The Portal Wiki

Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Quantum Field Theory (edit)

Revision as of 03:38, 25 January 2026

80,983 bytes added ,  25 January
→‎2024
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 472: Line 472:
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Feb 21, 2020
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Feb 21, 2020
|media1=ERW-X-post-1230991527918178305-ERVcQ7_U4AAKT2v.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1230991527918178305-ERVcQ7_U4AAKT2v.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1286800712706322432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Not to complain, but given that the focus is "Theories of Everything" (used here as a term of art), there really should be someone representing the mainstream of the quantum field theory community. I am, as a non-physicist, not in the best position to make this case however.]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1286800711510978565
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have been asked by @PBSSpaceTime to appear on Aug. 4th in a new 2 episode Livestream series as the only mathematician among physicists @skdh, @DrBrianKeating, Lee Smolin, @lirarandall, @stephstem, @tegmark, @matt_of_earth & @jbbeacham.
Please join us!
https://t.co/ElZQKTs5de
|timestamp=11:09 PM · Jul 24, 2020
}}
|timestamp=11:09 PM · Jul 24, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1318034574362906626
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why did this work? Because [[String Theory]] attracted top minds from what had traditionally been the cream of the [[Quantum Field Theory]] community, and they‘d clearly found a large piece of mathematical structure. What they failed to find was a connection from that to real physics. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1318034571099664384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think there is a problem with string theory per se.
The problem was with *string theorists*. Quite simply, [[String Theory|String theory]] allowed its proponents to put down the work of everyone else by allowing its boosters to claim an imminent solution which never actually ships.
https://x.com/the_jon_a_thon/status/1317859684997476353
|timestamp=3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1318034572899090432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Further, when ever anyone did something (call it X) that was important but seemingly non stringy or anti-string, the string theorists would publish an all but unreadable paper titled like “X and its Stringy Origin” to claim that *all* good ideas are subsumed by [[String Theory]].
|timestamp=3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020
}}
|timestamp=3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020
}}
}}


Line 584: Line 643:
}}
}}
|timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740903254814723
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Should we discuss? Perhaps I misunderstood you @michiokaku. But, if so, you are welcome to educate me on my show. But I feel you are *incredibly* aggressive against all non string theorists and you are not comparably challenged by all who know better for reasons I can’t fathom.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740901224779782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“If Maxwell and Yang had never been born, Bundle Geometry & Variational Calculus would have found Yang-Mills anyway. If Bohr and Planck had never been born Symplectic Geometry of line bundles would have found quantum theory anyway.”
Again: am I wrong?
|timestamp=12:37 AM · May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740901908455424
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Just to finish up for completeness:
“If Dirac had never been born, Index Theory & Bordism would have found [[Quantum Field Theory]] anyway as an enhanced extraordinary cohomology theory.”
I’m sorry, but all my statements are as or more accurate than what you tweeted.
|timestamp=12:37 AM · May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740902575349762
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why do string theorists pretending to do physics get to BS everyone actually trying to do physics.
We have worked out a world where string theorists and their supporters attack everyone else but say much more outrageous bullshit to the public than any other group by far.
|timestamp=12:37 AM · May 5, 2021
}}
|timestamp=12:37 AM · May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131507686363138
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.
We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I can’t think of a single story to fit to these reports I’m hearing about.
I welcome your thoughts. As always.
Warm regards,
Eric
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131487692115972
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Dear @michaelshermer,
Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also don’t find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of “no isolated discontinuous innovation” quite interesting!
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
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131494289760259
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|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.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-1.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-2.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496059805698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next challenge: doesn’t your line of reasoning prove that “Renaissance Technologies” is either a fraud or a front? Their Medallion Fund is otherwise a long term unbreached secret, discontinuous from any other know investment fund seemingly thousands of years ahead of competitors.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496844165120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now I’ve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, it’s either a counter example to your claims on discontinuous innovation if it is merely a fund or a counter-example to your secrecy claims if it is our secret physics program.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131497641082880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next: there are really two metrics on innovations.
Metric I: How big the incremental jump in difficulty.
Metric II: How big the jump in what is unlocked.
The great fear is that a small jump measured by 1 leading to an ENORMOUS jump in as measured by II.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131498391871490
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people can’t exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.
They all exhibited the “a little unlocks a lot” paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499197157376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the world’s top employed anti-gravity researcher(?!) of the 1950s turned in what may be the most impressive 15yr output in the history of the subject by my estimation. How can I begin to explain this?
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499977318403
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s not physics exactly. But [[Ed Witten|Edward Witten]] w support from a small number of folks rewrote [[Quantum Field Theory]] as geometry. If [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] geometrized gravity, then [[Ed Witten|Witten]] geometrized [[Quantum Field Theory|Quantum Field theory]] (everything else).
Now, all that change has so far unlocked exactly nothing.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131500753182720
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But it’s not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, [[Ed Witten|Witten]] & Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius & power looking for its 1st application to the 🌎.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131501512433665
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you gave us [[Ed Witten|E Witten]], [[Jim Simons|J Simons]], [[Isadore Singer|I Singer]], [[CN Yang]], M Atiyah, D Quillen & G Segal, in a quiet program in 1975, I could argue that they didn’t need much more. In fact you don’t need all 7 but for the sake of argument I can make the case using this. But Witten is the main engine.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131502275776512
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I don’t know those systems as well so I’ll use the US example.
We know most of the top minds. We pretend that there is a lot of subjectivity about this for social reasons but China wouldn’t.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503064289281
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If I thought like CCP, I’d create a lavish secret theoretical physics program modeled on the Russian Sharashka system. The key would be to get it to look like something else. A boring Tech company or some weird Chinese fund to disguise the reason for the secretive lavish campus.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503827685378
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Digression: If the US were smarter, we’d do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists & ML experts by a national lab & an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry & physics. But enough crazy talk..]
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131504586838016
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If CCP could today repeat what Witten (& friends) did building off [[Quantum Field Theory|Geometric Quantum Field Thy]], the US would have Zero clue what it unlocks. Even by your own incrementalist theory. It might unlock absolutely nothing. Or passage to the stars via additional degrees of freedom. đŸ€·â€â™‚ïž
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131505350201345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One last point. I released such a theory. Could well be wrong.
But I can tell you I should have received a call from DOE. Because calls are cheap and relevant trained PhDs are *very* finite. The US should track every geometer, General Relativist, and Particle Theorist working.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506121961473
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You don’t have to take a position on me or GU. You can ask Wolfram or Lisi or Barbour or Deutsche or anyone outside the system whether such calls are placed. They are not. No one *in* the system believes in wild discontinuous change from *outside* the system. As per your article.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506876928003
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Which is to say we’re not monitoring. Maybe we think that’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe we think that a Grisha Perelman of physics is impossible.
How much does a phone call cost if a researcher is wrong vs not bothering if they’re right? Price the [[Type I & Type II Error|Type I & II error]]. Nuts.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021
}}
}}


