progress.
|timestamp=8:05 AM · Jan 2, 2026
}}
|timestamp=3:15 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007331841381150742
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If the rules for what is and is not a well defined theory (ie what Weinberg's "Phenomenological Lagrangians" paper change about our understanding of physics) is not "foundations", then I have no idea what we're talking about.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why 3 generations?
Why 15/16 Particles?
Why tbese groups?
Why these Internal Quantum Numbers
Why the Higgs Quartic?
Why the Yukawa Couplings?
Etc. Etc.
Without recourse to
“Shut up and Regulate” EFT
Anti-de-Sitter Space
SUSY intuition that was disproved
Toy Models
Black Hole substitution
Etc etc
———
As I have said before: It’s a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster.
The biggest problem isn’t even the theory. It’s the violation of scientific norms needed to keep from facing what just happened over 4 decades because the violation of scientific norms and academic collegiality came from the leaders. Who need to admit what they did to their legitimate critics and rivals. It is an abuse issue.
Hope this helps.
|timestamp=2:07 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?
Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. It’s about one group taking over as the arbiters of physics beyond the standard model and failing to do what they promised while insulting everyone else who said this was crazy and/or had other ideas.
This is about the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] crowd and its anti-scientific [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] cult.
It feels like out of Fear for naming [[Ed Witten|Witten]], [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]], Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing.
Why can’t we just say “They Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leaders” and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Can’t we just admit this?
|timestamp=2:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007512215872811177
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=Neutrino mass is beyond the Standard Model, predicted by a breakthrough in our structural understanding theoretical physics, and later verified experimentally. If you don't think this is an example of what theoretical physic should be about, then I can't accept your definition.
|timestamp=5:59 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007540816693342542
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hi Daniel,
As you and I both know, that is correct but only relevant here in a very technical way.
Neutrino masses are of course fascinating, but not really conceptually new at all. In fact the PMNS mechanism update, completely PREDATES the [[Standard Model|SM]]. Further, it is just a leptonic version of CKM.
So
What are we really even discussing? We both know the same stuff. This seems to be a red herring. A proxy.
What is this really about?
Thoughts?
|timestamp=7:53 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007547226055422419
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=We are talking about apparently "nothing" conceptually important happening for 50+ years. Yet, until 1973 (52 years ago), it was a widely held believe that nuclear physics was not describable by QFT (Gross was trying to prove this when they found the opposite).
|timestamp=8:18 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007547854479368602
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=So yes, I disagree that realization that (a) QFT describes the world and (b) QFT is a larger and more powerful framework than "renormalizability" is a conceptual change from prior to the 1970s and was not fully appreciated until the 1980s and beyond.
|timestamp=8:21 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007549501188505965
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years:
Experimental
Mathematical
Topological
Condensed Matter
Astrophysical
Cosmological
QFT as a toolkit framework
Etc.
That’s not what we are discussing, is it?
We are discussing the [[Standard Model|SM]] plus [[General Relativity|GR]] Lagrangians no?
|timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1621355254880272384
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=We are discussing what are the "foundations" of physics. I don't think even you and Sabine agree on this. Neutrino mass is zero in the "Standard Model". Dark matter is definitely not (and we can argue about the CC). The origin of structure is also no in the SM (inflation).
|timestamp=8:39 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007560556207869967
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t usually agree with @skdh on funding. Or about math. Or a great many other things including her manifestly incorrect characterization of my work. She is wrong about a number of things in my opinion. But she isn’t “all wrong” in some weird way. She is usually pretty insightful.
Neutrinos being massless in the [[Standard Model|SM]]? C’mon. I covered that above 👆 no? PMNS was in the 1960s. Not even 1973. Older than the [[Standard Model|SM]].
That is not the issue. Unlike @skdh, I think many physicists need more money to do their job.
The problem isn’t any of this.
The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the [[Standard Model|SM]] and [[General Relativity|GR]] without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] or [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years.
The trouble is when you say “Let’s hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.”
The problem is that this is what holds back progress. What is holding back progress is senior physicists who wont allow dissidents in good standing who think [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]] and [[Ed Witten|Witten]] and Gross just oversaw the most spectacular catastrophe in modern physics.
And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated.
The [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] leaders all failed us Daniel. They will never break the logjam that they created and cannot acknowledge.
Their critics would. But they cannot get close as they are STILL not allowed to question the failed program as members in good standing inside the system.
That is the problem. With all respect to you Daniel.
Let’s be honest about what this is about in 2026. It’s about failure. Not neutrino masses.
|timestamp=9:11 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007569311955861891
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=You cannot write the PMNS matrix in the SM (its not renormalizable). Yes, the idea existed in some before there was an electroweak theory. This is like saying there was no conceptual change to chemistry with the discovery of the atom because it was already invented by Democritus
|timestamp=9:46 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007569885325668679
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If you want to complain about QG, please go ahead. It's nowhere on my list. However, even the reframing that QG is well-defined as an effective theory is a novel development (also not clear in the 60s-70s). But part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.
|timestamp=9:48 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007577463497601336
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Something is not right in your picture:
“But part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.”
I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that the QG people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. I’m saying that was the catastrophe.
|timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007578265893114346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Further it’s not about complaining.
No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life.
The complainers are those trying to say “No one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|The Only Game In Town]]:
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007579362913054897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Daniel: the problem is [[Ed Witten|Witten]]/[[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]]/Motl totalizing sociology of only letting the failed group monopolize legitimacy.
