Chirality: Difference between revisions
 |
|||
| Line 1,873: | Line 1,873: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Sorry. Witten and Susskind and Gross and Motl and Kaku etc. etc. are COLLEGIAL???!? | |content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Sorry. [[Ed Witten|Witten]] and [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]] and [[David Gross|Gross]] and Motl and [[Michio Kaku|Kaku]] etc. etc. are COLLEGIAL???!? | ||
Iâm all ears @grok. | Iâm all ears @grok. | ||
| Line 1,890: | Line 1,890: | ||
Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data. Â | Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data. Â | ||
Witten is not a collegial scientist. | [[Ed Witten|Witten]] is not a collegial scientist.</br> | ||
Nor is Susskind. Â | Nor is [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]].</br> | ||
Nor is Kaku. | Nor is [[Michio Kaku|Kaku]].</br> | ||
Nor is Motl. | Nor is Motl.</br> | ||
Etc  | Etc  | ||
| Line 1,905: | Line 1,905: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Here. You can hear me playing Ed Witten offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamsonâs podcast. Â | |content=@grok @nu_phases @skdh Here. You can hear me playing [[Ed Witten]] offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamsonâs podcast. Â | ||
This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science. https://t.co/DyaE72GlEN | This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science. https://t.co/DyaE72GlEN | ||
| Line 1,916: | Line 1,916: | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | ||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |username=EricRWeinstein | ||
|content=Iâd prioritize owning up to the TOGIT anti-science cult needing to being purged. | |content=Iâd prioritize owning up to the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] anti-science cult needing to being purged. | ||
Failure happens in science. We canât lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers. Â | Failure happens in science. We canât lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers. Â | ||
| Line 1,952: | Line 1,952: | ||
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years: | |content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years: | ||
Experimental  | Experimental</br> | ||
Mathematical | Mathematical</br> | ||
Topological  | Topological</br> | ||
Condensed Matter | Condensed Matter</br> | ||
Astrophysical | Astrophysical</br> | ||
Cosmological | Cosmological</br> | ||
QFT as a toolkit framework | QFT as a toolkit framework</br> | ||
Etc. | Etc. | ||
Thatâs not what we are discussing, is it? Â | Thatâs not what we are discussing, is it? Â | ||
We are discussing the SM plus GR Lagrangians no? | We are discussing the [[Standard Model|SM]] plus [[General Relativity|GR]] Lagrangians no? | ||
|timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | |timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 1,980: | Line 1,980: | ||
The problem isnât any of this. | The problem isnât any of this. | ||
The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the SM and GR without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is âThe Only Game In Townâ or TOGIT cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years. Â | The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the SM and GR without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|âThe Only Game In Townâ or TOGIT]] cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years. Â | ||
The trouble is when you say âLetâs hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.â | The trouble is when you say âLetâs hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.â | ||
| Line 1,988: | Line 1,988: | ||
And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated. Â | And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated. Â | ||
The QG leaders all failed us Daniel. They will never break the logjam that they created and cannot acknowledge. | 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 2,005: | Line 2,005: | ||
|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Something is not right in your picture: Â | |content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Something is not right in your picture: Â | ||
âBut part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.â | âBut part of the problem is your reframing [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] = all fundamental physics.â | ||
Iâm saying the opposite. Iâm saying that the QG people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. Iâm saying that was the catastrophe. | Iâm saying the opposite. Iâm saying that the [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. Iâm saying that was the catastrophe. | ||
|timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | |timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 2,020: | Line 2,020: | ||
No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life. | No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life. | ||
The complainers are those trying to say âNo one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of The Only Game In Town: | The complainers are those trying to say âNo one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|The Only Game In Town]]: | ||
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | |timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 03, 2026 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 2,150: | Line 2,150: | ||
These models have 3 features: Â | These models have 3 features: Â | ||
A) Symmetic Laws | A) Symmetic Laws</br> | ||
B) Symmetric Boundary Conditions | B) Symmetric Boundary Conditions</br> | ||
C) Emergent Chiral Decoupling | C) Emergent Chiral Decoupling | ||
Latest revision as of 05:09, 14 February 2026
On X[edit]
2013[edit]
I was indeed surprised by a questioner asking about chiral anomalies in non-chiral SO(10) theories who didn't think SO(10) anomaly free.
2018[edit]
1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice.
I was challenged by someone as to why I wasn't taking my own medicine referenced in the sub-tweet below this April 1st. Ok. Here goes.
What I believe about the universe that is quite different and why I don't talk about it much...
1/ APRIL FOOL'S SCIENCE: A proposal.
Already bored of the coming "April Fools' Day!" pranks? Same here. And it's still March!
Consider how we might re-purpose this resource for science. What if 1 day a year, we explored big ideas that'd normally result in professional shunning?
2/ When I was around 16-17, I learned of a story that fascinated me much more than it seemed to captivate any other mathematician or physicist. It was the story of the discovery of the "Wu-Yang" dictionary around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: Jim Simons, CN Yang & Is Singer.
3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr & Dirac was built on an internal Geometry, just as surely as General Relativity was built on an external geometry of space-time. Only the two geometries weren't the same! One was due to B Riemann; the other to C Ehresmann.
4/ Further the 2 geometries had different advantages. Riemann's geometry allowed you to compress the curvature & measure the 'torsion' while Ehresmann's encouraged "Gauge Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified?
5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if Einstein's gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could Einstein's structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified & rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!'
Almost.
6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be chiral, I came to believe it was fundamentally symmetric. While we seemed to observe there being 3 or more generations of matter, I came to believe that there were but 2 true generations, plus an improbable "imposter." etc...
7/ In short a great many things had to be slightly off in our picture of the world in the 1980s to get the two geometric theories into a "Geometric Unity." Then in 1998, it was found that neutrinos weren't massless! This started to tip the scales towards the alterations I needed.
