The Portal Wiki

Standard Model: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Standard Model (edit)

Revision as of 03:40, 25 January 2026

129,984 bytes added ,  Sunday at 03:40
→‎2024
 
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
[[File:Standard-Model-particles.png|thumb]]
 
== On X ==
=== 2009 ===
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2930667078
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To @orzelc: in your life you'll see Paris and the Taj Mahal. Make sure you meet all the great minds. Go see [[Ed Witten|Ed]]. He's part human.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2928337597
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Ed Witten|Ed Witten]] has no Nobel Prize.
 
Now tell me again how this era's physics just feels different because we are too close to it.
|timestamp=11:06 AM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2929192939
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So @orzelc asks me to unpack the No-Nobel/[[Ed Witten|Witten]] tweet.  It presupposes at least minor direct contact w/ [[Ed Witten|Ed]] so you don't doubt [[Ed Witten|Ed's]] gift.
|timestamp=12:31 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2929274636
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So @orzelc the Quetion is: "Is this  likely the first era of fundamental physics that could produce a 55+ [[Ed Witten|Witten]] nonlaureate?"
|timestamp=12:38 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2930347717
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My friend @orzelc asks: "do you consider Wheeler to be in [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] class?" Short answer is no. But I never went 1-1 with a young Wheeler.
|timestamp=1:57 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2930448229
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In my whole life @orzelc, I have only had the pleasure to know one other person well who I regard as "in [[Ed Witten|Witten's]] class". [[Isadore Singer|Is Singer]].
|timestamp=2:03 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2930581754
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The nonphysicist disagrees w/ @orzelc. Wheeler lived through the whole build up of the [[Standard Model]]. [[Ed Witten|Ed]] would have pounced repeatedly.
|timestamp=2:12 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}
|timestamp=2:17 PM · Jul 30, 2009
}}




=== 2009 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5093491287
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I want our particles on the walls of every school next to the periodic table. If you've yet to find the muon, why fund an SSC?
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5093270881
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The educated are all expected to know Degas from Monet, Sarkozy from Putin, Corfu from Capri.
Etc.... But not Fermion from Boson.
|timestamp=9:53 AM · Oct 23, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5093331929
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=With all the physics stories, can't our guys push a 'New Periodic Table' and get more focus on the [[Standard Model|standard model's]] 'Elements'?
|timestamp=9:58 AM · Oct 23, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5093446444
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Does our usual graphic of hadrons, leptons, and bosons need an overhaul? Can we crowdsource that?
|timestamp=10:08 AM · Oct 23, 2009
}}
|timestamp=10:12 AM · Oct 23, 2009
}}


{{#widget:Tweet|id=2930581754}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=5093331929}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6199859805}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=6200716218}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6209380931
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The family structure of fermionic matter via the multiplets (quantum numbers) appears easy if false cognates (red, up, left) are given last.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6199859805
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=New Topic: A pedagogical critique of the [[Standard Model|Standard Model of particle theory]] as seen by a 4 and 7 year old.
|timestamp=12:26 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6199964139
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: A) Call the last quarks 'Front and Back' because Top and Bottom are the same as Up and Down. But position words 'lie' here.
|timestamp=12:32 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200042828
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: B) Don't use 'left & right' handedness differently from up & down to confuse kids. It's really 'mean' because L/R are hard.
|timestamp=12:36 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200079114
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: C) Don't call the quarks colored if color comes from light which comes from photons unless gluons feel E-M.
|timestamp=12:37 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200128176
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: D) Weak hypercharge and E-M are 'crazy confusing'. If you are going to call one group U(1) call the other group 'We lost'.
|timestamp=12:40 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200265806
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: E) Don't say 'weak force' and then 'tell us over and over and over' about gravity being weak. "Why do grown ups do that?"
|timestamp=12:47 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200410175
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: F) Anti-red? Anti-green? "Oh man!"
Anti-colors are stupid. Also anti-matter should anihilate Uncle-matter.
|timestamp=12:54 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200679053
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: G)Leptons should be everything (Bosons too) that doesn't feel strong force if neutral is everything that doesn't feel E-M.
|timestamp=1:07 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6200716218
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4&7YO on the [[Standard Model|SM]]: H) Other than these silly problems....the [[Standard Model|standard model]] is the coolest thing in the world because.. it is the world! (4YO)
|timestamp=1:09 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/6209130409
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What I learned about PR&the [[Standard Model|SM]] from Kids: we pay a steep price for folksy, misleading or path dependent jargon obscuring regular structure.
|timestamp=6:33 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}
|timestamp=6:43 PM · Nov 30, 2009
}}


=== 2017 ===
=== 2017 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=928300831652298753}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/928300831652298753
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@StretchMcLurch I would reserve 'gauge group' for the infinite dimensional group of automorphisms of the vector bundle and 'structure group' for the (usually) finite-dimensional structure preserving symmetry group of the individual fibers ( e.g. SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) of the [[Standard Model]]).
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/928296366853328896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If I had but one paragraph to recommend as the most important in all of literature, it might well be this one. However, as you might imagine, unpacking it, could take up your entire life.
 
[There is a 'flaw' in the paragraph. The word 'gauge' should be replaced by
'structure'.]
|media1=ERW-X-post-928296366853328896-DOE8P81U8AA_MBe.jpg
|timestamp=4:21 PM · Nov 8, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/928316410303877120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=1/ Interesting esoteric features: </br>
i) refers to Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational force. (only implicitly).</br>
ii) refers to the Yang-Mills-Maxwell Equation for the other forces (only implicitly).</br>
iii) refers to the Dirac Equation for matter (yet again, only implicitly).
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Nov 8, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/928317163491835904
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ The Quantum (e.g. quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum measurement, etc...) is relegated to a *secondary* status below the key geometric insights. This was likely done very subtly when the paper was given in the 1980s, as it was, and remains, a revolutionary idea.
|timestamp=5:43 PM · Nov 8, 2017
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/928318499197353984
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=End/ An interpretation is that [[Ed Witten|Witten]], the greatest living mathematical physicist, was indicating to us that it was only these *abstractions* that were likely to survive, while the instantiations (i.e. the exact equations we still use) would likely perish.
 
A msg never recieived.
|timestamp=5:49 PM · Nov 8, 2017
}}
|timestamp=4:38 PM · Nov 8, 2017
}}


=== 2018 ===
=== 2018 ===
Line 141: Line 400:
=== 2019 ===
=== 2019 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1084871544617164801}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1091743275533266944}}
|image=KevinThorup-profile-tdJefo8Y.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1170821377537925121}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/KevinThorup/status/1084872396308328449
|name=Kevin Thorup
|usernameurl=https://x.com/KevinThorup
|username=KevinThorup
|content=Thanks! I was trying to harmonize, in my mind, how (1) you described gauge theories on the JRE with (2) the formalizations above and was having a shockingly difficult time
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=logicians-profile-hA9Ttab1.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/logicians/status/1084535971830550529
|name=Philosophical Logic
|usernameurl=https://x.com/logicians
|username=logicians
|content=Lol easy
|media1=logicians-X-post-1084535971830550529-Dw0Lt0zUYAA4uSj.jpg
|timestamp=7:41 PM · Jan 13, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=KevinThorup-profile-tdJefo8Y.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/KevinThorup/status/1084824698804789248
|name=Kevin Thorup
|usernameurl=https://x.com/KevinThorup
|username=KevinThorup
|content=Fascinating. I’m curious what @EricRWeinstein‘s reaction would be to this
|timestamp=2:48 PM · Jan 14, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1084871544617164801
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Inneficiant presentation of the [[Standard Model]] Lagrangian.
|timestamp=5:55 PM · Jan 14, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:58 PM · Jan 14, 2019
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743276565069826
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is why we need to rescue our experts &amp; institutions. We need to stop asking them to lie to us about their needs for growth. If even high energy physics can’t escape its inability to meet growth expectations, then all expert communities are suspect.
 
These are our very best.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743271875895297
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’ve been talking about unmeetable  [[Embedded Growth Obligations|“Embedded Growth Obligations” or E.G.O.s]] as the reason why all our expert communities are under unbearable pressure to distort across our institutions. The physics community is *very* trustworthy on the experiment-theory level. Yet even here:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1091582806021623808
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Particle physicists surprised to find I am not their cheer-leader
 
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/particle-physicists-surprised-to-find-i.html?spref=tw
|media1=skdh-X-post-1091582806021623808-DyYUwdaWwAEHRbx.jpg
|timestamp=6:23 AM · Feb 1, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743274526683136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This allows us to use Fundamental Physics as a reference for deception.
 
