Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions

The cost of misrepresenting string theory for a 1/4 century is not only loss of public trust. It's many successes trapped in snakeoil jars.

12:34 PM · Mar 7, 2010

I am only now understanding that even other physicists don't grasp how much 'string theorists' have explained in quantum field theory.

12:39 PM · Mar 7, 2010

It is gnawing at me that topological quantum field theory lacks a deRahm version and was born in Hodge formulation.

4:32 PM · Aug 26, 2010

Q: Is it possible that the *framework* of 'quantum field theory' is no more limited to physics than was differential calculus?

1:57 PM · Sep 1, 2010

2011[edit]

I am saddened to read of the death of Dan Quillen. He is arguably the only one of us to have deepened quantum field theory 'en passant.'

12:43 AM · May 3, 2011

2017[edit]

@ChaosRapist @SamHarrisOrg @jordanbpeterson

When you're done with Pepe, I'll find some energy.

5:50 AM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist I looked at your post-Pepe feed. "Retard", "Nazi babies", pentagrams, physical fighting challenges, Yet smart.Don't love combo.

3:17 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist I'll say a few brief things and then check out. My objection is predicated on the richness of the objects in standard math/phys

3:19 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist Freudenthal-Tits, monster group, Spinor reps, Atiyah Singer, Bott periodicity. These are all beyond human ability to create.

3:21 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist Further my theory of Geometric Unity suggests an inevitable universe that bootstraps itself into emergent existence from nothin

3:23 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist So an inevitable emergently rich physical and mathematical universe beyond human ingenuity is my substrate and starting point.

3:25 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist That said, this is not a formal refutation of a human centered universe. It is a refutation based on taste and plausibility.

3:27 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist I can steelman intuitionistic arguments to make them unkillable at a corresponding cost of implausibility. That kills interest.

3:29 PM · Feb 1, 2017

@ChaosRapist But if you want to make a human centered argument for non Abelian Lie groups and Quantum field theory I wish you the best. Ciao

3:32 PM · Feb 1, 2017

If I had but one paragraph to recommend as the most important in all of literature, it might well be this one. However, as you might imagine, unpacking it, could take up your entire life.

[There is a 'flaw' in the paragraph. The word 'gauge' should be replaced by 'structure'.]

4:21 PM · Nov 8, 2017

1/ Interesting esoteric features:
i) refers to Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational force. (only implicitly).
ii) refers to the Yang-Mills-Maxwell Equation for the other forces (only implicitly).
iii) refers to the Dirac Equation for matter (yet again, only implicitly).

5:40 PM · Nov 8, 2017

2/ The Quantum (e.g. quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum measurement, etc...) is relegated to a *secondary* status below the key geometric insights. This was likely done very subtly when the paper was given in the 1980s, as it was, and remains, a revolutionary idea.

5:43 PM · Nov 8, 2017

End/ An interpretation is that Witten, the greatest living mathematical physicist, was indicating to us that it was only these *abstractions* that were likely to survive, while the instantiations (i.e. the exact equations we still use) would likely perish.

A msg never recieived.

5:49 PM · Nov 8, 2017

2019[edit]

One of the world’s greatest men has died. Most of you will have no idea who this is. I just don’t know how to bridge that gap yet to tell you what he did.

I was very close with his top collaborator. They were the Watson and Crick of mathematics to me. They rewrote my whole life.

3:48 PM · Jan 12, 2019

The Royal Society

@royalsociety

Michael Atiyah OM FRS, President of the Royal Society 1990 -1995, died today. He was "a wonderful person who was a true internationalist and a fervent supporter for investing in talent – themes which resonate very clearly today." Read the full tribute https://royalsociety.org/news/2019/01/tribute-to-former-president-of-the-royal-society-sir-michael-atiyah/

3:48 PM · Jan 12, 2019

There is a little known stone wall on Long Island. While flawed, it is a gift to all mankind that should be a pilgrimage site, as an understanding of the contents is nesessary to understand our world. Think of it as transcendent graffiti. Atiyah‘s spray-paint is everywhere here.

4:36 PM · Jan 12, 2019

Imagine watery planets with holes and twists. Knotted donut planets called base spaces. Crazy oceans called “Vector bundles” and “Principal bundles”.

He told us about how the twists and holes determine what waves must live on them and which cannot.

4:59 PM · Jan 12, 2019

He helped direct Ed Witten and Graeme Segal to truly tell us what Quantum Field Theory really was beyond being a physical theory. These men took a grab bag of techniques developed for calculation and showed us that they were a mellifluous whole of geometry, topology and physics.

5:03 PM · Jan 12, 2019

If you want to know why I am so passionate about resisting the reign of terror against true scholarship it is this. Universities housed REAL scholarship beyond your wildest dreams. This kind of scholarship is not socially constructed. Almost no one can even do this level of work.