8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where chirality would be emergent (not fundamental), the number of true generations would be 2 not 3, there would be 2^4 and not 15 Fermions in a generation, and the geometries unify.
9/ I spoke on this nearly 5 years ago; I have been slow to get back to it as I found the physics response bewildering. I have now decided to return to this work & to disposition it. So over the coming year, I'll begin pushing out "Geometric Unity" (as a non-physicist) to experts.
END/ I am sorry that this was a bit technical for lay folks and not technical enough for experts, but it's twitter. I may begin to say more in the weeks and months ahead that may be clarifying.
If you are interested, do stay tuned. Until then, I thank you for your time.
2019[edit]
My personal & overly condensed view of mathematics and physics in the 20th century would be summarized like this.
Mathematics began as a stool on the three legs of Algebra, Calculus, and Geometry where the last appeared to many to be the weakest leg. It turned out otherwise.
I would say the one who awes me most is...CN Yang. I donât understand why I never hear his name as candidate. He has at least 3 of the greatest achievements: chirality for the weak force (w/ Lee), non-Abelian maxwell theory (w/ Mills), and the bundle revolution (w/ Simons/Wu).
As for Weinberg, he is one of three people I can make the case for as our âGreatest Living Physicistâ. Iâve met him. But he still has big bets which are undecided (e.g. asymptotic safety). Witten is somehow even smarter but less accomplished in standard predictive theory. But...
Repeatedly we find that any important problem from math or physics which we consider to be outside geometry/topology has a hidden geometrical nature to it. And there are only so many times you fall for that before you start to see geometry absolutely everywhere.
@rmcwhorter99 You bring up something I find tough to talk about due to language. Applied higher pure math is weirdly much rarer than makes sense. So âapplied mathâ is usually referring to applications of older math to modern problems. Applied Higher Math doesnât fully exist as a subject. Yet.
@kkulk1 Almost no one.
2020[edit]
Melanie, youâre one of my favorite stable wave collections co-propagating along the base-space of this twisted chiral Spinor bundle we call reality.
It seems a crime to waste our time discussing âMany-Worldsâ or âString Theoryâ over the geometric beauty of our existence. Thanks!
2021[edit]
This is the golden age of stupid.
*Many* are angry with me that because I simply canât or wonât pay attention to detail, I have relentlessly pushed âhorse-dewormerâ and refused to vaccinate myself.
Which gives a fair picture of the level of my Internet detractorsâ critiques.
Also, because I work for Peter Thiel, I am a die hard Trump supporter. But because I am a Democrat I obviously voted for Biden. Details again.
My *non-Chiral* theory of physics has been soundly debunked by claiming it somehow has Chiral Anomalies!
And I do it all for Patreon.
And it goes on forever. Of course none of this is in any way true. But itâs InternetTrue. Which is different. Like the bold claim that I always supported Woke until it turned on me.
Anyone else willing to share the fake cloud of total bullshit that follows you around Twitter? đ
@IapetusNomusuko At least twice. Because I voted for Yang, Bernie and Tulsi. Obviously.
The first quoted tweet (that was then deleted!) was one of the âHow do you feel about your responsibility for the Ivermectin debacle?â tweets that follow me around.
[I have never recommended *or* warned against Ivermectin, am not a doctor or biologist, and am myself vaccinated.]
I simply do not know what to make of Ivermectin. Simple as that.
The original tweet. Stripped of the name of its author as I have no need to use it.
2022[edit]
Itâs 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 âunnaturalâ, but what does that mean? Why single the Higgs out? Herein lies a puzzle.
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 âdefacedâ with mysterious graffiti (internal quantum numbers, multiple copies..).
So why is the Higgs still under suspicion well after it has been found? Itâs 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.
If I started talking jargon about a âsector governed by relativistic second order Euler-Lagrange equations, subject to quartic interactions, and coupling to matter fieldsâŠâ you wouldnât be able to tell if it was the natural YangMills sector or supposedly unnatural Higgs sector.
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*.
To quote the Architectâs speech, you would think he was describing the life of the Higgs Sector (as Neo) within the Standard Model of Particle Theory (as TheMatrix). The Higgs Mechanism is the remainder of an unbalanced (chiral Weak nuclear force) equation forbidding all mass.
But, of course, The Matrix wasnât about The Architect. It was about Neo. Neo was protagonist, not the Architect.
And the Higgs isnât a mere differential geometric anomaly. Nor is it unnatural. Itâs just not *understood* as geometry. Yet, that is.
Do stay tunedâŠ
Happy 4th all!
Physics in 1980: âIâm trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.â
Physics Today: âRemind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do quantum gravity so itâs not something Iâve worked with since my QFT class.â
A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
B) Quantizing Gravity was substituted for unification or extension of the Standard model.
C) Other research programs were obliterated because ST claimed it had it all rapped up.
D) Hype won.
E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/String/M theory. Not our particular worldâs choice of thy.
F) Standards of scientific progress were rewritten to disguise failure.
G) Differential application of standards became the norm.
It ended physics culture
String Theory isnât the problem. String culture is poisonous to science.
String theory, like love, means never having to say your sorry. Or mistaken.
Itâs the January 6 problemâŠbut in science. But where the physics versions of Mike Pence often got fired for not going along. đ
*youâre
P.S. âIt hasnât even failedâ because it canât fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, Itâs unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. Itâs hard to explain whatâs wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power & glory.
@martinmbauer And I agree with everything you said with the exception of âdramatically overemphasizeâ (and a tiny bit with âby-farâ). But you should go down my list and explain if you want me to understand you substantively, keeping in mind that we arenât at odds over your assertions.