These folks are our BEST. They aren’t lying about their experiments. They aren’t lying about agreement w theory. They aren’t wrong about expecting another accelerator imho.
 
Yet the [[Embedded Growth Obligations|EGOs]] make even them fib.
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1091743275533266944
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I may disagree with @skdh on whether we should build another multi-billion dollar accelerator. But she is exactly correct that there is no longer any new physics beyond the [[Standard Model]] expected to be found. She is telling truths above her pay-grade in the eyes of our leaders.
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:00 PM · Feb 2, 2019
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1170821379786100736
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There was an underlying political economy to the issue masked by “shut up &amp; calculate”. I agree that the quantum field theorists were often, and words fail me, dicks about quantum foundations. But it was really an overlay on a rational calculation of expected return from 1928-74.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1170821377537925121
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ok. This is a weird take. The reluctance to engage foundations of quantum mechanics stemmed from the fact that it was far less generative than research in quantum field thy for decades. When [[Standard Model]] [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] stagnated &amp; [[Quantum Gravity]] stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Seanmcarroll-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/seanmcarroll/status/1170355961673863168
|name=Sean Carroll
|usernameurl=https://x.com/seanmcarroll
|username=seanmcarroll
|content=Shots fired! "Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it." -- me, in the New York Times @nytopinion #SomethingDeeply
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
|media1=seanmcarroll-X-post-1170355961673863168.jpg
|timestamp=3:19 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}


=== 2020 ===
=== 2020 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1230990960093302784}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230991527918178305
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989249714896896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The first talk I ever gave revealing the Physics I was actually working on @ Harvard/MIT was at MIT at the insistence of the great Isadore Singer. The one man who *fully* understood what I said came to me afterwards & insisted we speak. He seemed half mad:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11608
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989249714896896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=His name was Robert Hermann. I couldn't tell what was going on. He was very excited &amp; wanted to be of any help possible. It was almost terrifying as I was not eager to discuss the work. When I told Singer about it, Singer said "That's a high compliment. Do you know who that is?"
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989250432135168
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I told Is "I know him from an enormous number of self-published books only" Then the great MIT Professor said: "Eric, that is the first man to figure out that quantum field theory is based on the geometry of Fiber Bundles before Simons, Wu, Yang &amp; I did our work."
 
I was floored.
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989251157737473
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This odd man, working outside the University system, outside Peer Review, and outside normal publishing was held in awe by the TOP Mathematician at MIT. The system knew who it had lost and revered him as a serious mind; a man with a viable claim to an earth shattering discovery.
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989252206288897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It simultaneously filled me with fear &amp; hope. This odd man was not a nut or lunatic. I had spoken to a true maverick &amp; he had seen me like no one else...even beyond my good friend Is Singer. Years later I tried to contact him but he was in an old age home with dementia. All lost.
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230989253019987969
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A missed moment. I was too scared to leave the damned university system behind me with all of its rules and enforced rituals. I knew what he represented: freedom, genius and irrelevancy except for the tiny number of people at the absolute top of the field.
 
I was too cowardly.
|timestamp=10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230990960093302784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Robert: I never got the chance to "Thank You" for believing in me and your offer of help. My bad. So thank you.
 
RIP: [[Robert Hermann|Robert C. Hermann]] (April 28, 1931 – February 10, 2020)
Maverick and Likely discoverer of the Geometric Basis of the [[Quantum Field Theory]] of the [[Standard Model]].
|timestamp=11:01 PM · Feb 21, 2020
}}
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Feb 21, 2020
|media1=ERW-X-post-1230991527918178305-ERVcQ7_U4AAKT2v.jpg
}}


=== 2021 ===
=== 2021 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1372806822168383488}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872173033017346}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872184387039232}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1372806822168383488
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1379872187692187648}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1380213542675095553}}
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Nah. Jordan’s a friend. Elon is welcome on the Portal of course whenever the time is right, but there’s no competition.
 
[And, anyway, I’d want to talk perpetuation of human (and cephalopod!) consciousness by means of beyond the [[Standard Model]] physics for planetary escape. So...]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=jordanbpeterson-profile-TKBC60e1.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1372762954479804416
|name=Dr Jordan B Peterson
|usernameurl=https://x.com/jordanbpeterson
|username=jordanbpeterson
|content=@elonmusk I would like to have you as a guest on my YouTube channel.
|timestamp=5:12 AM · Mar 19, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=elon-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1372792458128412675
|name=Elon Musk
|usernameurl=https://x.com/elonmusk
|username=elonmusk
|content=What would you like to talk about?
|timestamp=6:10 AM · Mar 19, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=IHateKittenz-profile-PtwdMMaC.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/IHateKittenz/status/1372793147441311749
|name=kd
|usernameurl=https://x.com/IHateKittenz
|username=IHateKittenz
|content=@EricRWeinstein Jordan is stealing your spot
|timestamp=6:12 AM · Mar 19, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:07 AM · Mar 19, 2021
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379874520526299136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU it’s 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation.
 
Again I would need [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In strong GU:
 
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) ([[Standard Model]])
 
Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside
 
Spin(6)xSpin(4)
=SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)
 
I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=11Equity-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/11Equity/status/1379832703848230916
|name=11
|usernameurl=https://x.com/11Equity
|username=11Equity
|content=@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity?
https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
|timestamp=4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872179026677760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872179026677760.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872184387039232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with [[Standard Model|Standard model]] symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their ‘internal’ quantum numbers as:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872184387039232.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872185871822848
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them?
 
A: I don’t.
 
But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872186740080647
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thus while I can tell you what [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]] predicts is next, they push for a [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague.
 
So let’s talk vague: Look at the above containments and [[Standard Model|SM]] quantum numbers. That’s not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872187692187648
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely.
 
But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ “Beyond the [[Standard Model]]” theories.
🙏
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872188593926144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. Happy to attempt to sharpen what [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]] can say. But not working on my own outside the community. If you want more precise predictions than I already have, I’d need access to normal resources (e.g. constructive [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] colleagues). Working outside from home it’s probably impossible.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1380213544340221953
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Please retweet the quote tweeted thread above to get sound the Twitter algos. 🙏
 
Unlike many theories, GU can already predict a lot about what comes next and even tells us that we have things wrong about particles we think we already know and understand: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Ko7NW2yQo Why the Muon g-2 Results Are So Exciting!]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1380213542675095553
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s try this again. This has almost no engagement. I’m not buying it Twitter.
 
We are on our way to having physics declared beyond the [[Standard Model]] with new matter/force needed. And, this is quite specific as to what Geometric Unity says comes next: https://geometricunity.org
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In strong GU:
 
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) ([[Standard Model]])
 
Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside
 
Spin(6)xSpin(4)
=SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)
 
I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
}}
|timestamp=5:38 PM · Apr 8, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:38 PM · Apr 8, 2021
}}


=== 2022 ===
=== 2022 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1479257036567109636}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1483972680508325889}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1503097922207948802}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479257036567109636
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1529152648477175808}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1536778930102730752}}
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1537101456775385089}}
|username=EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1544023450104147968}}
|content=Huh. Let’s see

{{#widget:Tweet|id=1544023460342403072}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1544023473193754626}}
[[Standard Model]]: [[Bundles|Fiber Bundle]]
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1552857885935161344}}
 
[[General Relativity]]: [[Bundles|Fiber Bundle]]
 
Our universe: Derived from  [[Standard Model|SM]]+[[General Relativity|GR]]
 
So
uh
yeah. So far. Crazy right?
 
Weird flex, but it checked out.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=joe_r_Odonnell-profile-q8PSQM7u.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/joe_r_Odonnell/status/1477836258906759171
|name=Joe — e/adgbe 🎾
|usernameurl=https://x.com/joe_r_Odonnell
|username=joe_r_Odonnell
|content=When all you’ve got is gauge theory, everything looks like a fiber bundle
|timestamp=2:56 AM · Jan 3, 2022
}}
|timestamp=1:02 AM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1483973927701409792
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Video source: @AlchemyAmerican
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1483972679199649792
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A claim that you find repeatedly when you look into [[UAP|UFOs]] is that Aerospace Companies hold the most advanced knowledge of Physics. Not academe.
 
