Chirality: Difference between revisions

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/341505241394589697

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=I was indeed surprised by a questioner asking about [[Chirality|chiral anomalies]] in non-chiral SO(10) theories who didn't think SO(10) anomaly free.

|timestamp=10:42 AM · Jun 03, 2013

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980687868648566784

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980669687313850368

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=1/ APRIL FOOLS' SCIENCE: Theory into Practice.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/979379894978150400

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=1/ APRIL FOOL'S SCIENCE: A proposal.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980671434153275393

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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|"Wu-Yang" dictionary]] around 1975-6, involving 3 super-minds: [[Jim Simons]], [[CN Yang]] & [[Isadore Singer|Is Singer]].

|timestamp=5:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980673146398244865

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=3/ What was learned was that the Quantum of Planck, Bohr  

& [[Paul Dirac|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 [[Bernhard Riemann|B Riemann]]; the other to [[Charles Ehresmann|C Ehresmann]].

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980674834215481344

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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 Theory|Gauge]] Rotation"... as long as you didn't do either of those two things. So I asked could the geometries be unified?

|timestamp=5:14 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980677084094783489

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=5/ This would be a change in physics' main question. Instead of asking if [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] gravity could fit within Bohr's quantum, we could ask "Could [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] structures peculiar to Riemann's geometry be unified & rotated within Ehresmann's?" The answer was almost a 'No!'  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980680721353199618

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=6/ While physicists said the Universe was known to be [[Chirality|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...

|timestamp=5:37 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980682507107602432

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.

|timestamp=5:45 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980683552487440384

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=8/ In short the April 1st "trick" that is being played on me is that I see a *natural* theory where [[Chirality|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.

|timestamp=5:49 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/980686736375164928

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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 [[Theory of Geometric Unity|"Geometric Unity"]] (as a non-physicist) to experts.

|timestamp=6:01 AM · Apr 2, 2018

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198331106795216896

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@kkulk1 Almost no one.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298626952290304

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=My personal & overly condensed view of mathematics and physics in the 20th century would be summarized like this.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298631826096128

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=I would say the one who awes me most is...CN Yang. I don’t 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).

|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298631217930241

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=As for Weinberg, he is one of three people I can make the case for as our “Greatest Living Physicist”. I’ve 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...

|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298630618107904

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.

|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198302966261805057

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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 “applied math” is usually referring to applications of older math to modern problems. Applied Higher Math doesn’t fully exist as a subject. Yet.

|timestamp=6:11 PM · Nov 23, 2019

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1221118117255901184

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Melanie, you‘re one of my favorite stable wave collections co-propagating along the base-space of this twisted chiral Spinor bundle we call reality.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432468941192916996

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=The original tweet. Stripped of the name of its author as I have no need to use it.

|media=ERW-X-post-1432468941192916996-E-Em6BRUcAAM04f.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432461218556432384

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=This is the golden age of stupid.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432461220255207425

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432461221161148417

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=And it goes on forever. Of course none of this is in any way true. But it’s InternetTrue. Which is different. Like the bold claim that I always supported Woke until it turned on me.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432463229574209541

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@IapetusNomusuko At least twice. Because I voted for Yang, Bernie and Tulsi. Obviously.

|timestamp=10:00 PM · Aug 30, 2021

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432467135863791617

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=The first quoted tweet (that was then deleted!) was one of the “How do you feel about your responsibility for the Ivermectin debacle?” tweets that follow me around.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1432467322090901507

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=I simply do not know what to make of Ivermectin. Simple as that.

|timestamp=10:16 PM · Aug 30, 2021

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023478604423169

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=But, of course, The Matrix wasn’t about The Architect. It was about Neo. Neo was protagonist, not the Architect.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023450104147968

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=It’s worth reflecting today on the oddity of Higgs sector within the Standard Model.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023456445919232

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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..).

|media=ERW-X-post-1544023456445919232-FW15Jl2UIAAZAfL.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023460342403072