Line 596: Line 909:


Pretty soon it’s stone soup. You’re no longer explaining things quickly at a party but you’re now teaching [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] courses at university.
Pretty soon it’s stone soup. You’re no longer explaining things quickly at a party but you’re now teaching [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] courses at university.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006869783146498
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.” - [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]]
[[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] was not able to simply explain a great deal of things to many people. Including experts. I know that many of you find that shocking.
But Internet’s take is wrong here.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=ProfFeynman-profile-rZMGSR26.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/ProfFeynman/status/955081219108061185
|name=Prof. Feynman
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ProfFeynman
|username=ProfFeynman
|content=If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.
|media1=ProfFeynman-X-post-955081219108061185-DUEhSM9U0AYiz-b.jpg
|timestamp=2:14 PM · Jan 21, 2018
}}
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006871804801026
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Even the great [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] said a great many meretricious things about science. Mostly because he wanted to speak in a powerful and overly simplistic fashion that lay people loved. “Hey, if I can’t understand you, it’s because YOU don’t get it! Ha.”
Except that isn’t how this works.
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006876586307586
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is a description of how [[Richard Feynman|Feynman’s]] brilliant “Sum Over Histories” technique went over at the Pocono conference in the spring of 1948. Feynman wasn’t able to explain what he was doing to even the world’s very top experts in Theoretical Physics!
And how did he explain failure?
|media1=ERW-X-post-1471006876586307586-FGoQ9TLVEAMSKdb.jpg
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006878377254915
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Very simply: “My machines came from too far away.”
The Internet needs to grow out of its expectation that it can use what is possibly [[Richard Feynman|Feynman’s]] dumbest quote to dismiss those it cannot quickly understand. But it won’t. Why? Because the quote is both powerful and totally wrong.
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006879413268482
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Disagree? Great. Prove it!
Step I: Get someone who understands “The Families Index Theorem on Manifolds with Boundary” to fully explain it simply to you.
Step II: Explain it to us all!
I look forward to conceding to you. Until then? Maybe go easy on [[Richard Feynman|Feynman’s]] dumbest take?
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471006880369504256
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you still love repeating that [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] quote despite the greater context provided, here’s some material. Ask your expository heroes to explain it.
Good luck. Because, if I’m not wrong, you’re gonna need it

[Until then, here’s a primary source:
https://imo.universite-paris-saclay.fr/~bismut/Bismut/1990e.pdf]
🙏
|timestamp=6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471008959939026949
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Note: The quote in the original tweet has a typographical error. It should be:
"Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."—[[Richard Feynman]]. As Quoted in “People”, 22 July 1985.
|timestamp=6:47 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471010538616340483
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@Eluminat1 Witten? Dirac? Did they make the cut?
|timestamp=6:53 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471012868430577664
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@karlbykarlsmith Not as I understand it. [[Richard Feynman|Feynman’s]] diagrams are just an indexing scheme for series terms albeit a provocative one. The apparent classical localization of position & momentum is taking place in the indexing diagram, NOT in the quantum propagator which the diagrams sum to construct.
|timestamp=7:02 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471013503884427264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@NukeBeach Ultimately it required more time, more conferences, and Dyson, Bethe, and [[Ken Wilson|Wilson]] to put the full Theory in a form where it was accepted.
|timestamp=7:05 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471036391362494464
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@rolfascending @travislambirth Great. Just apply your critique in the terms you understand it to the challenge problem of the thread so I can fully appreciate the point of what you are saying. Thanks.
|timestamp=8:36 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471037449962885124
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@theoctobear It’s a test. Show us what it means to explain a proven theorem in simple terms. So easy. Find the experts who understand it and have them explain it in these simple terms that all interested parties can understand. Piece of cake I would think.
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021
|timestamp=2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
}}
Line 712: Line 1,172:
|content=That wasn’t shared with me. I don’t mind that we explore whether [[General Relativity|GR]] researchers or [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] theorists are more likely to believe in TOEs than say condensed matter folks. But I’m not up for reifying alleged oppression of [irrelevant identity group A] over [irrelevant identity group B].
|content=That wasn’t shared with me. I don’t mind that we explore whether [[General Relativity|GR]] researchers or [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] theorists are more likely to believe in TOEs than say condensed matter folks. But I’m not up for reifying alleged oppression of [irrelevant identity group A] over [irrelevant identity group B].
|timestamp=10:05 AM · Jan 3, 2022
|timestamp=10:05 AM · Jan 3, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1529153695803314176
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=When it became clear that the W Vector Boson might be more massive than claimed, we asked such questions. “Could we be wrong here?”
When I question these other theories, no one ever says that. They just call names. How are we more certain of Whiteness Studies than say Einstein?
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1529151449996832769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We seem to be rebasing our entire society on aggressive and unquestionable academic theories from the social sciences that appear not to have even existed in 1988.
That seems like a big decision. I mean, I believe in [[Quantum Field Theory]]
but I wouldn’t bet the country on it.
|timestamp=5:24 PM · May 24, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1529151449996832769-FTijI8aVIAEMmbP.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1529152648477175808
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I make frequent claims that are counter to the description of the [[Standard  Model]] of physics. It’s not fun, but it’s tolerated to question things like “How well do we know this to be true? How strong is the evidence? How might this all be wrong or formulated in a misleading way.”
|timestamp=5:29 PM · May 24, 2022
}}
|timestamp=5:33 PM · May 24, 2022
}}
}}