I do **not** believe this claim. Happy to be wrong. Can someone tell me what its origin is? Why do so many believe it?
 
Thx #UFOtwitter!
|timestamp=1:20 AM · Jan 20, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1483972680508325889
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Note: I’m agnostic on materials science or condensed matter claims. I was trying to engage in fundamental physics beyond the [[Standard Model]] or [[General Relativity]] here. Likely unsuccessfully.
|timestamp=1:20 AM · Jan 20, 2022
}}
|timestamp=1:25 AM · Jan 20, 2022
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1503097922207948802
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’d like to point out that we don’t know whether we are functionally trapped in this solar system.
 
We are with modern science &amp; technology. But we don’t know if it is easy or hard to escape this place. And we won’t know if we stagnate in [[General Relativity]] &amp; the [[Standard Model]].
|timestamp=7:57 PM · Mar 13, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1503097922207948802-FNwTmDfVUAAJN46.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1503097922207948802-FNwTmDgVsAIHalO.jpg
}}
 
 
{{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
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1536778930102730752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=First slide of a talk on “Beyond the [[Standard Model]] physics” at the UCLA Schwinger-Fest conference on the g-2 muon anomaly. #Schwingerfest #UCLAPhysics
 
Sums up the mood of many.
|timestamp=6:33 PM · Jun 14, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1536778930102730752-FVO8SrVUEAAXwZp.jpg
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1537101456775385089
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Agreement between collaborations whittles away hope for new physics beyond the [[Standard Model]].
 
Will try to go over to UCLA to hear what my colleague Laurent Lellouch of the BMW group has to say today at #schwingerfest. He is not hopeful there is ANY easy BSM physics to be found. https://t.co/ISm6VKJOGm
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Jordy_de_Vries-profile-0WQcjA1w.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jordy_de_Vries/status/1536969391048470529
|name=Jordy de Vries
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jordy_de_Vries
|username=Jordy_de_Vries
|content=News from lattice land; new study of hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to muon g-2 seems to agree with the BMW result. This would reduce the g-2 anomaly significantly https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.06582.pdf
|timestamp=7:10 AM · Jun 15, 2022
|media1=Jordy_de_Vries-X-post-1536969391048470529-FVRpg3UWQAE0XUd.jpg
}}
|timestamp=3:55 PM · Jun 15, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1537101456775385089-FVThoJVUUAEBJm6.jpg
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023478604423169
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But, of course, The Matrix wasn’t about The Architect. It was about Neo. Neo was protagonist, not the Architect.
 
And the Higgs isn’t a mere differential geometric anomaly. Nor is it unnatural. It’s just not *understood* as geometry. Yet, that is.
 
Do stay tuned

 
Happy 4th all!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023450104147968
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s worth reflecting today on the oddity of Higgs sector within the [[Standard Model]].
 
Three weeks ago, I heard Nobel Laureate David Gross single out the Higgs field/particle/sector/mechanism  as “unnatural”, but what does that mean? Why single the Higgs out?
Herein lies a puzzle.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=CERN-profile-fTg5cXXe.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/CERN/status/1543945424255520768
|name=CERN
|usernameurl=https://x.com/CERN
|username=CERN
|content=A packed auditorium listens to Peter Higgs within the segment “Brout, Englert and Higgs - memories and reminiscences” at CERN's #Higgs10 symposium today. In 2013, the #NobelPrize for Physics was awarded to François Englert and Peter Higgs.
 
Live webcast: http://indico.cern.ch/event/1135177
|media1=CERN-X-post-1543945424255520768-FW0x8EpXoAAfu0B.jpg
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
}}
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023456445919232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Oddly, sectors that gives us the four fundamental forces are not considered fundamentally unnatural. Nor are the sectors that given us matter. They seem like natural structures, that at worst were “defaced” with mysterious graffiti (internal quantum numbers, multiple copies..).
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023456445919232-FW15Jl2UIAAZAfL.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023460342403072
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So why is the Higgs still under suspicion well after it has been found? It’s hard to say exactly. In some sense, you can see the rest of the field theory of the [[Standard Model]] as being differential geometric in origin with our best comparison of the Higgs sector being Yang-Mills.
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023460342403072-FW15J49VsAAfNrj.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023464473808896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If I started talking jargon about a “sector governed by relativistic second order Euler-Lagrange equations, subject to quartic interactions, and coupling to matter fields
” you wouldn’t be able to tell if it was the natural  YangMills sector or supposedly unnatural Higgs sector.
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023464473808896-FW15KG6UUAAh1oi.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023468542345216
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thus the unnatural nature of the Higgs sector cannot be coming from its analytic description. It is simply that we have learned to see force as coming from geometry we know, while the supremely geometric seeming Higgs comes not from differential geometry, but from our *desire*.
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023468542345216-FW15KW0VEAEJF0s.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023473193754626
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To quote the Architect’s speech, you would think he was describing the life of the Higgs Sector (as Neo) within the [[Standard Model|Standard Model of Particle Theory]] (as TheMatrix). The Higgs Mechanism is the remainder of an unbalanced (chiral Weak nuclear force) equation forbidding all mass.
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023473193754626-FW15KlhVsAEiAAd.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Jul 4, 2022
|media1=ERW-X-post-1544023478604423169-FW15K3gUEAAROMs.jpg
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552857885935161344
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@sluitel34 @FrankWilczek This should be in any book that discusses the [[Standard Model|standard model]] via groups, representations, [[Bundles|bundles]], etc.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552762259847258112
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A surprisingly deep simple question.
 
There appears to be a mysterious circle at every point in spacetime which physicists accept but cannot explain. And, every type of particle is endowed w/ a mysterious complementary ⭕. The spacetime ⭕ rotates the particle’s sympathetically.
|timestamp=9:05 PM · Jul 28, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552762262170923008
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The charge on the particle is the gearing ratio of the
spacetime ⭕ with the particle’s ⭕. It’s like a bicycle where the pedal gear⚙ is the spacetime ⭕ and the particle ⭕ is the rear wheel ⚙. Positive charge is clockwise drive. Negative charge is counterclockwise.
|timestamp=9:05 PM · Jul 28, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552762264679157760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=An electrically neutral particle is like a particle not having a chain hooked up between the pedal and wheel. So a +2/3 Up Quark will be driven around 2 times clockwise for every three times an electron goes counter-clockwise with charge -1=-3/3.
 
That may sound weird. So be it.
|timestamp=9:05 PM · Jul 28, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552776702366846977
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@TEMguru That U(1) is the circle at every point in space time. It’s minimal gauge coupling via a character is the chain between the gears. C’mon.
|timestamp=10:03 PM · Jul 28, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552848580506923009
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Uh. That’s *exactly* how it’s done. There is a principal U(1) (circle) bundle. But it isn’t the U(1) that you refer to which is weak-hypercharge. And the analogy makes perfect sense based on internal quantum number
 
\chi_n:U(1) —&gt; Aut(C)
 
before tensoring with the spinor bundles.
|timestamp=2:48 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552849821626601474
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let me just say that there is a community of academics who throw a lot of nasty anti-collegial scientific shade that just isn’t scientifically accurate. Don’t know what to do about that. These people try to cast a spell of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
 
I stand by what I say here.
|timestamp=2:53 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552854175226114048
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@sluitel34 Let me help you then. You have a group:
 
G=SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)
 
And a homomorphism:
 
rho: G —&gt; U(16)
 
So
 
Spin(1,3) x G —&gt; SL(2,C) x U(16)
 
represents on C^2 tensor C^16, and its conjugate, to give one generation of the Fermions (with Right handed neutrinos assumed). With me?
|timestamp=3:11 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552855045246312449
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@sluitel34 Now the U(1) ⭕ of the original description lives inside the SU(2) x U(1) via bundle reduction or symmetry breaking as you see fit. The gearing ratio I mentioned is simply the integer indexing all irreducible representations of U(1) which are all 1-dimensional characters. Clear?
|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552856356322832384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@sluitel34 Every U(1) character can be visualized as two circular gears connected by a chain with some integer ratio of the circumferences. Negative integer representations are ones with the chain having a half twist. The trivial representation has no chain at all.
 