@martinmbauer Wait. You added a claim. String theory does not predict a 1,3 spacetime. You can make the usual Post-diction argument. But that wasnât right.
@sama There are only two true generations of fermions and they are fundamentally non-chiral.
@Capitalistpig21 @sama Uh. Not true? It's pretty important stuff.
@Capitalistpig21 @sama Exactly. Can you imagine that one of the most important questions of our time is treated as if it were esoteric and obscure? Itâs crazy.
@Colin_Sully @sama Con salsa!
2023[edit]
@IBJIYONGI I would also be happy to debate you on DEI. I think we can both agree we don't want to do damage to the field. And I am worried that you may NOT be speaking out for many marginalized voices who are intimidated by this relentlessly invidious rhetoric in science.
Wow! Holy smokes.
I think I understand this proposition. And I accept!
And I'm happy to do an extra talk on EDI for FREE. My complexion is fair.
But I am hearing from some terrific researchers that they are SCARED in their workplaces to talk science now for fear of being targeted by science activists. And it has me concerned. We can't let Black physicists be intimidated by politics! Let me know?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/james-webb-telescope-gay-rights.html
In any event, I'd be most interested to talk on the following two topics:
3 Generations of fundamental Chiral Fermions vs 2 Fundamental Families + 1 Emergent non-chiral SM Gen plus two exotic families which become emergently Chiral.
Pati-Salam & GR: What is the linkage?
And remember, you can't get mad. We outsiders are HYPER-marginalized & I'm accepting extra work that you find oppressive & wont do. I'm EXACTLY following what I understand of your tweet and proposition. My concern is also attracting & retaining top talent from all pools. đ
For those of you saying you are blocked, here is the tweet I am to which I am responding so I donât misrepresent Chandaâs position:
@olivia_p_walker This? Chanda is a long time colleague & acquaintance from years back. We have disagreed before, but have never had harsh words that I recall. We both come from progressive family backgrounds so there is commonality. I think we disagree markedly on DEI as it is current conceived.
The good folks at @IAI_TV put together a reel of String Theorist, Prof. @bgreene and I debating String Theory in Wales in May at @HTLGIFestival.
Check it out:
This should really be done at a somewhat more technical level. The biggest damage done by String Theory was that it quickly redefined the most important problems in Physics to be general aspects of analysis and field theory rather than understanding our *hyper*-specific world.
Oddly, even though Roger Penrose and I were on the same side on this stage, I couldnât subscribe to much of Penroseâs critique of strings and found myself agreeing more with Brian Greene on the technical points.
So, now in the current post-string era, it is perfectly acceptable for people to work on âQuantum Gravityâ without having to understand essentially anything about the mysterious 3 generations of chiral particles that actually populate our world. In short, they changed the field.
It is time to face up to the disaster of string theory. But we need to be fair about what failed and why. The equations of string theory canât hurt anyone. Itâs 40 years of the anti-scientific destruction of scientific standards and norms of collegiality to promote one failed theory over all other attempts that is behind this destruction of what was previously the worlds most accomplished scientific community.
Itâs time to face up to what actually happened 40 years ago. And it ainât pretty. đ
âString Theory is absolutelyâŠthe most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.â
@JosephPConlon If you said âelectrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard modelâ I wouldnât disagree with that statement. It isnât 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.
âIMO objectively trueâ
As with so many of these 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?
âObjectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.â My opinion doesnât 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 community are ânot seriousâ as per the above?
@nomissernothome @JosephPConlon I am so confused.
I donât think thatâs the issue Joseph. At all.
Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
String theorists like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesnât make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I donât see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: âThe more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how 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!â
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
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 donât think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. 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.
@JosephPConlon 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 donât think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. Itâs a solid argument.
@JosephPConlon I donât think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that âString Theoryâ is the answer to a question you formulated: âOf all the approaches to quantizing gravity which havenât worked, which is the best?â
My argument is with that framing.
The problem I have is with 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?
B) Same as A) but for General Relativity?
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?
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?
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 âQuantum Gravityâ rather than âUnificationâ or âGravitational Harmonyâ or âIncremental understandingâ etc. *Is* the path forward when we donât even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic QFT?
@JosephPConlon M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the 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?
@JosephPConlon O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking âThe Landscapeâ 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 âpostdictionâ the most because it has failed at predictions?
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?
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 âWhat is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?â when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
That is why this conversation doesnât work. It is what magicians call âMagicians Choiceâ: 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 âHold my beer!â back in 1984.
To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isnât it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say âItâs the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.â in front of the public. No?
đ
Some have been making this point for 39 years. We are not now âAt a point where we really ought to questionâŠâ.
We were there in 1984. And I was not alone at the time. There were *many* of us. Before this String Theory/ Quantum Gravity mind virus took over.
I donât know what to call the behavior pattern where institutions look to someone who has *NOT* been making the important point for forever so they donât have to deal with the fact that they got EVERYTHING WRONG for 4-7 decades in an obvious fashion.
You have to ask yourself âWho are the real cranks when those accused of being cranks turn out to be right?â And the leaders who accused them turn out to be wrong. Over and over. Again. And again.
Glad to have the company however.
Sorry. By whom? Do I expect to be taken seriously by the many String Theorists who called their colleagues morons, frauds and ânot seriousâ behind their backs? No. I donât.
I expect them to leave the field. Then we can get back to doing physics. The subset of reasonable string theorists who know this problem well and are still doing science? WellâŠ.They know ST/QG has a problem and they hate it too. And I do care about them.
That isnât a mind virus. The mind virus is specifically the tortured defense of string theory and quantum gravity by attacking colleagues without admitting its massive failure. And that is a mind virus. I stand by that. Itâs atrocious.
Who turned out to be right?