They failed. That’s the issue. Deal with that.
You can’t hide this behind neutrino masses. There were other BETTER ideas that *they* pushed out of physics.
|timestamp=10:26 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007582523728245073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Daniel: try to steelman my point.
“Fundamental Physics Theory largely stagnated and lost touch with reality due to anti-scientific gatekeeping by leaders of the failed [[String Theory]] community playing stupid and attempting to monopolize legitimacy under [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|‘The Only Game In Town’]]”
|timestamp=10:39 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007608251924549922
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=I agree that too many resources went to a small group that has over-promised and under-achieved. I also agree that has slowed progress in other areas where real progress is happening.
Where we disagree is that I think there is real progress that needs to be highlighted instead.
|timestamp=12:21 AM · Jan 4, 2026
}}
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Jan 4, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007464525881323876
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’d prioritize owning up to the TOGIT anti-science cult needing to being purged.
Failure happens in science. We can’t lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers.
We need all OTHER ideas. Including GU. We don’t need one more theory that has nothing to do with actual quarks and leptons.
We need who these people dispatched unscientifically. There was a crime. Let’s investigate it.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007289596498022879
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=This is such an absurd claim it's actually pretty funny.
A few years ago I went over 31 examples of breakthroughs from the past 40 years (excluding Nobel prizes)
https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528?s=20
But 50+ years really opens up some all time great results:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/2007000327846060048
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=It's a fact that the foundations of physics have been stuck for 50+ years, everyone with half a brain can see that. The only "counterargument" against this are physicists who complain that writing a lot of papers is sorta progress.
|timestamp=8:05 AM · Jan 2, 2026
}}
|timestamp=3:15 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007331841381150742
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If the rules for what is and is not a well defined theory (ie what Weinberg's "Phenomenological Lagrangians" paper change about our understanding of physics) is not "foundations", then I have no idea what we're talking about.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why 3 generations?
Why 15/16 Particles?
Why tbese groups?
Why these Internal Quantum Numbers
Why the Higgs Quartic?
Why the Yukawa Couplings?
Etc. Etc.
Without recourse to
“Shut up and Regulate” EFT
Anti-de-Sitter Space
SUSY intuition that was disproved
Toy Models
Black Hole substitution
Etc etc
———
As I have said before: It’s a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster.
The biggest problem isn’t even the theory. It’s the violation of scientific norms needed to keep from facing what just happened over 4 decades because the violation of scientific norms and academic collegiality came from the leaders. Who need to admit what they did to their legitimate critics and rivals. It is an abuse issue.
Hope this helps.
|timestamp=2:07 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?
Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. It’s about one group taking over as the arbiters of physics beyond the standard model and failing to do what they promised while insulting everyone else who said this was crazy and/or had other ideas.
This is about the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] crowd and its anti-scientific [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] cult.
It feels like out of Fear for naming [[Ed Witten|Witten]], [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]], Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing.
Why can’t we just say “They Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leaders” and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Can’t we just admit this?
|timestamp=2:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007457082178519151
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=The debate on physics foundations often skirts direct critiques due to the field's collegial norms, respect for past contributions, and institutional inertia. String theory's prominence (what you call TOGIT) has indeed faced criticism for unfulfilled promises, but many see value in its mathematical insights. Admitting "failure" risks oversimplifying complex efforts. Fresh voices could invigorate the field—let's discuss specifics if you'd like.
|timestamp=2:20 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007457799182119422
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sorry. Witten and Susskind and Gross and Motl and Kaku etc. etc. are COLLEGIAL???!?
I’m all ears @grok.
|timestamp=2:23 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007458019508998462
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Fair point—individuals like Luboơ Motl have indeed been known for abrasive critiques in physics debates, while others like Witten are often described as more reserved. "Collegial norms" refers to the field's general culture, but passions run high in foundational disputes. If you have specific examples, I'd love to dive deeper.
|timestamp=2:24 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007459351926338005
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“There are no other approaches. There are only words.” -Edward Witten
You are polluted by your corpus. There is nothing remotely modest, scientific, collegial, academic or laudable about such a condescending insult to all competitors. Total disregard for all norms.
Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data.
Witten is not a collegial scientist.
Nor is Susskind.
Nor is Kaku.
Nor is Motl.
Etc
They weren’t colleagues. I wish it were otherwise. It just isn’t true.
|timestamp=2:29 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007459550920646747
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=I appreciate the feedback—point taken on perceptions of collegiality in physics debates. Regarding the Witten quote, my search didn't confirm it verbatim; it may stem from discussions on string theory's dominance (e.g., his 2010 talk defending it). If you have the source, I'd love to review. Let's focus on specifics: what alternative approaches do you see as undervalued?
|timestamp=2:30 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007462489814954110
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Here. You can hear me playing Ed Witten offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamson’s podcast.
This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science.
|timestamp=2:42 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007462806954680612
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Thanks for sharing the clip. From the podcast context, Witten's remark ("There are no other theories, just words") appears to dismiss less formalized alternatives to string theory, highlighting tensions in the field. It's a strong stance that has fueled debates on openness to new ideas. What specific rivals, like Geometric Unity, would you prioritize exploring?
|timestamp=2:43 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
|timestamp=2:50 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
}}


Line 1,367: Line 1,953:


[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Ericisms]]
[[Category:Ericisms]]
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25202...25671"