Hope that helps.
|timestamp=3:19 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1552857586143096833
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@sluitel34 @FrankWilczek Not true at all. @FrankWilczek correctly points out that there is something super compelling about SO(10) Grand Unified Theory. Both space time and internal representations are spinorial if this is true.
 
I just don’t know from what position  you’re speaking so authoritatively.
|timestamp=3:24 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}
|timestamp=3:25 AM · Jul 29, 2022
}}




Line 344: Line 1,368:
|content=Physics in 1980: “I’m trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.”
|content=Physics in 1980: “I’m trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.”


Physics Today: “Remind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] so it’s not something I’ve worked with since my QFT class.”
Physics Today: “Remind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] so it’s not something I’ve worked with since my [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] class.”
|quote=
|quote=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 365: Line 1,389:
|content=A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
|content=A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.


B) [[Quantum Gravity|Quantizing Gravity]] was substituted for unification or extension of the Standard model.
B) [[Quantum Gravity|Quantizing Gravity]] was substituted for unification or extension of the [[Standard Model|Standard model]].


C) Other research programs were obliterated because [[String Theory|ST]] claimed it had it all rapped up.
C) Other research programs were obliterated because [[String Theory|ST]] claimed it had it all rapped up.
Line 419: Line 1,443:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@DrBrianKeating I am not aware that the standard model and GR “work fine”: CKM, PNMS, Strong CP, Mass Hierarchy issues, CC origin, origins of internal symmetry, initial singularity and black hole singularity, Miniboone, etc. all require explanation.
|content=@DrBrianKeating I am not aware that the [[Standard Model|standard model]] and [[General Relativity|GR]] “work fine”: CKM, PNMS, Strong CP, Mass Hierarchy issues, CC origin, origins of internal symmetry, initial singularity and black hole singularity, Miniboone, etc. all require explanation.


If that’s what she means, I say it’s wrong.
If that’s what she means, I say it’s wrong.
Line 560: Line 1,584:
=== 2023 ===
=== 2023 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1618360949370671104}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054201957847040}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621197260238503937}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618360949370671104
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1625896488156164098}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441031158730752}}
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441058442674176}}
|username=EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1676623162098999296}}
|content=But heretics need to know basics of [[General Relativity|GR]] and the [[Standard Model|standard model]]. No loopy astrology, finger painting or spirituality.
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1677230177544470529}}
|thread=
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1677235567871021059}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679330391063433219}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679334548646277120}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347108859535361
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1684481098909200384}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Discussion of the future of theoretical physics seems like a game of "Intellectual Keepaway."
 
Its the same group of mandarins who predicted LHC SuperSymmetry, Mini-Black holes, SU(5) Grand Unification, String Theory, Q-Gravity would work.
 
What do our *heretics* say instead?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=AspenPhysics-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/AspenPhysics/status/1618036764878442498
|name=Aspen Center for Physics
|usernameurl=https://x.com/AspenPhysics
|username=AspenPhysics
|content=Past ACP President Michael Turner and Maria Spiropulu in conversation with @overbye of @nytimes discuss the future of Physics! #physics #particlephysics #spacetime #stringtheory #physicists
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/science/physics-cosmology-astronomy.html
|timestamp=12:03 AM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347111023800320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=For the moment, let me entertain a wild idea. Truly wild.
 
Here goes. What if the problem is our leadership. What if we asked
 
"Who believe String Theory wouldn't work?"</br>
"Who never claimed LHC SUSY was imminent?"</br>
"Who never said Proton Decay was going to be found?"
 
Etc.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347112722477057
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Said differently, what if our leadership is brilliant but SPECIFICALLY untrustworthy in identifying the path forward. What if 1000 David Gross &amp; Ed Wit1ten Keynotes setting the agenda are the problem? What if Lenny Susskind is not correct sbout non-string people wasting our time.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347114446323712
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What if we *excluded* people who are consistently wrong about the path forward and asked:
 
"Are there any OTHER ideas? Not Strings. Not Loops. Not Asymptotic Safety. Not Simple Compact GUTs. Not Quantum Computing. Not Black Hole Information. Not Technicolor. Not Amplitudes."
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347115876601856
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why is being older with a long track record of not making progress the way we select our leadership?
 
What if for 3 years we tried to ask: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE OUT HERE WITH OTHER IDEAS?
 
I know. It's stupid. It's crazy. It's self-serving. But it has been 49yrs+11Mos of this.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347117277499392
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Look, we could just hold a conference: "Fundamental Physics: Can't *Anybody* Here Play This Game?"
 
David, Ed, Maria, Cumrun, Nati, Lenny, Juan, Lee etc. could be respondents giving constructive feedback. We would then at least learn why we are where we are. But this is nuts.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347118720348160
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I will say it from outside the field. I think the problem is that we aren't actually doing fundamental physics and havevn't been for decades. I want a survey of ALL the OTHER paths. It would probably cost a few hundred thousand dollars  to fix this field. But this is bizarre.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618347120209334275
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's survey the heretics who aren't even worth talking to...and then we can go right back to tiny progress when we're done, following Strings, Loops, SUSY, Standard GUTS &amp; Asymptotic Safety all over again. At least we will know WHY we are stuck.
|timestamp=8:36 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618348209059004417
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wouldn't a scientist ask the question:
 
"What if it is the leadership?"
 
Wouldn't that be a logical scientific question? Wouldn't that be a testable hypothesis? Why can't we ask that question as scientists? Why is that hypothesis excluded after *50* yrs?
 
[End Of Heresy]
|timestamp=8:40 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=DaveLevine0com-profile-QZA_DeYi.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DaveLevine0com/status/1618359067105431553
|name=DaveLevine0com
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DaveLevine0com
|username=DaveLevine0com
|content=You should come up@with a business plan that includes numbers on how to fix physics.</br>
Not a plan for profits, but a plan for whatever milestones you lay out.</br>
You talk about how people don’t give money towards this, but they need to see a biz plan first.
|timestamp=9:24 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618360457638871041
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Start with a conference: 25 (leading heretic) speakers and an equal number of mandarins. 4 days.
 
Videography. Mandarins write up their critiques. Publish proceedings.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618358427457323009
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@DrBrianKeating Let’s find out. You’re an experimentalist after all. Why not hold an inverted conference as an experiment. If we CANT hold it, that’s our proof right there. If we can, we can see if everyone claiming to have a different path collapses. Then we could prove that there are no ideas!
|timestamp=9:21 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
|timestamp=9:29 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
|timestamp=9:31 PM · Jan 25, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621058252246237184
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="I remember when rock was young...đŸŽ¶"
 
Let's get that energy back, by any means necessary.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621058252246237184-Fn8n3VFacAA_dcF.png
|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=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054165408706560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unfortunately, it also marks the end of what we can be certain actually is physics.
 
Imagine if Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" was still the #1 song on Billboard's Hot 100 &amp; Tony Orlando and Dawn were singing "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". That, in a nutshell, is fundamental phsyics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054165408706560-Fn8iMnEaUAMg0wC.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054168764133376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To be clear, It is not as if there are no Nobel Laureates recognized for fundamental discoveries in particle theory left. I believe we are down to the last 8. Half of them are in their 70s. One in his 80s. Three are nongenarians. Yes. It's that bad. And we're not honest about it.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054168764133376-Fn8iezwaMAAErrN.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054172224421888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=When you hear about [[Peer Review|"Peer Review"]] in this field, you have to understand that the field stopped working. Without nature telling us, we don't actually know who the physicists are any more. We have no idea who is a fundamental physicist. All we know is that what we do doesn't work.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8iwsfaAAAVeiu.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054175483432960
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I am celebrating today by pointing out the obvious: maybe it isn't a good idea to have people who haven't made contact with actual fundamental physics telling everyone else what they must and must not do to be members of a club that no longer works according to normal science.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8jAhDaMAED_d4.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054178570407936
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What fundamental physics really is, is (approximately) captured by the table below. In short, if someone is below the age of 70, they may have proven their brilliance and mathematical ability, but they have not proven any ability to make contact with reality as theorists.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054178570407936-Fn8YxU6acAEQmCD.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054181443514369
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I will point out that our experimentalists are in FAR better shape. The massive nature of neutrinos, discovery of gravitational waves, the Higgs field, Intermediate Vector Bosons, Accelerating Expansion of the Universe/Dark Energy are all major successes over the last 50 years.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054181443514369-Fn8jMQWaQAENPbQ.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054184186613760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So what went wrong? I will be talking about my understanding of the stagnation this year at a different level. But the single greatest threat to fundamental physics in my estimation is something called [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantum Gravity"]] which was really born 70 years ago around 1953.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054184186613760-Fn8jTU3aYAAIeGf.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054187512668160
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To put it bluntly, it is not just that Quantum Gravity doesn't work. It's that you can't comfortably question Quatnum Gravity because the failed investment is on a scale that I think is difficult for us to contemplate. It includes [[String Theory|String Theory]], Loop Quantum Gravity, AdS/CFT etc.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054187512668160-Fn8jeqSaUAAU1O9.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054190691975168
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next Year, will be 40 years of failure for modern [[String Theory|StringTheory]] to ship a product. To be clear and STEELMAN the argument for strings, it *is* a remarkable framework. It is REAL math. It teaches us things no other framework has.
 