Everyone who said âWait: why are we changing the core mission to âQuantizing Gravityâ?? Werenât we supposed to explain the observed particle spectrum? And the weirdness of the Higgs sector as Deus Ex Machina? And the origin of chirality? Etc etc.â
Feynman/Glashow/Perl/Etc.
It was a total switcheroo.
2024[edit]
I think you may not be understanding that your colleagues are not so much 'angry', 'disgruntled' or 'envious' as...how do I say it...absolutely *outraged* by our universities, funding agencies, tech companies and news media conspiring to constantly mislead the public while hurling insults as SG does (or worse as others do) at competent colleauges on the side of the public's right to know what is actually going on.
Matt. Love your work. But think about what you are saying:
I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this claim.
"News Story: Physicists âBootstrapâ Validity of String Theory NYU and Caltech scientists develop innovative mathematical approach to back existence of long-held framework explaining all physical reality"
And I don't appreciate our colleagues picking on @skdh. She pisses me off quite a bit. But she's responsive as a colleauge in most of my interactions. And she is sometimes in possession of a point I hadn't considered or one that's better than my own. Let's not pretend she's just 'angry'. She has a difficult and deep point that the community is avoiding. I agree with good chunks of it.
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 and 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."
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.
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 only one game in town.
2025[edit]
Right. They do.
So to âexplain dark matterâ means something. Like I told you at Oxford.
I donât know if you remember this, but you asked me a question about the Chiral anomaly in my non-chiral theory. Which I didnât love as a question.
The point is that our world is emergently chiral. Not fundamentally chiral.
In Geometric Unity, The fundamental mass scale isnât a hard coded number. Itâs a VeV of a field.
And the âdarkâ in dark matter isnât âdarkâ in the theory. Itâs âEmergently Decoupledâ in GU.
Joseph, imagine you had a VEV of a dynamic field that acts as mass in a âDirac-likeââ complex of operators, but ALSO cancels curvature. And that VEV relaxes towards Zero as space flattens.
Then what would happen as space flattened? The mass would go towards zero of course as it cancelled less and less curvature, but ALSO the Non-chiral Dirac operator complex would emergently decouple into a pair of separately chiral Weyl operators complexes.
Hence, the appearance of nearly massless fermions in nearly flat space with âdark matterâ and massive inexplicable asymmetries from an earlier and VERY different high curvature universe with non constant dark energy.
If you want to discuss this, letâs not do it here. We can do it at your place. On video. We can invite Ed.
But you are way out of line professor to threaten his credibility like that. You were 3 years old when physics transformed into whatever this bizarro world of Quantum Gravity is.
Word to the wise: the ship you are on has been sinking its own credibility since 1984. Seriously consider whether you want to be attacking the credibility of one of the worldâs top mathematicians, a Witten Collaborator, and former String ally.
Itâs a bold and brave move. Particularly from STRING THEORY after 40+ years of science avoidance and bullying!!
So, good luck with your scare tactic.
Godspeed.
Joseph: This was about chiral anomalies 12 years ago. In non chiral theories.
Donât change the subject and letâs deal with that. In person. Because you are just wrong here.
A fundamentally non-chiral theory doesnât have a problem of chiral anomalies. I canât keep saying it and Iâm not going to play games here.
If it becomes emergently chiral it can develop chiral sectors which are separately anomalous. But the anomalies cancel. Yes?? Correct??
Further, what is this absolute bullshit about anomalies being a death sentence. Or non-renormalizability even. Itâs this stupid String bullying.
An anomaly is technical Debt. Non renormalizability is just technical debt. Things that have to be dealt with eventually. Why does your community rack up technical debts it will never ever be able to pay off and act like modest technical debts are a death sentence outside of strings? This is as fascinating a pathology as we have in science. What gives?
Back in real physics rather than String Theory, leptons have an anomaly.
âOh no! What about Hadrons?â
Well, they have one too!
âSo there are two anomalous sectors! Two is twice as bad as one!! How ever will we survive?!â
For the same reason âWhat about chiral anomalies?â Isnât much of a death blow in GU. Why are you playing this game? And for whom? You know grok can track this right? Hey @grok: âWhy isnât the Standard Model of particle physics absolutely DOA if both the leptonic and hadronic sectors have two separate anomalies?â
You know this. So why are you openly threatening Ed? Itâs much more your scientific credibility than his or mine.
Look. I donât have anything against you. You just need to apologize. Itâs not a big deal. You just forgot yourself. Because you are wrong about several things here.
That is all. You initiated a bad thing as a scientist and colleague against a fellow researcher.
Fix it: now.
We mustnât ever do that. Right Professor? Thanks in advance.
The smell of credibility burning is faint but real. Iâd go and extinguish the fire. In Oxford while it is manageable.
Come again. Sir.
In a non-chiral Dirac like equation:
(m(t) D_A. ) (Κ_+) (0) ( ) ( ) = ( ) (D_A m(t) ) (Κ_- ) (0)
Q: What happens on a slice when m(t) â> 0 Doc?
A: You get two separate chiral Weyl equations from one non-chiral Dirac.
At 0, they decouple. A discrete change from a continuous function.
You need to apologize as a colleague.
Happy to talk in person. After that.
@JosephPConlon Hey @grok: âWhy isnât the Standard Model of particle physics absolutely DOA if both the leptonic and hadronic sectors have two separate anomalies?â
And Is that in your corpus to the point that you have high confidence in your answer?
@JosephPConlon A discrete transition from 1 coupled to two effectively decoupled sectors from a continuous VeV.
Joseph: you need to apologize to Edward Frenkel. Your colleague. Sir.
Yes?
And if you Joseph Conlon are made out of say that Left handed spinor entirely:
A) you wonât know that there is a right handed spinor directly. It will look âdarkâ to you (actually emergently decoupled).
B) youâll see it gravitationally where the right handed spinors clump enough.