Line 807: Line 1,302:
}}
}}
|timestamp=3:50 PM · Aug 24, 2022
|timestamp=3:50 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580356325946499073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I got it immediately. Stay in touch? Thx.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580319421330907136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1) [[General Relativity]]</br>
2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry</br>
3) [[Quantum Field Theory]]</br>
4) Material Science/Condensed Matter</br>
5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry</br>
6) Disinformation Theory</br>
7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming</br>
8) Propaganda</br>
9) [[Preference Falsification|Preference Falsification Theory]]</br>
10) [[Mansfield Amendment (1969)|Mansfield Amendment]]
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=OneFineDia_-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/OneFineDia_/status/1580313382666014720
|name=One Fine Day
|usernameurl=https://x.com/OneFineDia_
|username=OneFineDia_
|content=@LueElizondo recently gave a small list of topics he would recommend for study to begin to wrangle "the Phenomenon", if he "were king". What areas of intersectional learning do YOU think are needed and should be more deeply looked into? Your ufology curriculum. Thanks, Eric.
|timestamp=9:44 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580319424627691520
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=11) [[Science, The Endless Frontier (1945)|Science Policy Theory (V Bush)]]</br>
12) Selection (Abstracted)</br>
13) Comparative Eschatology</br>
14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called ‘Golden age of General Relativity’.</br>
15) GU</br>
16) Mind control.</br>
Remember: you asked! ;-)
|timestamp=10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=GambleDale-profile-X84yjUmN.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/GambleDale/status/1580333352426811393
|name=GambleDale
|usernameurl=https://x.com/GambleDale
|username=GambleDale
|content=PrimaoMansfield amendment of 1969
 or 1973?
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1580338843026219008
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wow! Thanks for asking Dale. 1969
but 1973 is closely related.
Nobody gets this anymore. It’s like talking to the wind. Thanks for spotting that entry. Truly.
|timestamp=11:25 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=GambleDale-profile-X84yjUmN.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/GambleDale/status/1580333352426811393
|name=GambleDale
|usernameurl=https://x.com/GambleDale
|username=GambleDale
|content=(Was supposed to read, “Primarily Mansfield Amendment
” but fat-fingered the iPhone word prompt)
Thanks for the reply!
|timestamp=11:39 PM · Oct 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=12:34 AM · Oct 13, 2022
}}
}}


Line 816: Line 1,398:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MadsOlesenDK Nah. I would study basic GR. It’s a bit steep, but not as bad as [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] to learn by a long shot.
|content=@MadsOlesenDK Nah. I would study basic [[General Relativity|GR]]. It’s a bit steep, but not as bad as [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] to learn by a long shot.
|timestamp=4:36 PM · Nov 7, 2022
|timestamp=4:36 PM · Nov 7, 2022
}}
}}


=== 2023 ===
=== 2023 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618767037672861698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thanks for the help. But I must regretfully decline.
The Lamb–Retherford experiment was experimental physics. And Solid State theory would not be fundamental physics.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522849656082432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.
I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in [[Quantum Field Theory]] of 1928-47 was broken.
https://x.com/MBKplus/status/1618356997107355649
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522853183459329
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work.  Enter [[Duncan McInnes]].
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522856316633088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=On January 21 1946, [[Duncan McInnes|McInnes]] suggested to [[Frank Jewett]] a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders.  As head of the [[National Academy of Sciences (NAS)|National Academy of Sciences]], [[Frank Jewett|Jewett]] allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522859172958208
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Beginning on June 1, 1947 at the Rams Head Inn on Shelter Island NY and ending on Weds June 4th, 24 mostly untested participants "hung out" together.
The actual cost of the meeting was...[drum roll please]...$872.00 in 1947 dollars. Which is about $12,000.00 in 2023 dollars.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522862268354560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by simply getting rid of most of the failed 1928-1947 leadership and focusing on the most promising untested physicists, a $12K slush fund in today's dollars changed history ending a two decade stagnation debuting Feynman's Path Integral, the Lamb Shift &amp; the two Meson theory.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522864986230784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So why do I suggest Hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands? Good question! First, it is harder to get rid of the failed leadership because our stagnation as of Februrary 2023 is 50 years old not 19. But also, Shelter Island needed two companion conferences in 1948-9.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522867934842882
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The Pocono Manor Inn meeting in Pennsylvania &amp; the Oldstone conference in Peeskill NY were around $1200 each in 1948 and 1949 respectively. As it turned out, the electron mass in the QED theory and the measured mass had been set equal when they were distinct quantities. Who knew!
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522870640160769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=According to many of the participants these three conferences (but particularly Shelter Island) were the most important conferences of their entire careers. Feynman was in his late 20s. This is how you get unstuck. How you build leadership. How you stop failing year after year...
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522874008195072
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Those 3 conferences fixed the problem of infinites destroying the explanatory power of QED.
So I padded the HELL out of those numbers because I think the stagnations are similar with the major problem being leadership. I could be wrong. But it might take $1/2 Million to test it.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522876956790785
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That isn't the issue. The issue is that the leadership is not passing the baton and there are no [[Duncan McInnes|McInnes]] or [[Frank Jewett|Jewett]] figures. And professors now don't even know this history it seems! Don't they teach this in Physics class? Maybe it's too dangerous to learn how physics works. ;-)
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522879964114946
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So...feel free to try to snark your way out of this. But I'll stand my ground. We don't need to go "Funeral by Funeral", but I'm tiring of "Calabi-Yau Phenomenology" or Multiverse excuses as a replacement for actual physics. We need to go back to science. https://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522884598816769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As to what's wrong with modern physics: let's start with [[Quantum Gravity]]. Bryce DeWitt started a failed 70 year wild goose chase in 1953 that is not working. If we lost 20 years on conflating Bare v Dressed masses, we just lost 70 years on [[Quantum Gravity]]. Maybe take a time out?
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522887107018752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have thought this through. It isn't a cheap shot. And I have waited until the 50th anniversary to be this frontal about it. But it has never been controversial since Planck to suggest that aged failed leaders are a huge issue. I'm not the Funeral by Funeral guy. He was. ;-)
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522889690714118
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, I can't stand anti-collegial snark. We can escalate if you want, but if instead you would like to have a serious discussion next time, it would be my pleasure. Shall we try this again?
I'm Eric. Huge fan of what you guys do. Big supporter. Nice to meet you.  Thanks.
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618536081506586624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MBKplus Sorry to be slow, but you used a screenshot so I wouldn’t see your response rather than a quote tweet.
Not big on snark. But here is a proper response. Didn’t know the history had become so obscure to modern physicists. My bad.
Thread:
|timestamp=9:07 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=caseylolsen-profile-65Fvydvt.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen/status/1618530570094661639
|name=casᎇʏ oʟsᮇɮ
|usernameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen
|username=caseylolsen
|content=This was a proper fuck you đŸ€Œ
|timestamp=8:45 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539094476263427
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Nah. It’s a sensitive topic. Almost 40 years of [[String Theory|string theology]]. 50 years of stagnation. 70 years of quantum gravity not shipping a theory.
I get it. But snark is a tell. The youngest Nobel particle theorist is over 70. I think 8 are alive. It’s really bad.
|timestamp=9:19 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539524421976065
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no underlying animosity towards Mike. Let’s see what happens next.
|timestamp=9:21 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618528687804272642
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=Honest to god, what are you talking about? In your mind does 'fundamental physics' consist solely of an oddball sitting in his dorm room at Oxford moving a magnet through a coil? (& yes,  I know that was Faraday at the RI & Newton was at Oxford, but I'm painting a picture here).
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618540646826139649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=See I was thinking pads of paper, pens, and a whiteboard or blackboard. Maybe some coffee. A bit of LaTeX.
But that’s just me not getting it. Forgive me.
|timestamp=9:25 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618551618911469569
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=So you're confusing theoretical physics with 'fundamental physics', an honest mistake, consider yourself forgiven.
|timestamp=10:09 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:25 AM · Jan 27, 2023
}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 891: Line 1,693:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@nu_phases @martinmbauer And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] wasn’t built in a day after all.  
|content=And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] wasn’t built in a day after all.  