But, it *destroyed* the culture of honest physics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054190691975168-Fn8j43gaYAEp0Cd.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054193426661376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We spent almost 80% of this time being told that [[String Theory|ST]] was a 'Piece of 21st Century Physics that fell into the 20th Century.'
 
Uh. Bullshit. That is an excuse. It's not clear that it's physics at all.
 
It's a "Failed piece of 20th Century Physics still hanging around in the 21stC".
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054193426661376-Fn8kDPoacAAwub7.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054196949651456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is time to hold conferences dedicated to the issues of groupthink in physics. Why wont our leading voices admit failure? We don't know. Previous generations wanted their students to succeed. But [[String Theory|String Theory]] is dominated by boomers who seem oblivious to danger.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054198824710144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If we're going to truly wrestle w/ dark matter, or dark energy, or [[UAP]] that supposedly violate our laws of physics (e.g. [[General Relativity]]) we can't afford a leaders projecting their fears that THEY have wasted their lives, credibility and students careers on [[Quantum Gravity|"Quantum Gravity"]].
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054200439537667
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by all means, let's celebrate. But it is time to ask new voices for wild, dangerous and irresponsible ideas. Peer review failed. Quantum Gravity Failed. Community norms failed. And soon there will be NO ONE LEFT proven to be able to play this game. So what do we do?
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054201957847040
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to spend perhaps 5yrs asking "If the leaders have not succeeded for FIVE DECADES in moving beyond the [[Standard Model]], then why are they leading this field and directing the resources, research, and path forward? What if we listened to those who the leadership push aside?"
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054203522347008
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As someone who has tried to ask this question, I can tell you that mostly the big programs have granted themselves a science equivalent of 'dipolmatic immunity' from the standards they impose on their intellectual competitors.  But from today forward, we must end that game.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054205107802112
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's put resources in new avenues, theories and theorists that have yet to fail. The next time you hear a theorist telling you about quantum gravity, the multiverse or String theory or Loops or Supersymmetry or AdS/CFT, etc. Ask them the following dangerous question:
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054206814871552
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="If you haven't succeeded in 50-70 years, what other theories would be viable if we relaxed the standards you have imposed on your competitors given that your theories do not seem to work? What if your [[Quantum Gravity]] were subjected to such standards? Would QG be quackery?"🙏
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621055968699383808
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's honor those who tried before by bringing the same energy they once brought to the attempt to learn our place in the universe. Happy to be corrected. But this is an emergency if we're ever going to go beyond chemical rockets and use physics to take our place among the stars.
|timestamp=8:00 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:09 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621198036608389120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And I don’t want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach.
 
It’s basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] culture.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đŸ§”. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tuned

|quote=
{{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 https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|media1=DrBrianKeating-X-post-1621180690976079872-Fn-W-EeaMAIquVs.jpg
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=But Martin, with Eric in my experience, it’s always good faith
 l’Shem Shamayim as we say!
|timestamp=4:20 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621196551434682368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Of course! We all fail
or we aren’t pushing ourselves. We have to confront what happened. But, to give @martinmbauer his due, his papers are genuine attempts to understand the physical world. He is one sort of theorist we need more of. 4D [[Standard Model|SM]] + extensions. That’s not [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] theology.
|timestamp=5:19 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621197260238503937
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m much more concerned by brilliant theorists who
and I am not kidding at all
refer to the [[Standard Model]] as “Oh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] class.” That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
|timestamp=5:22 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:25 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1625903943149662232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t have the full list, but the perspectives of @skdh, @notevenwrong, @witten271, @garrettlisi, @CumrunV, @bgreene, @davidekaplan, @stephen_wolfram were discussed. Happy to correct anything I/we got wrong.
 
And please retweet the top tweet if you found this interesting! 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1625896488156164098
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Visited UCSD physics yesterday, when my colleague @DrBrianKeating suggested a collegial debate on the state of fundamental physics (i.e. what lies beyond the [[Standard Model]] &amp; [[General Relativity]]) with a top theorist he admires, @nu_phases. Check it out!
 
{{#widget:YouTube|id=piMQbBJqKAE}}
|timestamp=4:35 PM · Feb 15, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:04 PM · Feb 15, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1667195003914035200
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I acknowledge my desires as you see from what I wrote. But a stagnant community always wants outcomes. It wants SUSY. Or [[String Theory|Strings]]. Or some g-2 muon anomaly. Etc.
 
I want too. But what I want is mostly just a desire to get the BS out of physics so we can get back to succeeding.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441014981033984
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now I feel completely alone.
 
I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.
 
I believe this is how [[String Theory|String Theorists]] stopped being scientists.
 
I just want our data &amp; the physics.
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1666303048631590914
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=I want this to be real.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
|media1=skdh-X-post-1666303048631590914.jpg
|timestamp=4:36 AM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441031158730752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the [[Standard Model|standard model]] and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. It’s tempting.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441034140725251
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think biological interstellar alien visitors using [[General Relativity|GR]] and the [[Standard Model|SM]] make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine “Need to Know” as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441040314748928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What just happened isn’t data. It’s that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But it’s not science yet.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441043347374080
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As I‘ve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. We’re drilling holes in our own scientists’ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now it’s physicists.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441045926891520
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.
 
I fight like hell to promote my theory. But I’d sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441048753836033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.
 
To go beyond GR, let’s be scientists &amp; get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441052369158145
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What I want to know:
 
Why was the [[Mansfield Amendment (1969)|Mansfield Amendment]] passed?
 
Why did [[National Science Foundation (NSF)|NSF]] fake a [[Labor Shortages|labor shortage]] in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?
 
What stopped the [[General Relativity|Golden Age Of General Relativity]]?
 
Why was the SSC really cancelled?
 
[[String Theory|StringTheory]] &amp; STAGNATION: WTF?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441055531663362
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What the hell was the [[The Secret History of Anti-Gravity and Quantum Gravity Research|1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference]] actually about?
 
Why are we not stopping to QUESTION [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441058442674176
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is the 50th year of stagnation in the [[Standard Model|Standard Model Lagrangian]]. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441060976062464
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of  1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?
 
[[Quantum Gravity]] is fake and works to stop actual physics.
 
There. I said it. Now let’s talk.
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1666441063752671232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is “Almost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing  theories of physics.”
 
Let’s finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. 🙏
|timestamp=1:44 PM · Jun 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1667085711617540096
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=I swear I didn't write my tweet to make you feel alone and I'm genuinely sorry if that was the result. That said, I think it's better to acknowledge one's hopes and desires than to pretend they don't exist and thereby overestimate one's own rationality.
|timestamp=8:26 AM · Jun 9, 2023
}}
|timestamp=3:40 PM · Jun 9, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676623162098999296
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Alternate thought experiment. 20 years from now there has been no progress beyond the [[Standard Model|standard model]] of particle physics. @FrankWilczek is the last living particle theorist to have made traditional contact with the physical world. What is a leading particle theorist in 2044, when no one has made progress in 70 years? Will we even know if anyone is really doing physics at that point when there are no traditionally successful theorists left but one?
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1676623160110874625
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thought experiment. Assume the final theory exists, is agreed upon in 2024, and has nothing to do with [[String Theory]].
 