5:07 PM · Jan 12, 2019

Priyamvada Natarajan

@SheerPriya

Very sad news indeed - I knew Michael from when I was at @TrinCollCam he was brilliant, warm & amazing. Was at a conference where he was supposed to speak on thursday #higgscentre - he cancelled at the last minute....

5:47 PM · Jan 12, 2019

Wow. Did you guys ever talk shop? I have to admit I didn’t always get the most out of him 1 on 1. Singer and Bott were much clearer. Atiyah and Witten tended to tell you something related to whatever you asked but often not in a dialogue. More like a juke box of answers.

5:53 PM · Jan 12, 2019

Priyamvada Natarajan

@SheerPriya

More recently we talked about dark matter and black holes (2 yrs ago now) he was very excited about astro... b4 when i was a student he was just very encouraging and warm

5:56 PM · Jan 12, 2019

Over time I’ve noted a fair number of scientifically oriented people who found Chemistry inscrutable. Math, biology & physics show up as strengths, but they report Chemistry as the subject they couldn’t learn.

Does anyone else have this experience and, if so, can you explain it?

2:59 PM · Feb 7, 2019

@Turin_Luca Luca, you are my go to guy here.

Let me imagine you had a high school that couldn’t possibly exist in reality because it taught quantum field theory by 9th grade and fairly advanced biology in 10th *before* chemistry in 11th grade. Would that make chemistry seem far less random?

3:32 PM · Feb 7, 2019

@Turin_Luca Wow. Is this complexity persisting through to the research layer partially behind your disputes with chemists/biologists over olfaction?

3:53 PM · Feb 7, 2019

Attention: I found out from Wikipedia that as of the 17th, I'm NOT a mathematician anymore despite a PhD, but an economist. I now state that I've never taken a class in economics. In physics I have a semester of mechanics. No E&M/QFT.

I'm the Impostor your mama warned you about.

7:35 PM · Mar 21, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

Ok. This is a weird take. The reluctance to engage foundations of quantum mechanics stemmed from the fact that it was far less generative than research in quantum field thy for decades. When Standard Model QFT stagnated & Quantum Gravity stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.

10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019

Sean Carroll

@seanmcarroll

Shots fired! "Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it." -- me, in the New York Times @nytopinion #SomethingDeeply

3:19 PM · Sep 8, 2019

There was an underlying political economy to the issue masked by “shut up & calculate”. I agree that the quantum field theorists were often, and words fail me, dicks about quantum foundations. But it was really an overlay on a rational calculation of expected return from 1928-74.

10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019

2020[edit]

This is at the heart of my disagreement with @skdh. I am doubly contrarian with respect to QFT. I believe that many of the things they tried say were abstractly reasonable but clearly misinstanciated. To make their mere calculations beautiful, they were creating a hideous world.

4:08 PM · Jan 29, 2020

The first talk I ever gave revealing the Physics I was actually working on @ Harvard/MIT was at MIT at the insistence of the great Isadore Singer. The one man who *fully* understood what I said came to me afterwards & insisted we speak. He seemed half mad: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11608

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

His name was Robert Hermann. I couldn't tell what was going on. He was very excited & wanted to be of any help possible. It was almost terrifying as I was not eager to discuss the work. When I told Singer about it, Singer said "That's a high compliment. Do you know who that is?"

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

I told Is "I know him from an enormous number of self-published books only" Then the great MIT Professor said: "Eric, that is the first man to figure out that quantum field theory is based on the geometry of Fiber Bundles before Simons, Wu, Yang & I did our work."

I was floored.

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

This odd man, working outside the University system, outside Peer Review, and outside normal publishing was held in awe by the TOP Mathematician at MIT. The system knew who it had lost and revered him as a serious mind; a man with a viable claim to an earth shattering discovery.

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

It simultaneously filled me with fear & hope. This odd man was not a nut or lunatic. I had spoken to a true maverick & he had seen me like no one else...even beyond my good friend Is Singer. Years later I tried to contact him but he was in an old age home with dementia. All lost.

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

A missed moment. I was too scared to leave the damned university system behind me with all of its rules and enforced rituals. I knew what he represented: freedom, genius and irrelevancy except for the tiny number of people at the absolute top of the field.

I was too cowardly.

10:54 PM · Feb 21, 2020

Robert: I never got the chance to "Thank You" for believing in me and your offer of help. My bad. So thank you.

RIP: Robert C. Hermann (April 28, 1931 – February 10, 2020) Maverick and Likely discoverer of the Geometric Basis of the Quantum Field Theory of the Standard Model.

11:01 PM · Feb 21, 2020

ERW-X-post-1230991527918178305-ERVcQ7 U4AAKT2v.jpg

11:03 PM · Feb 21, 2020

I have been asked by @PBSSpaceTime to appear on Aug. 4th in a new 2 episode Livestream series as the only mathematician among physicists @skdh, @DrBrianKeating, Lee Smolin, @lirarandall, @stephstem, @tegmark, @matt_of_earth & @jbbeacham.