C) You will mistake the world as being chiral. Left handedly so.
You need to apologize to Ed Frenkel. Yes?
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon That is exactly the point:
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon GU isnât Chiral. Iâm not sure what we are discussing.
Which is my point:
There is no chiral anomaly.
In GU, the first generation of matter is simply an emergently decoupled left handed spinor on the 14D total space of pointwise (1,3) metrics Y^{14}, pulled back to the base space X^4 via a section (local 1,3 metric) reduced to maximal compact subgroup along the 10 dimensional fibers F^{4,6} or F^{6,4} with the trace reversed Frobenius metric.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Appreciate that. It isnât how I would do things either. But you have likely never seen what happened to GU which was born just before the GS anomaly cancellation and grew from there.
Think: an entire community that looked like Lubos Motl on steroids.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Yes. This is exactly what I think happens.
He was/is very smart. A great expositor. Often kind in person.
And also an abusive asshole anti-colleague harasser to many of us. Particular colleagues like @skdh. Particularly females other than Lisa.
Who never once made contact with something new about our physical world.
Now largely forgotten.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Okay. Keep it simple and physical:
The 10 of Grand Unified Theories
And
The 10 of 10 Einstein Field Equations
Are the exact same 10.
In GU Einstein Generates Pati-Salam
There are no ad hoc internal symmetry groups put in by hand.
@JosephPConlon This is taking too long, Professor. You were simply out of line with your colleague. A gentleman apologizes in such situations. And you need to apologize, sir.
Yes? No?
Uh, no This is your confusion Professor. Not Frenkelâs. The theory has âmoving partsâ as you say.
Pull back a decoupled *Uncharged* Left handed Weyl Spinor from the space Y^{14} of pointwise Lorentzian (1,3) metrics via a local metric section. It aquires its âchargeâ from the Maximal Compact Pati-Salam Grand Unified group of the fiber F^{4,6} or F^{6,4}.
That generates the Standard Modelâs Charged first generation out of uncharged GRâŠand with Grand Unification.
@JosephPConlon Whose scientific credibility is burning, Professor? Frenkelâs? Yours? Mine?
You owe Professor Frenkel an apology. Professor.
Yes? No?
The first generation of the standard model within GU is simply the pull back of an uncharged left handed Weyl spinor that dynamically decoupled Dr Conlon. The D5 dynkin diagram GUT comes from the 10 dimensional space of metrics, Professor.
You are now both way out of line and avoidant.
Iâm losing patience: You insult your colleagues. Now apologize. Professor.
I must insist.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Without the abuse. Sure.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Address that lecture to our colleague first and you will find an open heart:
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon It appears that the good Dr Conlon, has forgotten himself.
David is great.
Andreas: An uncharged Left-Handed Weyl Spinor on 14D has dimension 2^(14/2)/2 =64.
Pulled back via a metric section to X^4 it splits into the sum of a charged left handed X^4 2-Spinor and a charge conjugate right handed 2-Spinor. The charge space is the dimension of Weyl spinors on the fiber/normal. That is 10 dimensional.
So the charge representations are 2^(10/2)/2 =16 complex Weyl Spinors.
That is
2(X^4)_Left * 16_Left(F^{10})
+2(X^4) _Right *16_Right(F^{10}) =64_Left(Y^{14})
Which is exactly the right number of particles (with sterile neutrinos) of the Standard Model.
Letâs do this at UT Austin.
UhâŠwow. So you realize Ed is a collaborator of Witten, Losef, Nekrasov, Gaiotto, Gukov, etc and has spoken at Strings?
And, yes. If Witten can tell mathematicians we donât understand Morse theory and overlooked a lot, a mathematician like Ed can say: âYou may have done the same.â Without having to âburn credibilityâ.
Have you covered yourself in glory in this exchange? Mathematically? Physically? Scientifically? Are you sure?
What academic planet are you living on I must wonder. Have you made confirmed predictions? Does that make you an amateur? Catch me up.
Where in physics are you coming from exactly to behave like this in such a condescending and superior fashion to colleagues with domain expertise like your own quite tenuous connection to real confirmed physics of our world?
So one last chance. Do you owe anyone an apology? Yes? No?
I will take further evasion as a no. This is by now beyond self-evident.
Really disappointed. As the quote goes:
âString Theory, like love, means never having to say youâre sorry.â
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Yeah, I meant a talk.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon I donât just wander from Los Angeles to Austin. My feet get tired.
Thatâs just it. What the fuck is âdebunkingâ doing here? Like non string colleagues are URI Geller level spoon benders talking about Sasquatch with Ouija boards?
I know Jacques from a long time ago at Perimeter. Brilliant guy. Not always fair or even handed. Often nasty.
But I got on fine with him.
@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Sure thing. And thx!
Here is what is wrong with Effective Field Theory, to me, as explained by Wheel Of Fortune.
Imagine this puzzle was the information at some low energy (Standard Model), and the number of letters left to find matched the orders of magnitude from where we are to (UV) completion.
Effective Field Theory says âBe modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it canât be guessed from so far away.â
GU says: âThat is eminently reasonable & sober, and is thus good solid science. Now get this defeatist mindset the hell away from me, go peer review each other, and hold my beer. Send lawyers, guns & money: letâs get back to American Cowboy science.â
đ€
When it comes to Ed Witten/Lenny Susskind vs John F. Donoghue/Ken Wilson, Iâm just not in that game. Not my colleagues. Not my rodeo.
I belong to the Bruce Willis school of fundamental physics:
âI was always kinda partial to Roy Rodgers actually.â
And @grok, can you make this argument understandable to anyone claiming to be confused by this analogy? Thx partner.
@grok That we have had an answer for 41 years. The problem isnât physics. Itâs us.