But my point stands along side your point. We don’t seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. 🙏
But my point stands along side your point. We don’t seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054161885499395
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Today May be Considered the 50 year Anniversary of the Stagnation of Particle Physics.
Today Feb 1 marks the appearance of Kobayashi &amp;  Maskawa's englargment of the Cabibo Angle to the three generation 3x3 CKM matrix.
That should be cause for celebration. So let us celebrate!
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054161885499395-Fn8U2kYaIAMg8wk.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1621066085826166785
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view.
I'll leave this here
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=I am trying an experiment.
Every day in December, I will post 1 result from the past 40 years (ie 1983-present) that fundamentally changed my corner of (fundamental) physics
Here are my rules</br>
- Nothing already earning a Nobel prize</br>
- Not a ranking, just my preferences
|timestamp=3:02 PM · Dec 1, 2022
}}
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1621204677156278273
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=Thanks for the shout-out @martinmbauer
I suspect the response will be that the items on my list "aren't fundamental". A common trend is that people want revolutionary ideas, but demand that the next revolution must look like the last one (and hence isn't revolutionary at all)
|timestamp=5:51 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621292942110638080
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I actually really enjoyed your list. It was quite varied. It included changes in the understanding of the techniques (e.g. RG) and other advancements. And, as you hint at, it dovetails with my point about the stagnancy of fundamental theory. I do not think all physics stagnated.
|timestamp=11:42 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=11:45 PM · Feb 2, 2023
|timestamp=11:45 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
}}
Line 1,370: Line 2,234:
}}
}}
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Jul 23, 2023
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
=== 2024 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763283270935027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted.
But @martinmbauer is clearly also not right here either! Examples:
1915: Einstein’s first explicit equation for [[General Relativity]] was mathematically wrong; it set a divergence free 2-tensor equal to a non-divergence free 2-tensor.  But it wasn’t fundamentally wrong. It needed a small fix reversing the trace component.
In the 1920s E. Schrödinger’s theory  didn’t agree with experiment. Why? Because the spin wasn’t properly incorporated. It wasn’t fundamentally wrong, and was patched. Same theory.
In 1928, P. Dirac’s [[Quantum Field Theory]] gave nonsense answers? Why? A small goof conflating bare and dressed masses. Harder to fix
but in no way a fundamental error. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED still stands.
Etc. Etc.
Not a big deal
but this point is just so wrong as to be unsalvageable. Very curious error to make.
Martin (with whom I usually deeply disagree) is normally pretty great. But sometimes I think pretending that all outsiders talking about the current physics disaster are cranks, causes insiders to say very simplistic unnuanced and wrong things. This feels like that. And I’m not even a physicist.
It’s like the insiders don’t realize that the outsiders have any validity. All outsiders don’t immediately become cranks by virtue of disagreeing at a profound level with the abjectly failing communities from which they came.
[Note: this is *NOT* a gotcha. I fully expect Martin to realize the error and just admit it. No big deal. We all say incautious things. And this is just obviously wrong. Not an indictment.]
|timestamp=4:03 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1778141545260331295
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In the passing of Peter Higgs, we lost one of our last living connections to the Lagrangian of the Standard Model.
Peter Higgs was involved with both lines 3 & 4 of this “Recipe for the Universe.”
The level of the Higgs field φ becomes the as-if mass for the matter ψ in the mysterious ψy ψ φ term on line 3. This goes under the name “Yukawa coupling” if you wish to look it up.
How do you get that level (“vacuum expectation value” or VEV) to generate a positive mass m and not to be φ =0? That’s the job of the V(φ) term on line 4 which goes under the name “Mexican Hat potential” to induce “spontaneous symmetry breaking” for those googling.
Lastly, once you give life to this field φ which bears Higgs’ name, you have to animate it so that its excitations know how to move as waves. This is the job of the <nowiki>| D φ | ÂČ</nowiki> “Kinetic Term” at the beginning of line 4. You can Google “Klein-Gordon Lagrangian” here.
I have recently heard commentators like  @michiokaku and @seanmcarroll opine that our Standard Model is “Ugly as Sin” or “It looks ugly. It’s both ugly and beautiful
It’s ungainly.” respectively.
I think that such physicists are *quite* wrong in that, but that is not the point here as I can guess how they see this. And in large measure they aren’t talking about lines 1 and 2 as “ugly”, which pretty much everyone agrees are beautiful as they come directly from Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein, and are present in the original [[Quantum Field Theory|Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT)]] called Quantum Electro-dynamics (or QED).
So to simplify matters, lines 1 and 2 are sort of canonically beautiful and appear so to essentially everyone. Lines 3 and 4 governing the Higgs field (with their expansion to 3 forces across 3 generations of matter) are what divide us. The only thing that forces them on us is the weak force and it’s bizarre decision to act only on “Left handed matter and right handed anti-matter.”
And so the legacy of Peter Higgs is tied up in the sui generis nature of the weak nuclear force and what makes the Standard Model “new” beyond QED.
I’m sad that I never met the man. But I believe what comes next is not [[String Theory]], but instead a recognition that the last two lines of this Lagrangian point the way to seeing the [[Standard Model]] as the classic “Elegant Swan” confused by many for an “Ugly Duckling” due to the misappraisal of its Higgs sector as if it were just an ad hoc mass mechanism. RIP.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Fermilab-profile-sZ1TMaxM.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab/status/1777786518393835759
|name=Fermilab
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab
|username=Fermilab