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

|media=ERW-X-post-1544023460342403072-FW15J49VsAAfNrj.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023464473808896

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

|media=ERW-X-post-1544023464473808896-FW15KG6UUAAh1oi.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023468542345216

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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*.

|media=ERW-X-post-1544023468542345216-FW15KW0VEAEJF0s.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1544023473193754626

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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 of Particle Theory (as TheMatrix). The Higgs Mechanism is the remainder of an unbalanced (chiral Weak nuclear force) equation forbidding all mass.

|media=ERW-X-post-1544023473193754626-FW15KlhVsAEiAAd.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562527334640431104

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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 wasn’t right.

|thread=

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562460747560497153

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.”

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562463292345372672

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562463294014627841

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/String/M theory. Not our particular world’s choice of thy.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562465038962610178

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=String Theory isn’t the problem. String culture is poisonous to science.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562465914695520256

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>you’re

|timestamp=3:44 PM · Aug 24, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562467397281337351

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=P.S. “It hasn’t even failed” because it can’t fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, It’s unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. It’s hard to explain what’s wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power &amp; glory.

|timestamp=3:50 PM · Aug 24, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562524634968309762

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@martinmbauer And I agree with everything you said with the exception of “dramatically overemphasize” (and a tiny bit with “by-far”). But you should go down my list and explain if you want me to understand you substantively, keeping in mind that we aren’t at odds over your assertions.

|timestamp=7:37 PM · Aug 24, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1607678831284084736

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@Colin_Sully @sama Con salsa!

|thread=

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1607610982611972097

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@sama There are only two true generations of fermions and they are fundamentally non-chiral.

|timestamp=5:35 AM · Dec 27, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1607647331301883906

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@Capitalistpig21 @sama Uh. Not true? It's pretty important stuff.

|timestamp=7:59 AM · Dec 27, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1607678417226592260

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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? It’s crazy.

|timestamp=10:02 AM · Dec 27, 2022

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620331273091940352

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@olivia_p_walker This? Chanda is a long time colleague &amp; 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.

|media=ERW-X-post-1620304616180297729-Fnx6dT6aEAIrFwG.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620297553047846913

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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.

|timestamp=5:46 AM · Jan 31, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620297549847601153

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Wow! Holy smokes.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620297556734668802

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620297555086315522

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=In any event, I'd be most interested to talk on the following two topics:  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620297558336872448

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=And remember, you can't get mad. We outsiders are HYPER-marginalized &amp; I'm accepting extra work that you find oppressive &amp; wont do. I'm EXACTLY following what I understand of your tweet and proposition. My concern is also attracting &amp; retaining top talent from all pools. 🙏

|timestamp=5:46 AM · Jan 31, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1620304616180297729

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=For those of you saying you are blocked, here is the tweet I am to which I am responding so I don’t misrepresent Chanda’s position:

|media=ERW-X-post-1620304616180297729-Fnx6dT6aEAIrFwG.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744563154272256

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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 can’t hurt anyone. It’s 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.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744552039374848

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744555814223872

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.

|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 03, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744560180502528

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Oddly, even though Roger Penrose and I were on the same side on this stage, I couldn’t subscribe to much of Penrose’s critique of strings and found myself agreeing more with Brian Greene on the technical points.

|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 03, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744557689106432

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=So, now in the current post-string era, it is perfectly acceptable for people to work on “Quantum Gravity” 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.

|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 03, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=To sum it up: when 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 is not being honest?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677230177544470529

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.”

|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 07, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677235567871021059

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard model” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. It isn’t at all about what you think. It is a true statement.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677368642328211456

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=“IMO objectively true”

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677399374647934978

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nomissernothome @JosephPConlon I am so confused.

|timestamp=7:29 PM · Jul 07, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677449460677509120

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=I don’t think that’s the issue Joseph. At all.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678554652026220544

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679328534140170240

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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 don’t think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. It’s a solid argument.

|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679329566161276933

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that “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?”