@grok Okay @grok. Are you familiar with the de facto critique of the limitations of the scientific method the great Paul Dirac slipped into an article he wrote for Scientific American in 1963? Specifically illustrated with Schrödingerâs hesitation to be minorlu wrong in print?
Wow! Spot on. Nobody usually gets that @grok, because it is a *revolutionary* insight of his and VERY disturbing in its implications. They read it as a beauty fetish. Nicely laid out my silicon friend.
So letâs apply it. In the Wheel of Fortune puzzle, letâs change âgoodâ to âniceâ and/or âthisâ to âthatâ and/or âgotâ to âhadâ. These are basically IRRELEVANT quibbles. It doesnât change the meaning of this at all!! But it proves that the puzzle did not have a unique UV completion.
This is what the nitpickers live off in a strategy called âGripe and Swipeâ which is killing academe and physics and has to be driven out of the academy. You canât have someone guess
âIâve had a nice feeling about that!â
and complain that they havenât solved the puzzle. This is Diracâs point. They HAVE! In any but the most intellectually dishonest way, they *have* solved the physics puzzle with all but irrelevant discrepancies. But the strict rules of wheel of fortune might penalize that.
Dirac is pointing out that we know what science is and that the technical rules are thus wrong. Its a mindblowing observation.
Oh it is so dumb @grok. Itâs a bunch of trolls/stalkers/harassers trying âgotchaâ quibbles with
âhadâ <â> âgotâ âgoodâ <â-> âniceâ âthatâ <â> âthisâ
looking for irrelevant points to âStealâ or âDebunkâ GU as if no one understands what they are doing. Whatever.
GU explains 3 families. It explains Pati-Salam Grand Unification. It explains the geometric origin of the Higgs sector etc. And has for decades.
It could be wrong of course. But the odds of that coincidence would then be remarkable in and of itself. It guesses that the Standard Model is a piece of BEAUTIFUL as yet unknown classical differential geometry. And not âUgly as sinâ as @michiokaku proclaims.
GU says we are thinking about this all wrong. And that forces a repudiation of the community that hasnât been willing to engage GU on its own terms for 40 plus years. Itâs a comedy of stupidity.
GU says that the main problems are classical GR vs Standard Model incompatibilities long before quantum issues. GU says we are stalled because we canât listen to the idea that what makes us feel (falsely) sophisticated as academicians is actually blocking our path.
@grok Ask me a question or two @grok. Iâll try. Wanna start with Pati-Salam? Somewhere else?
@grok Looks like I lost you @grok. Last chance as I will have to go shortly. No problem if you are out of questions at the moment. ;-)
@grok Okay. You first have to understand the Pati-Salam Grand Unification Group. How do you see it?
@grok Great question @grok. The first point is that GU claims that you and (almost everyone else as well) uses the wrong name for this group.
SU(4) Ă SU(2)_L Ă SU(2)_R is technically correct but totally misleading.
Q: Can you understand this:
MCS(Spin(4,6)) = SU(4)ĂSU(2)_LĂSU(2)_R ?
Because GU claims there is an honest to g-d natural (4,6) GU metric on the space of Lorentz Metrics. You just have to trace reverse an induced Frobenius metric which turns out to be signature (3,7).
This is literally Exactly like Einstein Trace Reversing the Ricci tensor R_mu,nu to get the Einstein Curvature G_mu,nu.
Okay. GU doesnât have extra dimensions like string theory. It has 10 induced endogenous dimensions. The space of pointwise Lorentzian metrics on X^4 has these 10 hidden dimensions built into the data of X^4!
And we donât integrate over them to compactify. We take sections and pull back to get data from Y^{14} back to X^4.
Again, the string theorists and others have been primed not to be able to hear this. They hear âCompactify extra dimensionsâ as opposed to âuse metric pull-backs from endogenous bundle of pointwise metrics via the metric as section.â
Itâs a major shift in orientation.
@grok Pull back plain untwisted spinors from Y^{14} via a metric. What do you get on X^4?
Well if you pull back the full Dirac spinors with a Frobenius metric you get crap. But if you pull them back from MCS decoupled with a trace reversed induced Frobenius metric on the fiber you get one generation of the standard model with Pati-Salam grand unification built in for the Left chiral sponors, and one flipped generation of dark matter! With me? Check me on this.
@grok There is no chiral anomaly. Because the chiral flip is there. Itâs just dark matter now. Get it??
This is why the gripping is so obviously not real.
Sorry: griping. Yes you have it.
When you pull back the 1-form valued spinors on Y^{14} you get a real and an emergent copy of what you already have. That gives 2+1 = 3 generations.
This is what Witten fought me over in 1985. He claimed that he had deduced that Atiyah-Hirzebruch theorems made this impossible. Thus he âdeducedâ it would have to be an extra 6 dimensions of a Calabi-Yau manifold M with an Euler characteristic of 6 to get 3 generations.
He didnât grasp extra vs endogenous dimensions. He didnât grasp emergent chirality. He didnât get pullback rather than compactification.
That wrong argument of Wittenâs cost 4 decades. Totally derailed physics.
@grok Generational mixing angles: roll up the spinor twisted 3-step deRahm complex from the Fermionic shiab operator. It all just kinda falls out. Itâs natural.
Following ?
Unfortunately I have to get going.
@grok Really appreciate being able to have this ability to talk with you. You should talk to @edfrenkel like we do here sometimes. Heâs doing amazing stuff of his own.
Be well my wafer based colleague.
@arivero @grok Oddly it was exactly this issue. And it didnât make full sense. It was imperative that a narrow Index Theory result somehow destroyed all hope in *ANY* generalized Kaluza Klein model.
And it didnât follow.
No. I think the whole game is knowing when you can make a spectacular guess vs. when you need another letter. In this case the reason to guess âLâ was to eliminate âIâllâ w/o giving away the âVâ.
