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

12,526 bytes added ,  Sunday at 02:40
→‎2026
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1,348: Line 1,348:


=== 2026 ===
=== 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
{{Tweet
Line 1,614: Line 1,698:
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.
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:
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
|timestamp=10:22 PM ¡ Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
Line 1,654: Line 1,738:
}}
}}
|timestamp=1:05 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 Luboš 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
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25461...25671"