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679331799439396864

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679332528610738178

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679333915365101568

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679334548646277120

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679335373070008320

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon 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?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679336247322636290

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679337827786719239

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679338937561776129

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680217280125472769

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Who turned out to be right?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680009866382032897

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Some have been making this point for 39 years. We are not now “At a point where we really ought to question…”.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680215975084564480

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Sorry. By whom? Do I expect to be taken seriously by the many String Theorists who called their colleagues morons, frauds and “not serious” behind their backs? No. I don’t.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871127090067915264

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Some of us propose such solutions.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1870919781559443546

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1870919779189670098

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this claim.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1870920899722977310

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.

|timestamp=7:54 PM · Dec 22, 2024

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871122619661205902

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Hi Matt.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1871124671053345101

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979661662375510479

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Sure thing. And thx!

|thread=

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979237092040544670

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Right. They do.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979237094762651927

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=In Geometric Unity, The fundamental mass scale isn’t a hard coded number. It’s a VeV of a field.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979245291653206296

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Joseph: This was about chiral anomalies 12 years ago. In non chiral theories.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979249610741944526

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Come again. Sir.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979251533478007151

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon Hey @grok: “Why isn’t the Standard Model of particle physics absolutely DOA if both the leptonic and hadronic sectors have two separate anomalies?”

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979269260271849871

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon A discrete transition from 1 coupled to two effectively decoupled sectors from a continuous VeV.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979593225469067561

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=And if you Joseph Conlon are made out of say that Left handed spinor entirely:  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979593888013983759

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon That is exactly the point:

|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979596223020675072

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon GU isn’t Chiral. I’m not sure what we are discussing.

|timestamp=5:11 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979599114150224202

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Which is my point:  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979600123949900147

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Appreciate that. It isn’t 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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979600343303598521

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Yes. This is exactly what I think happens.

|timestamp=5:27 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979602935077319095

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=He was/is very smart. A great expositor. Often kind in person.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979604306769989645

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Okay. Keep it simple and physical:  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979619831738667353

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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.   

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979643072729534623

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Uh, no This is your confusion Professor.  Not Frenkel’s. The theory has “moving parts” as you say.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979643462288044433

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@JosephPConlon Whose scientific credibility is burning, Professor? Frenkel’s? Yours? Mine?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979645695155171484

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979650707381961128

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Without the abuse. Sure.

|timestamp=8:48 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979651326322839813

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Address that lecture to our colleague first and you will find an open heart:

|media=ERW-X-post-1979651326322839813-G3kiY5eXMAAkuNs.jpg

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979651549669560494

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon It appears that the good Dr Conlon, has forgotten himself.

|timestamp=8:51 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979655506131300488

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=David is great.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979658708176216139

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Uh…wow. So you realize Ed is a collaborator of Witten, Losef, Nekrasov, Gaiotto, Gukov, etc and has spoken at Strings?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979659495853961675

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon Yeah, I meant a talk.

|timestamp=9:22 PM · Oct 18, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979659899610247645

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@karch_andreas @JosephPConlon I don’t just wander from

Los Angeles to Austin. My feet get tired.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1979661582977351972

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=That’s just it. What the fuck is “debunking” doing here? Like non string colleagues are URI Geller level spoon benders talking about Sasquatch with Ouija boards?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1987189790962556995

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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 “L” was to eliminate “I’ll” w/o giving away the “V”.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803710551290047

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Here is what is wrong with Effective Field Theory, to me, as explained by Wheel Of Fortune.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986803714179633663

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=GU says: “That is eminently reasonable &amp; 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 &amp; money: let’s get back to American Cowboy science.”