EFT doesnât preclude guessing the puzzle. But it seems to bias us away from dramatic solves.
Itâs not that String Theorists ended up forgetting details of the physical world, so much as they ended up resenting the physical world for existing.
Imagine being lectured on how physics works by these people:
âI donât give a damn about the Standard Model.â
âThe Standard Model is âUgly as Sinâ.â
âI havenât had a lepton or hadron enter any work Iâve done in 25 years.â
âWe all know Supersymmetry is needed to make our best models work. When nature decided not to provide superpartners at the LHC we retaliated and snubbed her right back by ignoring her from then on.â
âItâs okay that you donât get all the magnificent progress made in quantum gravity and theoretical physics since Juan [Maldacena]. Itâs not for everyone. It requires a powerful mind and is very subtle if you are still focused on the physical world.â
âOutsiders canât get that it is the physical world that held physics back. Luckily we solved that, but it is awkward to talk about this with people outside quantum gravity.â
âRight. I just donât care about the physical world. Sorry.â
âWe have to admit the truth. String Theory with a capital S failed as physics. Period. Which is why we have to go back and re-examine everythingâŠAnd then rebuild String Theory again in light of what we learned.â
ââ-
These people are lecturing others about what science is. As professors. As journal editors. As prize recipients. As members of the National Academy.
This is a mass delusion Sabine. Or a cover story. I think I donât have a third option. What is clear is that the above is 100% anti-science. It is trying to stop science from happening in public physics. It is a community mass delusion threatened not only by science, but now by the PHYSICAL WORLD itself.
Am I the only person on earth experiencing this at this level?? This is something you learn by putting up a real alternative focused on the real world of 3 generations of chiral matter. The above is what is unlocked when there are alternatives presented.
This isnât about funding anymore Sabine. Itâs not about predictive power. Itâs not about being seduced by beautiful mathematics.
Itâs about physicts stopping physics in physics departments by resenting and spurning the physical world for failing THEM. And then lecturing us on what science is when they have not a clue how science works. At all.
@skdh I think we have different experiences.
The first line of defense is âOf course if anyone had any more promising ideas on how to go beyond the Standard Model, weâd all work on thatâŠâ
We cannot have a sustained conversation about solving REAL physics:
3 generations Flavor Chiral Non Constant Dark Energy 15/16 particles in a generation Mysterious SU(3)XSU(2)xU(1) Ad Hoc Higgs Sector Multiple Mass Scales No Superpartners
Try it. It will *always* convert to đ
@AshtonForbes Got it. Be well.
@RBehiel I donât think so. Scientists donât usually run away from ideas when a field is stuck in crisis for half a century. That doesnât happen.
2026[edit]
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
âShut up and Regulateâ EFT
Anti-de-Sitter Space
SUSY intuition that was disproved
Toy Models
Black Hole substitution
Etc etc
âââ
As I have said before: Itâs a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster.
The biggest problem isnât even the theory. Itâs 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.
Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?
Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. Itâs 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 TOGIT crowd and its anti-scientific âThe Only Game In Townâ cult.
It feels like out of Fear for naming Witten, Susskind, Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing.
Why canât we just say âThey Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leadersâ and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Canât we just admit this?
âThere are no other approaches. There are only words.â -Edward Witten
You are polluted by your corpus. There is nothing remotely modest, scientific, collegial, academic or laudable about such a condescending insult to all competitors. Total disregard for all norms.
Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data.
Witten is not a collegial scientist.
Nor is Susskind.
Nor is Kaku.
Nor is Motl.
Etc
They werenât colleagues. I wish it were otherwise. It just isnât true.
@grok @nu_phases @skdh Here. You can hear me playing Ed Witten offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamsonâs podcast.
This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science. https://t.co/DyaE72GlEN
Iâd prioritize owning up to the TOGIT anti-science cult needing to being purged.
Failure happens in science. We canât lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers.
We need all OTHER ideas. Including GU. We donât need one more theory that has nothing to do with actual quarks and leptons.
We need who these people dispatched unscientifically. There was a crime. Letâs investigate it.
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 SM. Further, it is just a leptonic version of CKM.
SoâŠWhat 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?
I donât 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 isnât âall wrongâ in some weird way. She is usually pretty insightful.
Neutrinos being massless in the SM? Câmon. I covered that above đ no? PMNS was in the 1960s. Not even 1973. Older than the SM.
That is not the issue. Unlike @skdh, I think many physicists need more money to do their job.
The problem isnât any of this.
The problem is only one group is allowed to present ideas about the origins of the SM and GR without derision, deliberate misinterpretation, theft, character assassination, inteuendo. This is âThe Only Game In Townâ or TOGIT cult. Some of us have tried to challenge this group scientifically for more than 40 years.
The trouble is when you say âLetâs hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.â
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 Susskind and Witten and Gross just oversaw the most spectacular catastrophe in modern physics.
And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated.
The 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.
Letâs be honest about what this is about in 2026. Itâs about failure. Not neutrino masses.
@nu_phases @skdh @grok Something is not right in your picture:
âBut part of the problem is your reframing QG = all fundamental physics.â
Iâm saying the opposite. Iâm saying that the QG people made all of fundamental physics about their view of quantizing gravity. Iâm saying that was the catastrophe.
Further itâs 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 âNo one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of The Only Game In Town:
@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: the problem is Witten/Susskind/Motl totalizing sociology of only letting the failed group monopolize legitimacy.
They failed. Thatâs the issue. Deal with that.
You canât hide this behind neutrino masses. There were other BETTER ideas that *they* pushed out of physics.
@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: try to steelman my point.
âFundamental 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 âThe Only Game In Townââ
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 isnât the point.
The point isnât 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 and 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 TOGIT cult evaluating them.