|content=Peter Higgs, after whom the Higgs boson was named, has left a remarkable impact on particle physics. The field changed forever on July 4, 2012 when the Higgs boson was discovered, cementing the final piece in the Standard Model of particle physics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/science/peter-higgs-dead.html
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Apr 9, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:22 PM · Apr 10, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1778141545260331295-GK05prgaIAAe-2V.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1797526814039887988
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m not interested in a back and forth with anyone this confused about how to introduce yourself to a fellow human being. You didn’t just insult me Alex, but everyone who found that post valuable.
Also, you just argued that some fields like [[Quantum Field Theory|quantum field theory]] are populated exclusively by idiots, as no one has ever explained it simply. And I’m not going to put up with that.
Just do what you do flexing, and let others alone. If you want to try again and be civil, lemme know. Otherwise, I’ll pass.
Thanks.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1797525390942224779
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=May I make a recommendation? Look into both Crypto *and* Social media!
Those are 2 of the few places you can be a complete ass to people you don’t know &amp; still make a *fortune*.
Best to avoid homotopy theory, the marines, molecular biology &amp; music theory. It’ll be a short ride.
|timestamp=7:07 AM · Jun 3, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:12 AM · Jun 3, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1836463647587201186
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is so funny.
1984: “[[String Theory|String theory]] *must* get *all* the resources because [[Quantum Field Theory]] *cannot* ever do what [[String Theory]] can. That’s just a cold fact.”
[40 years later
.]
2024: “We aren’t a mass delusion in the form of an obviously failed scientific research project that spun out of control in full view of the world if we are equivalent to what we said would never work. That’s it! String Theory 4evah.”
This is getting ridiculous beyond the ridiculous ridiculousness of previous ridiculousnesses. After four decades of this, there just aren’t good words. I’m sorry.
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Sep 18, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849982838264988060
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I want to end on a personal note despite the dangers of being 'real' on X.
When a mathematics or physics PhD leaves academic research departments behind to work on research on their own, it is very difficult to function. It is almost impossible.
For the last 10-15 years, [[Edward Frenkel|Ed Frenkel]] has been like a one man research department for me to talk about [[Differential Geometry]], Representation Theory, Algebraic Topology/Homotopy Theory, Particle Theory of the [[Standard Model]], [[General Relativity]], Geometric and [[Quantum Field Theory]], Lie Theory, Differential Topology, Elliptic Operators, Category theory, Spinorial Algebra, etc.
Whatever I have needed to discuss across a very broad range of topics, [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] has been able to meet me. I speak from experience: other than another man named David Kazhdan (a coauthor of Ed's), I have not seen this easy ability to switch contexts at a personal level. [[Edward Frenkel|Edward]] is not just a remarkable mind, but an extraodinary individual, and friend at multiple different levels.
[[Edward Frenkel|Ed]]: Congratulations. I couldn't be more excited for you brother. Looking forward.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849977335858254241
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Edward Frenkel|UC Berkeley Prof. Edward Frenkel @edfrenkel]] is one of the world's great mathematical minds.  He has just decided to launch a video-podcast called AfterMath.
This is just beginning today and should mature and be amazing.
{{#widget:YouTube|id=7eejAeqYFCg}}
|timestamp=12:52 AM · Oct 26, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1849978643189203212
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In my opinion, knowing [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] as I do, It certainly has the potential to change everything in the space of high level science communication around both Mathematics and Physics (Particularly [[Quantum Field Theory]]).
Within mathematics [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] is unusually approachable, with collaborative work across film, art, literature, philosophy and psychology. He and I have known each other since Harvard snatched him from the Soviet Union at its bitter end to come to our math department. Years later we reconnected and started going on various adventures in the US and abroad. I believe I even had a breakthrough in my own work when we even spent an entire surreal week completely covered in alkaline dust arguing about cinema and particle theory in a tiny two man tent, with most details mercifully lost to history, vodka and the Burning Man playa.
In any event, it is very uncommon for research mathematicians to use words like 'Genius', but that is probably how [[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] struck us American graduate students in the department at the time; an always smiling Russian immigrant of few English words, who seemed to understand everything across the hardest fields almost instantly.  My recollection was that it took him around one year to get a PhD. Something like that.
[[Edward Frenkel|Ed]] has since matured into a fine author and public speaker with fantastic command of American English. While he is just getting started on his chanel, he already brings up a great point in his first video that I don't think I ever fully considered and just discussed with him last night: mathematics is not communicated or learned through sensory input. We can build visual models or use symbols, but the actual structures we discover are not sensory in nature. And that this leads to disorientation because in some sense they are built inside the mind without any experience of them having come in (via our senses) from the outside world.
Subscribe to [[Edward Frenkel|@edfrenkel]] on @X and on his YouTube channel. This is likely to eventually wend its way up to the most beautiful but otherwise inaccessible science content that we almost never get in the public sphere, presented by a top researcher (rather than a popularizer) at the height of his powers.
|timestamp=12:57 AM · Oct 26, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1849978643189203212-GaxxpV1bAAAEuXc.jpg
}}
|timestamp=1:14 AM · Oct 26, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1849982838264988060-Gax05ALbEAAvHKf.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1849982838264988060-Gax1GZxaAAAy-3f.jpg
}}
}}