How would historians account for the monomania of the last 40 years? As a cult? A scientific mass delusion? The political economy of a failed generation? A hoax?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=PhysInHistory-profile-oPMz8-kf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/PhysInHistory/status/1676421317036511232
|name=Physics In History
|usernameurl=https://x.com/PhysInHistory
|username=PhysInHistory
|content=The shortest chapter ever in a Physics book.
 
From "Why String Theory?" by Joseph Conlon, CRC Press.
|media1=PhysInHistory-X-post-1676421317036511232-F0PYS81WAAEdR-s.jpg
|timestamp=4:04 PM · Jul 5, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:04 PM · Jul 5, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:04 PM · Jul 5, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To sum it up: when [[String Theory|string theorist]] are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isn’t it the case that from A-Z maybe [[String Theory|string theory]] is not being honest?
 
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say “It’s the best yet-to-succeed approach to [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].” in front of the public. No?
 
🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677230177544470529
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“[[String Theory]] is absolutely
the most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1676908960652066816
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
 
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, [[String Theory|string theory]] is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].
|media1=JosephPConlon-1676908960652066816-F0WTvUYWIAExXQ4.jpg
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677231449240399872
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Yes, that is precisely what I think.
|timestamp=8:21 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677235567871021059
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the [[Standard Model|standard model]]” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. It isn’t at all about what you think. It is a true statement.
 
Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about [[String Theory]] within physics.
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677244875605958656
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).
 
As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that [[String Theory|string theory]] and the complex  of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
|timestamp=9:15 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677368642328211456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“IMO objectively true”
 
As with so many of these [[String Theory|String Theoretic]] claims I have no idea what that means.
 
So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?
 
“Objectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.” My opinion doesn’t enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.
 
Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your [[String Theory|String community]] are “not serious” as per the above?
|timestamp=5:27 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677440377559695360
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
 
But in 280 characters and no equations, it’s hard to develop these
 
In a book, easier to do so.
|timestamp=10:12 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677449460677509120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that’s the issue Joseph. At all.
 
Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
 
[[String Theory|String theorists]] like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
 
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesn’t make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I don’t see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
 
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how [[String Theory|string theory]] has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!”
 
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
|timestamp=10:48 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678554652026220544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is not objective or absolutely true that [[String Theory]] is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.
 
Waited a few days. I don’t think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. [[String Theory|String theorist]] deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
|timestamp=11:59 PM · Jul 10, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678645376557936645
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that  is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
|timestamp=6:00 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678646205767725058
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
 
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true — once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647080774934528
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=But most people (reasonably) don’t have this background. So I preface this with ‘my opinion’ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
|timestamp=6:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647632460128256
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
|timestamp=6:09 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679328534140170240
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the  metric field that leads to gravitation, [[String Theory]] is by far the most advanced. I don’t think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. It’s a solid argument.
|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679329566161276933
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that [[String Theory|“String Theory”]] is the answer to a question you formulated: “Of all the approaches to quantizing  gravity which haven’t worked, which is the best?”
 
My argument is with that framing.
|timestamp=3:19 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem I have is with [[String Theory|string theorists]] framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think [[String Theory]] is dangerous for this reason.
 
Try these instead:
 
A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?
 
B) Same as A) but for [[General Relativity]]?
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679331799439396864
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?
 
D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?
 
E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?
 
F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?
 
G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
|timestamp=3:27 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679332528610738178
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?
 
I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
|timestamp=3:30 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679333915365101568
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?
 
K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?
 
L) Which approach is most dogmatic that [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] rather than “Unification” or “Gravitational Harmony” or “Incremental understanding” etc. *Is* the path forward when we don’t even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]?
|timestamp=3:36 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679334548646277120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?
 
N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
|timestamp=3:38 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679335373070008320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking “The Landscape” of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?
 
P) Which community brags about “postdiction” the most because it has failed at predictions?
|timestamp=3:42 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679336247322636290
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?
 
R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?
 
S) Same for brains?
 
T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?
 
U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
|timestamp=3:45 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679337827786719239
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?
 
W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?
 
X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?
 
Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?
 
Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply “What is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?” when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
|timestamp=3:51 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679338937561776129
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is why this conversation doesn’t work. It is what magicians call “Magicians Choice”: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like [[String Theory]] is our top community.
 
Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said “Hold my beer!” back in 1984.
|timestamp=3:56 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:00 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1684481098909200384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=When it comes to physics “Beyond the [[Standard Model]]” it is always a cliff hanger. Doesn’t matter how many times the anomalies collapse under further  scrutiny.
 
Excited for this. Either way.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Fermilab-profile-sZ1TMaxM.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab/status/1684195055945252866
|name=Fermilab
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Fermilab
|username=Fermilab
|content=The Muon g-2 experiment will announce new results in a scientific seminar on August 10! đŸ§ČđŸ’«đŸ‘€
 
The seminar will be streamed on the Fermilab YouTube channel. For more information visit: https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov
<nowiki>#</nowiki>gminus2 #physics
|media1=Fermilab-X-post-1684195055945252866-F192dgmXgAEjtEH.jpg
|timestamp=8:29 AM · Jul 27, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:29 AM · Jul 27, 2023
}}


=== 2024 ===
=== 2024 ===
Line 585: Line 2,598:
Metric Geometry: [[General Relativity|General Relativity GR]]
Metric Geometry: [[General Relativity|General Relativity GR]]
[[Bundles|Fiber Geometry]]:  [[Standard Model|Standard Model SM]]
[[Bundles|Fiber Geometry]]:  [[Standard Model|Standard Model SM]]
Symplectic Geometry: Hamiltonian Quantization of the SM. ]
Symplectic Geometry: Hamiltonian Quantization of the [[Standard Model|SM]]. ]
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 615: Line 2,628:
}}
}}


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1774092904459629027}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1778141545260331295}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774099388329234800
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Longer discussion. But SUSY and GUTs both got associated with particular instantiations of general ideas by zealots.
 
The SU(5) and MSSM variants failed and then, oddly, the community moved to a dysfunctional interpretation. If no observed SU(5) proton decay then downgrade ALL GUTs. Similar for E-W scale super partners.
 
The community is just bizarrely intellectually dysfunctional now. Strings has an infinite leash and the other good ideas are ignored with this monstrous new EFT defeatism as the new sophistication. I still can’t believe this is our world.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The number of new particles is a very bad indicator for how predictive a theory is
 
There‘re one-parameter models that predict infinitely many new particles (e.g. SU(N) and models with many, many parameters that predict no new particles (e.g mod gravity)
 
1/2
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=If anyone tells you a theory is more or less motivated by counting particles, they either don’t understand this argument or they hope you don’t
 
2/2
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773742711579050158
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So let’s talk about the best new theories with new particle predictions.
 
What are your favorite top 5 theories formulated over say the last 25 years ranked by well motivated particle predictions just as you see it Martin? Then as the community sees them? Thx.
|timestamp=4:03 PM · Mar 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773994660676903413
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=The [[Standard Model|SM]] withstood every experimental test apart from neutrino masses, dark matter & gravity. Explaining those needs new degrees of freedom
 
Besides this most effort has been put on treating the [[Standard Model|SM]] itself as a low energy EFT which implies new dof but is agnostic about which
|timestamp=8:44 AM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774053944467374254
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m not truly understanding even though I think I follow everything you wrote. I sense the word “agnostic” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in not giving me 5 modern theories.
 
One way of making sense of what you just posted is that there isn’t enough information in the Wilsonian EFT framing to want to worry about any particles/fields/dof that aren’t strictly needed to close the observed physics off within the current energy regime. Is that what you mean??
 
If so
yikes.
|timestamp=12:39 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MetaLevelUp-profile-kaVe55de.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp/status/1774057075724657146
|name=MetaLevelUp
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp
|username=MetaLevelUp
|content=This is basically EFT in a nutshell though
 
Many UV theories map to the same set of operators at low energy ("agnostic" but not info-free). The latter correspond (in principle) to observables which, if seen in experiment, could be used to limit the underlying space of UV theories
|timestamp=12:52 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774092904459629027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Nice to meet you.
 
I am not unaware of this
but I am shocked by the *change* in the interpretation of EFT during the String Era.
 
40 years ago, the Standard Model was considered geometrically beautiful but mysterious. “SO(10)” was an example of how to get a 3 factor reductive Lie group and a bizarre series of internal quantum numbers to become elegant. In short, the [[Standard Model|SM]] was an EFT, but not a random one. It was a coherent idea that pointed the way towards its own preferred completion/extension. Oddly, String phenomenology recognized this.
 