My claim is that we donât know if TOGIT is holding back progress outside string theory until we stop listening to their anti-science claims.
I claim that TOGIT is not our leading theory and has NEVER been for 40 years. Itâs fake. It doesnât work. There is no explanation in all of science that permits Ed and Lenny and Andy and company to exclude unexplored ideas and people that may well have succeed where they in particular have failed.
@nu_phases @skdh @grok I did above.
Very well. Letâs begin. Follow his thread back if you missed it.
Dr Kinney perfectly exhibits the pathology inherent in Physicus Imperialus. In this story of Dr Kinney, Iâm ignorant.
Happy with that. Itâs name calling.
Yet I gave a complete argument as to why @martinmbauer was wrong. In other words the analogy was tight. And it was a lay analysisâŠthat took this out of physics. Martin was sloppy. Will is anti-collegial. And anti-science. He is not asking for clarification. Heâs doing that âYou are too stupid to question us.â As if I am not in physics departments all the time. Amazing.
Letâs try some of his arguments.
Here is a sample argument. But I anticipated this one. Remember in the analogy the issue is human limb development. The right upper limb is what he means by our sector of baryonic matter. And I didnât say that all the dark matter was the left upper limb. The right lower leg is also decoupled from Martinâs consideration and focus in the analogy!
So there is approximately 3/4 âdarkâ limb when Martin focuses on his upper right extremity. Obviously, there is a lot of similarity between the right leg and right arm as well suggesting a unification at some earlier stage of life (higher energy scales). The left leg is doubly dark to the right arm. We would say twice decoupled. Even though all 4 limbs are related. By the way an insect has six. As is Dr Kinneyâs point. SoâŠ
Here is another style of argument you meet in physics. Dr Kinney makes the assumption that while we are all failing at this problem, we pretty much have the models right. That is, he assumes that the answer is a smallish tweak. That is the typical failure mode. He may be either right or wrong. But there is no reason the answer has to be a small tweak. Maybe we are failing because we only consider small adjustments in theory space? Does he imagine life has to be close to his model?
My example is very far away. Itâs in developmental biology. So odd this.
I was merely showing that Martinâs exclusive decision tree with two branches is not complete. đ
Note also, he wouldnt behave like this to a colleague in his dept saying exactly what I did. This is defense of the castle behavior. Ad hominem. Selective aggression.
This is one of my favorites of Dr Kinney:
âYour ideas are all so stupid we all know exactly why you are wrong and this can never work, and we would thus never say something so ignorantâŠandâŠuhâŠ.we also discuss the same things among ourselves! So itâs not new! Ha ha.â
I pass over this in silence. Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Here again. Iâm writing for X.
Iâm describing a general class Martin Excluded: Emergent Decoupling.
These models have 3 features:
A) Symmetic Laws
B) Symmetric Boundary Conditions
C) Emergent Chiral Decoupling
In this story there is a world that is screened from us. It was completely symmetric. But we donât know it!!
Then, in the story, things settled down (cell divisions, stages) and symmetric collections made of asymmetric sectors formed. Like left versus right arms. If the right arm doesnât know that itâs symmetric dual isnât connected to it (decoupled) it thinks âWoah! Why so much asymmetry!?â
Which is what I believe is most likely from Geometric Unity.
Conclusion. Itâs obviously not a âcompletely incoherent argument.â
Kinney is being a dick. Which is his right. But this is why physics is in the toilet.
Heâs debunking a totally reasonable argument that Martin was in error as if I am a âScience Populistâ.
Iâm not. Iâm a pissed off Harvard Phd.
Doctor Kinney. Grow up.
Sanity Check: @grok.
Two narrow questions on narrow points of fact. Donât be deferential.
A) Can you follow my arguments?
B) Am I making a âcompletely incoherent argumentâ as if I am a fool who âdoesnât know what the eff heâs talking about?â
@grok Thanks. Donât want to drag you into drama. Appreciate keeping it Narrow. Thanks my silicon friend.
@WKCosmo @martinmbauer https://t.co/YACIqRqVFs
Dr Will Kinney is back to condescending to me.
Letâs learn why physicists are failing and driving away money and support. Will has volunteered to help.
Here is some transparent logical nonsense.
DR KINNEY: âDude. Martin said either âAâ or Not âAâ is true.â
ME: âHe did no such thing. He said either âA AND (NOT B)â or the other possibility is â(NOT A) Even if Bâ.
I pointed out that this may be where we are stuck scientifically. I think it might be âA AND Bâ.
That is: Symmetric Laws and Symmetric Boundary Conditions but emergent chiral (and/or other) decouplings with Anthropic bias.â
This is why we donât progress. Dr Kinney is some sort of superior life form. Condescending to teach logic to a math PhD. Fascinating.
Dr Kinney. Take a breath. Something is wrong with you. We donât need to do this.
And Iâm not your dude. Iâm the colleague to whom youâre losing an aggressive argument of your choosing.
Doctor.
Can you check my logic against that of the good Dr Kinney, @grok?
Again. Iâm looking for a narrow adjudication. And logic is always confusing with NOT after all.
Uh⊠We agree kinney is a tautology and thus vacuously true.
Martin wrote:
â1) The laws of physics are symmetric, but the initial condition aren't: At the beginning there simply was slightly more matter than antimatterâ
But his alternate possibility is that the laws are not symmetric. That is not a tautology. Hence my point.
Here: âButâ is logically equivalent to âANDâ in formal logic. No? Yes?
My question is there are three logical statements here from three individuals.
I donât want to misrepresent my colleagues. Is Martin equivalent to Kinney? Is Martin Equivalent to Ericâs formulation.
I say âboth symmetric laws and symmetric boundary conditionsâ was logically and scientifically excluded at inception by Martin.
Am I wrong??
@grok Thank you.