Please join us!

https://t.co/ElZQKTs5de

11:09 PM · Jul 24, 2020

[Not to complain, but given that the focus is "Theories of Everything" (used here as a term of art), there really should be someone representing the mainstream of the quantum field theory community. I am, as a non-physicist, not in the best position to make this case however.]

11:09 PM · Jul 24, 2020

https://x.com/the_jon_a_thon/status/1317859684997476353

I don’t think there is a problem with string theory per se.

The problem was with *string theorists*. Quite simply, String theory allowed its proponents to put down the work of everyone else by allowing its boosters to claim an imminent solution which never actually ships.

3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020

Further, when ever anyone did something (call it X) that was important but seemingly non stringy or anti-string, the string theorists would publish an all but unreadable paper titled like “X and its Stringy Origin” to claim that *all* good ideas are subsumed by String Theory.

3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020

Why did this work? Because String Theory attracted top minds from what had traditionally been the cream of the Quantum Field Theory community, and they‘d clearly found a large piece of mathematical structure. What they failed to find was a connection from that to real physics. 🙏

3:41 AM · Oct 19, 2020

2021[edit]

In strong GU:

SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) (Standard Model)

Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside

Spin(6)xSpin(4) =SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)

(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)

I’d look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

11

@11Equity

@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677

4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021

As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find:

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with Standard model symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their ‘internal’ quantum numbers as:

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them?

A: I don’t.

But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a QFT calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague.

So let’s talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. That’s not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely.

But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ “Beyond the Standard Model” theories. 🙏

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

P.S. Happy to attempt to sharpen what GU can say. But not working on my own outside the community. If you want more precise predictions than I already have, I’d need access to normal resources (e.g. constructive QFT colleagues). Working outside from home it’s probably impossible.

7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021

P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU it’s 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation.

Again I would need QFT colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.

7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021

“If Maxwell and Yang had never been born, Bundle Geometry & Variational Calculus would have found Yang-Mills anyway. If Bohr and Planck had never been born Symplectic Geometry of line bundles would have found quantum theory anyway.”

Again: am I wrong?

12:37 AM · May 5, 2021

Just to finish up for completeness:

“If Dirac had never been born, Index Theory & Bordism would have found Quantum Field Theory anyway as an enhanced extraordinary cohomology theory.”

I’m sorry, but all my statements are as or more accurate than what you tweeted.

12:37 AM · May 5, 2021

Why do string theorists pretending to do physics get to BS everyone actually trying to do physics.

We have worked out a world where string theorists and their supporters attack everyone else but say much more outrageous bullshit to the public than any other group by far.

12:37 AM · May 5, 2021

Should we discuss? Perhaps I misunderstood you @michiokaku. But, if so, you are welcome to educate me on my show. But I feel you are *incredibly* aggressive against all non string theorists and you are not comparably challenged by all who know better for reasons I can’t fathom.

12:37 AM · May 5, 2021

Dear @michaelshermer,

Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also don’t find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of “no isolated discontinuous innovation” quite interesting!

Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?

Michael Shermer

@michaelshermer

Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why UAPs cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to UAPs that if true would be decades or centuries ahead of us. History shows no nations/companies of comp development so lag. https://quillette.com/2021/06/03/understanding-the-unidentified/

10:13 PM · Jun 12, 2021

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically “centuries ahead” is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.

Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? I’d have guessed “many” (not .5) and been wrong.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Next challenge: doesn’t your line of reasoning prove that “Renaissance Technologies” is either a fraud or a front? Their Medallion Fund is otherwise a long term unbreached secret, discontinuous from any other know investment fund seemingly thousands of years ahead of competitors.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Now I’ve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, it’s either a counter example to your claims on discontinuous innovation if it is merely a fund or a counter-example to your secrecy claims if it is our secret physics program.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Next: there are really two metrics on innovations.

Metric I: How big the incremental jump in difficulty.

Metric II: How big the jump in what is unlocked.

The great fear is that a small jump measured by 1 leading to an ENORMOUS jump in as measured by II.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people can’t exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.

They all exhibited the “a little unlocks a lot” paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the world’s top employed anti-gravity researcher(?!) of the 1950s turned in what may be the most impressive 15yr output in the history of the subject by my estimation. How can I begin to explain this?

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

It’s not physics exactly. But Edward Witten w support from a small number of folks rewrote Quantum Field Theory as geometry. If Einstein geometrized gravity, then Witten geometrized Quantum Field theory (everything else).