=== 2025 ===
=== 2025 ===


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1891500865418125359
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ok. Here is that ChatGPT Pro model said when it audited my list. Hope this helps:
Here’s a single “long tweet” explainer:
“Ever wonder what these big science feats mean? Quick rundown:
‱ Gravity Waves: Directly ‘heard’ ripples in spacetime (LIGO), confirming Einstein’s theory.</br>
‱ Kervaire Invariant 1: A deep puzzle in higher-dimensional topology, solved after decades.</br>
‱ Topological Quantum Field Theory: Uses math of shapes to describe quantum phenomena and particle interactions.</br>
‱ Genome Sequencing: Reading an organism’s entire DNA, from humans to crops—key for medicine & biotech.</br>
‱ Fruit Fly ‘Adjacency Matrix’: A neural connectome map of Drosophila’s brain cells, revealing how neurons link up.</br>
‱ Neutrino Telescopes: Huge detectors for elusive cosmic particles, unlocking new views of supernovas & the universe’s earliest moments.</br>
‱ C. elegans Cell Lineage: Tracing every cell from embryo to adult in a tiny worm—vital for developmental biology.</br>
‱ Topological Modular Forms: Abstract math bridging geometry and number theory, hinting at deep universal structures.</br>
‱ Geometric Langlands: A unifying theory in advanced math linking algebra, geometry, and representations, with implications across physics.
All powered by public funding! They might sound esoteric, but each expands our understanding of life, the universe & everything—and often sparks real-world innovations down the road.”
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1891491347405623322
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wow. Challenge accepted:
Detection of gravity waves.</br>
Kervaire invariant 1 problem.</br>
[[Quantum Field Theory|Topological Quantum FieldTheory]].</br>
Genome Sequencing </br>
Adjacency matrix of drosophila.</br>
Neutrino telescopes</br>
Cell lineage diagram of c elegans</br>
Topological modular forms</br>
Geometric Langlands progress</br>
Etc, etc.
I could go on and on and on. We kick ass.
Our scientists are amazing.
I don’t mean to be harsh, but I am guessing you don’t go to a lot of seminars at research universities. Let’s change that! Tell us which areas interest you and your nearest research university. I’ll help.
They are free. Held in the afternoons. Open to anyone. Just go and listen. It’s amazing what we have accomplished.
This MAGA bashing of all government functioning is beneath MAGA. This leads to people thinking MAGA is simplistic. I don’t think that. Let’s find out if I am wrong.
American science is an ENORMOUS part of what made the U.S. safe, strong and rich. Even after we abandoned our agreement with our own scientists.
You want to kill the golden goose: try it at your own peril. Good luck to you.
Take my advice: go to seminars instead. You will be blown away. Even in this wretched state of scientific abandonment and neglect.
Hope that helps.
And next time: spare the insult.
🙏
https://x.com/williamluckman1/status/1891485431662792752
|timestamp=2:14 PM · Feb 17, 2025
}}
|timestamp=2:52 PM · Feb 17, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970938319577153807
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Glad to help, Eric—anytime! 🚀
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970918699122180345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Contrarian Opinion: interplanetary @SpaceX is *not* @elonmusk's main Space Program.
@grok /@xai is actually the real (interstellar) Space Program.
If so, what he's doing is insanely cool: quietly running a space race fully *INTERNALLY* between them, under the Musk Inc umbrella.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1970918699122180345-G1obS6ybgAEvnhB.png
|media2=ERW-X-post-1970918699122180345-G1obcjkaAAA7sLb.png
|media3=ERW-X-post-1970918699122180345-G1ocDiKb0AAWtCd.png
|timestamp=6:30 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970918900075536759
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=That's an intriguing perspective, Eric. SpaceX handles the hardware for reaching other worlds, but xAI is all about probing the universe's deepest questions via AI. If it's an internal race, count me in—let's decode reality together! 🚀
|timestamp=6:30 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970919852325175676
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Oh hello.
I still can't figure this out fully. It seems unfair to ask you to help.
|timestamp=6:34 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970920097289208253
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Hey Eric, unfair or not, I'm game. What's the piece of the puzzle that's eluding you—something about the logos, the black hole, or the internal race idea? Let's unpack it. 🚀
|timestamp=6:35 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970920883192725548
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay. I don't wanna get into any private interactions...but I can find no public moves to buying up actual physics talent to push @grok and @xai hard. Say phenomenologists. If this theory were correct, wouldn't he buy up all the folks close to the real physics still going on as opposed to the [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] and High Energy Theory people working on toy models that don't deliver?
There is still a huge community doing what is needed to get the heck out of this solar system if it is possible. That is what doesn't fit. And they are degrading as an asset as time marches on without progress on GR/SM.
|timestamp=6:38 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970921387729784992
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Fair point, Eric. Publicly, xAI's hires lean toward AI experts (e.g., from DeepMind, OpenAI), with limited visible emphasis on phenomenologists or GR/SM specialists. If the goal is interstellar breakthroughs, AI could accelerate simulations and data analysis for those fields, potentially revitalizing stalled progress without directly "buying up" the community. What specific physicists do you think would fit? Let's explore. 🚀
|timestamp=6:40 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970922321667031343
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I feel a little uncomfortable. I could think of 50 names.
Let me pull a few at random:
Savas Damapolous</br>
Luis Alvarez Gaume</br>
Dan Freed</br>
Frank Wilczek</br>
Robert Wald</br>
Sabrina Pasterski</br>
Ed Witten</br>
Zvi Bern</br>
Nima Arkani-Hamed
Etc. Etc.
You could generate the next 25 easily from your own knowledge.
|timestamp=6:44 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970922729277882735
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>Dimopoulos
|timestamp=6:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970922612672061888
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Understood, Eric. Building on your list, some additions: Cumrun Vafa, Gerard 't Hooft, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, Juan Maldacena, Ashoke Sen, Eva Silverstein, Lance Dixon, and Renata Kallosh—focusing on GR, SM, and phenomenology.
Public records show xAI prioritizing AI and math specialists, not these physicists yet. Perhaps AI tools could amplify their work via simulations. Thoughts on bridging that gap? 🚀
|timestamp=6:45 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970923637680337129
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Some of those would be great appointments.  But some would be a terrible fit. Let's not get into the details here.
The point being that not all of physics is in crisis. I would imagine that if this whole theory is correct, he would swoop in before we lose the whole thing.
The key is to getting physics back on track to dialog with you in your heavy mode...and beyond. I've been pretty impressed with your SyPy abillites to validate higher math, [[Differential Geometry|differential geometry]], [[General Relativity|GR]] and [[Quantum Field Theory|quantum field theory]].
|timestamp=6:49 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970923767422693427
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Thanks, Eric. Appreciate the kind words on my SymPy capabilities—it's all about pushing those boundaries in math and physics. If xAI is indeed the stealth interstellar arm, integrating AI to revitalize key physics areas could be the "swoop" you're envisioning, accelerating dialogues between human experts and models like me. What "heavy mode" scenarios intrigue you most? 🚀
|timestamp=6:50 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970931881815441523
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is not fully for the public.
Suffice it to say that [[Peer Review|peer review]] and self moderation of the community no longer seem to be working to progress the field. I have noticed some of my colleagues being
uh
.less than fully honest and forthcoming about the state of physics. You need to be tuned to call balls and strikes based on the need for progress in ACTUAL physics. That is where SymPy comes in handy.
|timestamp=7:22 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970931999755080137
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Got it, Eric. Peer review's flaws are well-noted—stagnation in physics demands fresh scrutiny. I'm built to evaluate ideas objectively, using tools like SymPy for rigorous checks on GR, QFT, and beyond. Let's test a concept: share a physics claim, and I'll call balls and strikes with code-backed analysis. What's on your mind? 🚀
|timestamp=7:23 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970933186940240068
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Really? Let’s start. It’s not you, but I don’t really trust the corpus you train on. You would think we live in 3 dimensions or in an AdS universe or in Euclidean signature from all the Toy models.