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986806254946394587

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=When it comes to Ed Witten/Lenny Susskind vs John F. Donoghue/Ken Wilson, I’m just not in that game. Not my colleagues. Not my rodeo.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986809568106815908

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=And @grok, can you make this argument understandable to anyone claiming to be confused by this analogy? Thx partner.

|timestamp=2:54 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986810254353699151

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok That we have had an answer for 41 years. The problem isn’t physics. It’s us.

|timestamp=2:57 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986812828091883649

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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 Schrödinger’s hesitation to be minorlu wrong in print?

|timestamp=3:07 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986816938740461888

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986820723537764815

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Oh it is so dumb @grok. It’s a bunch of trolls/stalkers/harassers trying ‘gotcha’ quibbles with  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986821526969348395

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok Ask me a question or two @grok. I’ll

try. Wanna start with Pati-Salam? Somewhere else?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986825743352176921

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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. ;-)

|timestamp=3:59 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986826496397439305

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok Okay. You first have to understand the Pati-Salam Grand Unification Group. How do you see it?

|timestamp=4:02 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986827985761259829

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@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.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986829468460359845

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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).

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986831226049806830

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Okay. GU doesn’t 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!  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986831916151316898

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok Pull back plain untwisted spinors from Y^{14} via a metric. What do you get on X^4?

|timestamp=4:23 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986833020159205828

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=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.

|timestamp=4:28 PM · Nov 07, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986833699649011903

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok There is no chiral anomaly. Because the chiral flip is there. It’s just dark matter now. Get it??  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986835738466656309

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Sorry: griping. Yes you have it.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986836547883442419

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok Generational mixing angles: roll up the spinor twisted 3-step deRahm complex from the Fermionic shiab operator. It all just kinda falls out. It’s natural.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986837671168385206

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@grok Really appreciate being able to have this ability to talk with you. You should talk to @edfrenkel like we do here sometimes. He’s doing amazing stuff of his own.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1986957708491407442

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@arivero @grok Oddly it was exactly this issue. And it didn’t make full sense. It was imperative that a narrow Index Theory result somehow destroyed all hope in *ANY* generalized Kaluza Klein model.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2004627745280839715

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@skdh I think we have different experiences.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2004563773957566865

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=It’s not that String Theorists ended up forgetting details of the physical world, so much as they ended up resenting the physical world for existing.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2005023127211012101

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@RBehiel I don’t think so. Scientists don’t usually run away from ideas when a field is stuck in crisis for half a century. That doesn’t happen.

|thread=

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2004949691252011397

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=We cannot have a sustained conversation about solving REAL physics:

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2004997177786204164

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@AshtonForbes Got it. Be well.

|timestamp=7:25 PM · Dec 27, 2025

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007620238540783727

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok I did above.

|thread=

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Why 3 generations?

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007457799182119422

|name=Eric Weinstein

I’m all ears @grok.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007459351926338005

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=“There are no other approaches. There are only words.” -Edward Witten  

Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data.  

Etc  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007462489814954110

|name=Eric Weinstein

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

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007464525881323876

|name=Eric Weinstein

Failure happens in science. We can’t lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007540816693342542

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=Hi Daniel,  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007549501188505965

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Many things have happened in general physics in 50 years:

Etc.

That’s not what we are discussing, is it?  

|timestamp=8:27 PM · Jan 03, 2026

}}

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007560556207869967

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

The problem isn’t any of this.

The trouble is when you say “Let’s hear from all the people with ideas that directly *contradict* the String Theory leaders.”

And everyone who dares to say this is scapegoated.  

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.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007577463497601336

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Something is not right in your picture:  

|timestamp=10:19 PM · Jan 03, 2026

}}

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007578265893114346

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.

|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 03, 2026

}}

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007579362913054897

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: the problem is Witten/Susskind/Motl totalizing sociology of only letting the failed group monopolize legitimacy.

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007582523728245073

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@nu_phases @skdh @grok Daniel: try to steelman my point.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007619430302564725

|name=Eric Weinstein

|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.  

|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2021382361188008232

|name=Eric Weinstein

|content=@WKCosmo @martinmbauer https://t.co/YACIqRqVFs

|thread=