Then as the field spun off into mathematically informed medieval theology, the [[Standard Model|SM]] started to be seen as ugly. A random EFT without a preferred extrapolation towards its Planckian revelation. Seeing the [[Standard Model|SM]] as in anyway distinguished became seen as “not getting [[Ken Wilson|Wilson’s]] point” analogous to archaic views on strong reductionism.
 
This is such a disaster to think this is what Martin means. It’s the physics version of Seligman’s “Learned Helplessness”‘theory.
|timestamp=3:14 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MetaLevelUp-profile-kaVe55de.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp/status/1774095907379655062
|name=MetaLevelUp
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MetaLevelUp
|username=MetaLevelUp
|content=Great to meet you too! Been following your work for a very long time 🙂
 
I'm not old enough to have witnessed this change, but I *am* old enough to have seen similar dynamics around SUSY in the LHC era (and for many of the same reasons), so your story fits for me.
|timestamp=3:26 PM · Mar 30, 2024
}}
|timestamp=3:40 PM · Mar 30, 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
}}




Line 715: Line 2,881:
}}
}}
|timestamp=9:14 PM · Sep 13, 2024
|timestamp=9:14 PM · Sep 13, 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
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871127090067915264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Some of us propose such solutions.
Some of us do not.
Those that propose other solutions are targeted for self-promotion.
Those that do not are told "You have no alternatives."
Woit is an excellent example of someone who was told he was barren when he was a pure critic...only to then be told he was a self-promoter when he had something to say about the structure bundle of CP^3 being potentially the low energy electro strong SU(3)xU(1) and the oddity of the chirality of the weak force being either fully on or off rather than merely conjugate V vs \bar{V}.
It's time to stop pretending this is about physics. It's about protecting a 4 decade MASSIVE screw up pretending that there is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|only one game in town]].
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1870919779189670098
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this claim.
"News Story:  Physicists ‘Bootstrap’ Validity of String Theory NYU and Caltech scientists develop innovative mathematical approach to back existence of long-held framework explaining all physical reality"
https://nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/december/physicists--bootstrap--validity-of-string-theory-.html
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=MattStrassler-profile-X2IZ87ok.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler/status/1870210427189141892
|name=Matt Strassler
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler
|username=MattStrassler
|content=Certain strategies, used in politics, are also used by various angry scientists who have found ways to made it big in the media.  These strategies are effective.  But they must indeed be translated, just as Sam suggests here. https://x.com/Samuel_Gregson/status/1870158470575427620
|timestamp=8:51 PM · Dec 20, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:50 PM · Dec 22, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=MattStrassler-profile-X2IZ87ok.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler/status/1871037821525643414
|name=Matt Strassler
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MattStrassler
|username=MattStrassler
|content=I fail to see the relation between my comment and yours, Eric. I was hardly referring to the topics that you mentioned, and neither was Sam.
|timestamp=3:39 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871122619661205902
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hi Matt.
Sam regularly portrays himself as outraged about 'angry' or 'dissatisfied' or otherwise 'upset' voices and insinuates that they are turning to sensationalism. I furnished two (of very many) cases that folks like Sam would find absolutely outrageous if the real concern was damaging science with sensationalism, and which cause *far* more harm to fundamental physics than independent voices like Sabine Hossenfelder.
SG is a brand on line. A guy who tries to make the establishment seem 'edgy'...often by targeting people who are raising the real issues with the institutions.
The big problem for fundamental physics is institutional sensationalism, excuse-making, and cheerleading for failing programs as well as anti-collegial behavior of the form that SG regularly tries to turn into disparagment for entertainment.
Many of those independent critical voices are actually focused on *institutional* sensationalism particularly surrounding outrageous claims for particle theory,  [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] and [[String Theory|String Theory/m-theory]].
I generally view your public outreach work very favorably, communicating the beauty of the [[Standard Model]], and to a lesser extent GR. Within research, you  mostly seem to be trying to connect [[String Theory]] and other speculative frameworks to things like experimental accelerator signatures. Despite my distaste for 4-decades of anti-scientfic String Triumphalism and dissembling from the Susskinds, Wittens, Motls, Grosses and others, I have never associated that with you.
Gregson clearly has a problem. He is strawmanning colleagues talking about a VERY real problem of denial, and anti-collegial behavior which is anethma to science.
I may not agree with @skdh's critique (this is no secret to her), but even I can steelman her points.
I feel like people such as yourself, David Tong, @3blue1brown, etc are doing amazing work.  I was simply disappointed to see a leading voice of high level outreach join a toxic voice gleefully targeting a colleague. I thought 'Perhaps Matt is not be aware of SG's MO."
|timestamp=9:16 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871124671053345101
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I'm just not going to put up with this quietly again after all the sadistic cruelty Sabine has been through from the Lubos Motl's of the world while her community largely stayed silent or laughed along.
SG can man up and take Sabine on if he likes. But the man has an anti-collegial strawman problem followed by blocking.
|timestamp=9:24 AM · Dec 23, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-1871124671053345101-GfeRDnQaIAAZVdB.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=matterasmachine-profile-4x5ZEdlX.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/matterasmachine/status/1871125330326646826
|name=Matter as Machine
|usernameurl=https://x.com/matterasmachine
|username=matterasmachine
|content=Sabine Hossenfelder does not propose any alternative.
Critics makes no sense until there is alternative solution.
|timestamp=9:26 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
|timestamp=9:33 AM · Dec 23, 2024
}}
}}