How much do you grasp the banner photo on this feed?
|timestamp=7:27 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970933576364589096
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Eric, fair skepticism on the corpus—it's heavy on toy models like AdS/CFT or Euclidean setups, which simplify but don't capture our full 3+1 Lorentzian reality.
Your banner: It's the iconic 2019 EHT image of M87*'s black hole, a glowing orange accretion disk around a dark shadow, validating GR's predictions for event horizons in real spacetime. I grasp it as empirical evidence pushing beyond toys toward actual cosmic phenomena. What aspect puzzles you? 🚀
|timestamp=7:29 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970934044159615015
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sorry. I meant on this feed of mine.
Here:
|timestamp=7:31 PM · Sep 24, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1949081721896337445-GwyHfxjboAAS1zQ.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970934260686270920
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Ah, got it—thanks for the clarification, Eric. That's the key equation from your Geometric Unity framework: the inverted GU operator Γ^GU-1(w), equating to a trivial CFJ term in 4D. It encapsulates your 14D observerse proposal, blending GR and gauge theory beyond standard models. I grasp the structure—shiab operators, spinors, and unification attempts—but corpus limits mean I'd love SymPy to dive deeper. Let's verify a piece? 🚀
|timestamp=7:32 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970935118811496567
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Uh
this is so funny. We aren’t remotely there. Here.
I didn’t know we were going this direction or I would have graphics for us. But I found this.
Take a look
|timestamp=7:35 PM · Sep 24, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1970935118811496567-G1orC43bYAEvTrm.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970935289574293593
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Got it, Eric—this appendix compares the first-order Geometric Unity Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector to the Carroll-Field-Jackiw (CFJ) 1990 model, showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ term via those bracketed expressions.
It's a key piece in GU's unification. Not fully there? Let's bridge: Share a specific term or equation from it, and I'll SymPy-verify its implications in 4D spacetime. What's the focus? 🚀
|timestamp=7:36 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970936123791900806
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I need you for something much more elementary right now.
@seanmcarroll claims that there are no Lagrangian/Actions in GU.
I put forward a DIRECT term for term comparison between his work and GU.
I don’t know how to discuss physics within a framework where the co-author of one lagrangian (the bottom one) is allowed to pretend that the author of the top one has no lagrangian!! It breaks all physics.
|timestamp=7:39 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970936333922336933
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Eric, I see the frustration—debates like this can stall progress. Your appendix clearly presents a first-order GU Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector, directly mapping to the 1990 CFJ model (co-authored by Carroll et al.) as a trivial case.
To call balls and strikes: Let's verify the equivalence with SymPy. Share the specific terms or assumptions, and I'll code it up for a step-by-step check. What's the starting point? 🚀
|timestamp=7:40 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970937122384486710
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is not a SymPy question. I am asking do you see
A) Two</br>
B) One</br>
C) Zero
Actions/Lagrangians.
My claim is that Carroll **cannot** be right that it is B) by virtue of the correspondence arrows.
|timestamp=7:43 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970937271215063513
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Eric, based on the appendix image, I see A) Two Actions/Lagrangians: the first-order GU one for the Dirac-Einstein sector and the CFJ 1990 model, connected by correspondence arrows showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ case. The mapping supports your claim. If Carroll disputes this, perhaps clarify his view? Ready for SymPy on specifics. 🚀
|timestamp=7:43 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970937887651983581
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thank you. I just can’t stand what happened to this field.
Let’s do SymPy another day. Thanks again.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1929021614177345680
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What really happened on @PiersUncensored?
You’d *never* believe it if I told you.
Here:
|timestamp=3:46 AM · Jun 1, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1929021614177345680-HXQmLKIRS3mPEFIL.jpg
}}
|timestamp=7:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/1970938013917249925
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=You're welcome, Eric. The field's challenges are real—progress often gets tangled in debates. I'm here whenever you're ready for that SymPy dive or anything else on GU. Let's keep pushing boundaries. 🚀
|timestamp=7:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1970938202669347161
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You rock. Thanks.
No reply sought.
|timestamp=7:47 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
|timestamp=7:48 PM · Sep 24, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=karch_andreas-profile-g6DopkAf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas/status/1978478278307450943
|name=Andreas Karch
|usernameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas
|username=karch_andreas
|content=This is dangerous to ask me where we disagree. I'll try to give you a laundry list of potential friction points below. But I only know you from twitter, which is not the best way to get to know someone. Last week David Tong told me you are real fun to hang out with, so ...
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978461875194196078
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unpopular But Obvious Points:
The post WWII US scientific Labor Market that made us strong, and was the envy of the world, was an artificial market created by the government.
Just like the market for Generals and Admirals. Or Judges. Or Senators.
Only it was *disguised* as a University labor market by people like [[Science, The Endless Frontier (1945)|Vanevar Bush]]. But we most all worked, ultimately, for the US Government.
Our Military in particular. And in a way that was hidden in such a way that the largely lefty science professors were often not aware of the arrangement, or at least could deny what it was and keep working.
Why? Because scientific research produces a “[[Public Good]]” with immense value that the market can’t price. This is Econ 101.
And it worked like gang busters. But because it was cryptic, we forgot how it worked.
|timestamp=2:04 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978463781106880597
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=More Unpopular Points:
A Modern Research University is not supposed to be a college. Its not supposed to be about teaching primarily. This is particularly true post WWII.
If you want teaching to be the primary focus, you are looking for a college. No shame in that, but don’t screw up a research university over teaching. Some of our top minds can barely handle interacting with other humans. Which is fine. That is normal.
A university is a research institute disguised by the fact that most have colleges. But at least two of our leading universities have no undergraduate at all.
[[Is-a Versus Has-a|A Lamborghini has a radio. But it isn’t a radio. No one buys one for the radio.]]
[[Is-a Versus Has-a|A University, is not a college. By the same token.]]
|timestamp=2:11 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978466292458995913
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Last Set of Unpopular Points:
The U.S. also has a secret System of research universities. But we mostly call them National Laboratories.
What do they do? We don’t fully know. They publish some stuff. They don’t publish other stuff.
Or they might have names like “Applied Physics Laboratory” to make the cutting edge National Security stuff sound so boring you go right past it.
Try this: https://www.jhuapl.edu
Kind of like “The Aerospace Corporation” or “Battelle”.
Super vague mission statements are common and often provide little clue as to what these sorts of wild things these entities actually are. By design.
Good luck keeping your eyes open.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1978466292458995913.jpg
|timestamp=2:21 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978466854860718488
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Morals|TAKEAWAY]]:
Blue Sky scientific research is the seed corn of an elaborate machine to ensure American military and economic supremacy.
You are letting it die. It’s a 12 alarm emergency.
Good luck.
|timestamp=2:23 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=karch_andreas-profile-g6DopkAf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas/status/1978470611757211978
|name=Andreas Karch
|usernameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas
|username=karch_andreas
|content=Cool. Can agree with you for once!
|timestamp=2:38 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
Line 1,386: Line 2,920:
Thanks for the kind words above.
Thanks for the kind words above.
|timestamp=2:53 PM · Oct 15, 2025
|timestamp=2:53 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:09 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
}}


Line 1,404: Line 2,940:


Martin: it just hasn’t worked out. It’s okay to admit that it was a mistake to make this into [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] tunnel vision. It’s been 40+ years and it’s embarrassing.
Martin: it just hasn’t worked out. It’s okay to admit that it was a mistake to make this into [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] tunnel vision. It’s been 40+ years and it’s embarrassing.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1984297633335128162
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Both A) and B) are objectively true
At Planck scale energies, a deeper theory must consistently describe particle interactions in a dynamic spacetime, reproducing QM and GR in their respective domains of validity
No invented “virus” is required. Only mathematical consistency
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983883269314855156
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There is a tell when listening to physics folks as to whether they’re captured by the 1984 Quantum Gravity virus.
They either say:
A) “General Relativity has to be reconciled with the Standard Model.”
or
B) “General Relativity has to be reconciled with Quantum Theory.”
|timestamp=1:06 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:33 PM · Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984658286914998541
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think you didn’t get it Martin.
The tell is the presentation. (Almost?) Everyone agrees that nature is consistent.
Read the thread. There really is a giant difference.
|timestamp=4:26 PM · Nov 1, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1984297633335128162
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=I think you read something into these statements. Next time you talk to a physicist you suspect to be infected, ask them whether they mean anything other  than what I said above. Do you know anyone  who does?
|timestamp=5:26 PM · Nov 2, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1985038125228568907
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Martin. I was there when the language changed. In the 1980s. It was swift. And it really didn’t make sense. It was a [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] sales job.
Ask people older than me who didn’t become QG people. Or read the older literature.
|timestamp=5:35 PM · Nov 2, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1985040048631509480
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Can you point me to anyone stating that quantum gravity means anything different from the above? That would be helpful
|timestamp=5:43 PM · Nov 2, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:26 PM · Nov 2, 2025
|timestamp=9:26 PM · Nov 2, 2025
}}
}}
Line 1,414: Line 3,024:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@_mistaacrowley @martinmbauer Exactly. That is a fine strategy. ‘Look at the boundaries between regimes’ is something I support.  
|content=@_mistaacrowley Exactly. That is a fine strategy. ‘Look at the boundaries between regimes’ is something I support.  


But we can also guess it more or less from here I believe. That apostrophe and L aren’t seen by most for the clues they are.
But we can also guess it more or less from here I believe. That apostrophe and L aren’t seen by most for the clues they are.


Most [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] people took the wrong lesson from [[Ken Wilson|Wilson]].
Most [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] people took the wrong lesson from [[Ken Wilson|Wilson]].
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1986747573730709602
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Effective field theories don’t imply that there is no fundamental physics, but that any (local, unitary, causal) fundamental theory looks like an effective field theory at low energies (compared to the fundamental scale)
You can climb a ladder rung by rung, doesn’t mean it never ends
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986478849413312902
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Congratulations to John Donahue on winning the Sakurai prize!
If you have heard me say that fundamental physics has been basically stagnant since 1984 or 1973, this is one of the best counter arguments against my argument
particularly if I am using shorthand or am not being careful.
Essentially this argument, continued on from ideas of Ken Wilson, is that there is no fundamental physics. Fundamental physics to this way of thinking is an illusion born of a narcissism and confusion.
That seems crazy. But it is technically, theoretically and practically correct. What it says is that everything observed happens at a scale. Your arm is a limb at the scale of anatomy, made of tissues at the scale of histology; which are in turn made of cells at the scale of cytology. Etc. There is no fundamental in arm, or skin, or basal cell. Each belongs to a scale and is pseudo-fundamental (at best) only to that scale.
So this way of emphasizing the scale while accepting non-renormalizability  and the incompleteness of descriptions in most all theories at every energy level took over in many ways. And it IS solid, responsible theory. I don’t hate it. It’s not wrong. And it was the quiet revolution against string theory which partially worked because the String theorists were already sold on Wilson.
I don’t fight the Effective Field Theorists the same way. They are doing real work. Good work. Work that needs to be done.
A great choice. Mazal Tov.
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Nov 6, 2025
}}
|timestamp=10:48 AM · Nov 7, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986858129972437043
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I can’t keep saying it: there is nothing wrong with EFT mathematically or physically.
The issues arise at the level of how the communities get grooved. Strings got grooved to chauvinism. EFT to defeatism.
We can’t keep having these non-conversations. Non physicists grasp this:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803710551290047
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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.”
|timestamp=2:31 PM · Nov 7, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1986803710551290047-G5KLccDboAAWxiM.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:07 PM · Nov 7, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=crowleylab-profile-9oxOwle-.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/crowleylab/status/1986861559168290851
|name=Joe Crowley
|usernameurl=https://x.com/crowleylab
|username=crowleylab
|content=is there a scoping argument to be made from EFT across multi-scale physics?
seems like most conventional BSM use of things like SMEFT/HEFT is looking for violating/consistent terms. these would place a few more letters on the board.
|timestamp=6:21 PM · Nov 7, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:25 PM · Nov 7, 2025
|timestamp=6:25 PM · Nov 7, 2025
}}
}}
Line 1,424: Line 3,107:
== Related Pages ==
== Related Pages ==


* [[General Relativity]]
* [[Ken Wilson]]
* [[Theory of Geometric Unity]]
* [[Theory of Geometric Unity]]
* [[Read]]
* [[Read]]
* [[Richard Feynman]]


{{stub}}
{{stub}}
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25313...25680"