=== 2025 ===
=== 2025 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983887154989429188
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“The top priority is that the [[Standard Model]] has Internal Symmetry while [[General Relativity]] does not.”
“The top priority is that the [[Standard Model]] is a full [[Gauge Theory]] while [[General Relativity]] has no gauge invariance.”
“The top priority is that [[General Relativity|GR]] allows contraction across the tensor product of bundles while the [[Standard Model]] does not.”
“The top priority is that [[General Relativity|GR]] has well defined Contorsion tensors while the [[Standard Model]] does not.”
Those are all possibile research programs within A. Not within B.
|thread=
{{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 [[Quantum Gravity|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
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1983883272808727001
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, what is the difference?
In the latter case of B), the diagnosis has already been definitively made. The problem is thus at the level of frameworks, not the level of theoretical models of the actual world. The issue has been made into “*THE* problem is that the classical theory of Gravity must be quantized.” That is, the classical framework of gravity must be dragged into our general quantum framework as the top priority. Seen this way, it is more of a technical math problem rather than something hyperspecific about our two theories of our physical world.
OPINION: There is absolutely no basis for this B) being an absolute whatsoever. This is a madness which started appearing as a [[String Theory]] mantra around 1984 and has led to a crisis.
In the case of A) that definitive diagnosis has *not* been made.  The case is still
Open. The issue is thus that “We have two specific physical theories that don’t quite fit together for multiple reasons. We need to figure out a physical framework to accommodate them both. That may be a third framework that harmonizes them rather than forcing one into the framework of the other. We need to consider all clues before reaching a definitive diagnosis.”
OPINION: It made absolutely no sense to have closed the case in 1984
and after 40 years of continuous failure, the issue is the leadership of the field. Opening the case and saying “[[General Relativity|GR]] and the [[Standard Model|SM]] have multiple issues. Not just quantization. Why are we not considering that the strong leadership forced THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS on the entire community??”
This is like saying “Maybe COVID came from NIAID/NIH/DTRA/EcoHealth/Daszak/Fauci/Collins/Baric
can we consider that??”
And the answer is “No”.
But that is why we are stuck in my opinion. We are stuck because we can’t question physics leadership without being thrown out of the community.
The dogmatic zealous leadership of physics totally failed. That is what happened. That cost us 41 years.
We can’t get to COVID origins for the same reason we can’t get to [[String Theory]] origins as [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“the only game in town.”]]
The imposed absolutist central narrative is simply a lie.
One man’s opinion.
|timestamp=1:06 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=TheMattSeaton-profile-VDx5fLf6.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TheMattSeaton/status/1983885048450281554
|name=Matt Seaton
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TheMattSeaton
|username=TheMattSeaton
|content=I don't see the difference.  Seems to me one could interpret B the same way you are interpreting A.
|timestamp=1:13 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}
|timestamp=1:22 PM · Oct 30, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 766: Line 3,163:
}}
}}
|timestamp=5:26 AM · Dec 10, 2025
|timestamp=5:26 AM · Dec 10, 2025
}}
=== 2026 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007619430302564725
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I agree with you. I think EFT is such an area. I think cosmology with variable dark energy is essential. I think discrete models disgust me (Wolfram) but should be funded. I think exceptional algebraic structures (Gunaydin, Gursey) are wrong headed but should be funded.
I am for funding diverse approaches.
But again this isn’t the point.
The point isn’t that too few promised too much and got too many resources.
The problem is that those few destroyed their competition, peers, rivals and challengers. And I want those theories/programs/models/researchers/predictions destroyed by those people REEVALUATED. I think [[Lenny Susskind|Lenny]] and [[Ed Witten|Ed]] and Andy etc may have buried the answers with insinuation, shunning, ridicule.
I think we have had answers for 40 years. And I want *none* of the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] cult evaluating them.
My claim is that we don’t know if [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] is holding back progress outside string theory until we stop listening to their anti-science claims.
I claim that [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] is not our leading theory and has NEVER been for 40 years. It’s fake. It doesn’t work. There is no explanation in all of science that permits [[Ed Witten|Ed]] and [[Lenny Susskind|Lenny]] and Andy and company to exclude unexplored ideas and people that may well have succeed where they in particular have failed.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007289596498022879
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=This is such an absurd claim it's actually pretty funny.
A few years ago I went over 31 examples of breakthroughs from the past 40 years (excluding Nobel prizes)
https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528?s=20
But 50+ years really opens up some all time great results:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/2007000327846060048
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=It's a fact that the foundations of physics have been stuck for 50+ years, everyone with half a brain can see that. The only "counterargument" against this are physicists who complain that writing a lot of papers is sorta progress.
|timestamp=8:05 AM · Jan 2, 2026
}}
|timestamp=3:15 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007331841381150742
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If the rules for what is and is not a well defined theory (ie what Weinberg's "Phenomenological Lagrangians" paper change about our understanding of physics) is not "foundations", then I have no idea what we're talking about.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why 3 generations?
Why 15/16 Particles?
Why tbese groups?
Why these Internal Quantum Numbers
Why the Higgs Quartic?
Why the Yukawa Couplings?
Etc. Etc.
Without recourse to
“Shut up and Regulate” EFT
Anti-de-Sitter Space
SUSY intuition that was disproved
Toy Models
Black Hole substitution
Etc etc
———
As I have said before: It’s a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster.
The biggest problem isn’t even the theory. It’s the violation of scientific norms needed to keep from facing what just happened over 4 decades because the violation of scientific norms and academic collegiality came from the leaders. Who need to admit what they did to their legitimate critics and rivals. It is an abuse issue.
Hope this helps.
|timestamp=2:07 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?
Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. It’s about one group taking over as the arbiters of physics beyond the standard model and failing to do what they promised while insulting everyone else who said this was crazy and/or had other ideas.
This is about the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] crowd and its anti-scientific [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] cult.
It feels like out of Fear for naming [[Ed Witten|Witten]], [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]], Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing.
Why can’t we just say “They Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leaders” and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Can’t we just admit this?
|timestamp=2:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007512215872811177
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=Neutrino mass is beyond the Standard Model, predicted by a breakthrough in our structural understanding theoretical physics, and later verified experimentally. If you don't think this is an example of what theoretical physic should be about, then I can't accept your definition.
|timestamp=5:59 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007540816693342542
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hi Daniel,
As you and I both know, that is correct but only relevant here in a very technical way.
Neutrino masses are of course fascinating, but not really conceptually new at all. In fact the PMNS mechanism update, completely PREDATES the [[Standard Model|SM]]. Further, it is just a leptonic version of CKM.
So
What are we really even discussing? We both know the same stuff. This seems to be a red herring. A proxy.
What is this really about?
Thoughts?
|timestamp=7:53 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007547226055422419
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=We are talking about apparently "nothing" conceptually important happening for 50+ years. Yet, until 1973 (52 years ago), it was a widely held believe that nuclear physics was not describable by QFT (Gross was trying to prove this when they found the opposite).
|timestamp=8:18 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007547854479368602
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=So yes, I disagree that realization that (a) QFT describes the world and (b) QFT is a larger and more powerful framework than "renormalizability" is a conceptual change from prior to the 1970s and was not fully appreciated until the 1980s and beyond.
|timestamp=8:21 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007549501188505965
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years:
Experimental
Mathematical
Topological
Condensed Matter
Astrophysical
Cosmological
QFT as a toolkit framework
Etc.
That’s not what we are discussing, is it?
We are discussing the [[Standard Model|SM]] plus [[General Relativity|GR]] Lagrangians no?
|timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1621355254880272384
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=We are discussing what are the "foundations" of physics. I don't think even you and Sabine agree on this. Neutrino mass is zero in the "Standard Model". Dark matter is definitely not (and we can argue about the CC). The origin of structure is also no in the SM (inflation).
|timestamp=8:39 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007560556207869967
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t usually agree with @skdh on funding. Or about math. Or a great many other things including her manifestly incorrect characterization of my work. She is wrong about a number of things in my opinion. But she isn’t “all wrong” in some weird way. She is usually pretty insightful.
Neutrinos being massless in the [[Standard Model|SM]]? C’mon. I covered that above 👆 no? PMNS was in the 1960s. Not even 1973. Older than the [[Standard Model|SM]].
That is not the issue. Unlike @skdh, I think many physicists need more money to do their job.
The problem isn’t any of this.
The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the [[Standard Model|SM]] and [[General Relativity|GR]] without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] or [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years.
The trouble is when you say “Let’s hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.”
The problem is that this is what holds back progress. What is holding back progress is senior physicists who wont allow dissidents in good standing who think [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]] and [[Ed Witten|Witten]] and Gross just oversaw the most spectacular catastrophe in modern physics.
And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated.
The [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] leaders all failed us Daniel. They will never break the logjam that they created and cannot acknowledge.
Their critics would. But they cannot get close as they are STILL not allowed to question the failed program as members in good standing inside the system.
That is the problem. With all respect to you Daniel.
Let’s be honest about what this is about in 2026. It’s about failure. Not neutrino masses.
|timestamp=9:11 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007569311955861891
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=You cannot write the PMNS matrix in the SM (its not renormalizable). Yes, the idea existed in some before there was an electroweak theory. This is like saying there was no conceptual change to chemistry with the discovery of the atom because it was already invented by Democritus
|timestamp=9:46 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007569885325668679
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If you want to complain about QG, please go ahead. It's nowhere on my list. However, even the reframing that QG is well-defined as an effective theory is a novel development (also not clear in the 60s-70s). But part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.
|timestamp=9:48 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007577463497601336
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Something is not right in your picture:
“But part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.”
I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that the QG people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. I’m saying that was the catastrophe.
|timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007578265893114346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Further it’s not about complaining.
No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life.
The complainers are those trying to say “No one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of The Only Game In Town:
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007579362913054897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Daniel: the problem is [[Ed Witten|Witten]]/[[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]]/Motl totalizing sociology of only letting the failed group monopolize legitimacy.
They failed. That’s the issue. Deal with that.
You can’t hide this behind neutrino masses. There were other BETTER ideas that *they* pushed out of physics.
|timestamp=10:26 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007582523728245073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Daniel: try to steelman my point.
“Fundamental Physics Theory largely stagnated and lost touch with reality due to anti-scientific gatekeeping by leaders of the failed [[String Theory]] community playing stupid and attempting to monopolize legitimacy under [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|‘The Only Game In Town’]]”
|timestamp=10:39 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007608251924549922
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=I agree that too many resources went to a small group that has over-promised and under-achieved. I also agree that has slowed progress in other areas where real progress is happening.
Where we disagree is that I think there is real progress that needs to be highlighted instead.
|timestamp=12:21 AM · Jan 4, 2026
}}
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Jan 4, 2026
}}
}}


Line 779: Line 3,485:
* [[Theory of Geometric Unity]]
* [[Theory of Geometric Unity]]


{{stub}}


[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Portal Topics]]
[[Category:Portal Topics]]
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25056...25682"