Now, all that change has so far unlocked exactly nothing.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

But it’s not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, Witten & Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius & power looking for its 1st application to the 🌎.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

If you gave us E Witten, J Simons, I Singer, CN Yang, M Atiyah, D Quillen & G Segal, in a quiet program in 1975, I could argue that they didn’t need much more. In fact you don’t need all 7 but for the sake of argument I can make the case using this. But Witten is the main engine.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I don’t know those systems as well so I’ll use the US example.

We know most of the top minds. We pretend that there is a lot of subjectivity about this for social reasons but China wouldn’t.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

If I thought like CCP, I’d create a lavish secret theoretical physics program modeled on the Russian Sharashka system. The key would be to get it to look like something else. A boring Tech company or some weird Chinese fund to disguise the reason for the secretive lavish campus.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

[Digression: If the US were smarter, we’d do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists & ML experts by a national lab & an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry & physics. But enough crazy talk..]

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

If CCP could today repeat what Witten (& friends) did building off Geometric Quantum Field Thy, the US would have Zero clue what it unlocks. Even by your own incrementalist theory. It might unlock absolutely nothing. Or passage to the stars via additional degrees of freedom. 🤷‍♂️

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

One last point. I released such a theory. Could well be wrong.

But I can tell you I should have received a call from DOE. Because calls are cheap and relevant trained PhDs are *very* finite. The US should track every geometer, General Relativist, and Particle Theorist working.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

You don’t have to take a position on me or GU. You can ask Wolfram or Lisi or Barbour or Deutsche or anyone outside the system whether such calls are placed. They are not. No one *in* the system believes in wild discontinuous change from *outside* the system. As per your article.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Which is to say we’re not monitoring. Maybe we think that’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe we think that a Grisha Perelman of physics is impossible.

How much does a phone call cost if a researcher is wrong vs not bothering if they’re right? Price the Type I & II error. Nuts.

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.

We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I can’t think of a single story to fit to these reports I’m hearing about.

I welcome your thoughts. As always.

Warm regards,

Eric

5:40 PM · Jun 13, 2021

“If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.” - Feynman

Feynman was not able to simply explain a great deal of things to many people. Including experts. I know that many of you find that shocking.

But Internet’s take is wrong here.

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

Prof. Feynman

@ProfFeynman

If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.

2:14 PM · Jan 21, 2018

Even the great Feynman said a great many meretricious things about science. Mostly because he wanted to speak in a powerful and overly simplistic fashion that lay people loved. “Hey, if I can’t understand you, it’s because YOU don’t get it! Ha.”

Except that isn’t how this works.

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

This is a description of how Feynman’s brilliant “Sum Over Histories” technique went over at the Pocono conference in the spring of 1948. Feynman wasn’t able to explain what he was doing to even the world’s very top experts in Theoretical Physics!

And how did he explain failure?

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

Very simply: “My machines came from too far away.”

The Internet needs to grow out of its expectation that it can use what is possibly Feynman’s dumbest quote to dismiss those it cannot quickly understand. But it won’t. Why? Because the quote is both powerful and totally wrong.

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

Disagree? Great. Prove it!

Step I: Get someone who understands “The Families Index Theorem on Manifolds with Boundary” to fully explain it simply to you.

Step II: Explain it to us all!

I look forward to conceding to you. Until then? Maybe go easy on Feynman’s dumbest take?

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

https://imo.universite-paris-saclay.fr/~bismut/Bismut/1990e.pdf]

If you still love repeating that Feynman quote despite the greater context provided, here’s some material. Ask your expository heroes to explain it.

Good luck. Because, if I’m not wrong, you’re gonna need it…

[Until then, here’s a primary source:

🙏

6:39 AM · Dec 15, 2021

Note: The quote in the original tweet has a typographical error. It should be:

"Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."—Richard Feynman. As Quoted in “People”, 22 July 1985.

6:47 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@Eluminat1 Witten? Dirac? Did they make the cut?

6:53 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@karlbykarlsmith Not as I understand it. Feynman’s diagrams are just an indexing scheme for series terms albeit a provocative one. The apparent classical localization of position & momentum is taking place in the indexing diagram, NOT in the quantum propagator which the diagrams sum to construct.

7:02 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@NukeBeach Ultimately it required more time, more conferences, and Dyson, Bethe, and Wilson to put the full Theory in a form where it was accepted.

7:05 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@rolfascending @travislambirth Great. Just apply your critique in the terms you understand it to the challenge problem of the thread so I can fully appreciate the point of what you are saying. Thanks.

8:36 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@theoctobear It’s a test. Show us what it means to explain a proven theorem in simple terms. So easy. Find the experts who understand it and have them explain it in these simple terms that all interested parties can understand. Piece of cake I would think.

8:40 AM · Dec 15, 2021

@robnormal That’s the beginning. Then that the listeners be *highly* motivated. Also intelligent. Also, that no listeners are trying not to understand. Etc

Pretty soon it’s stone soup. You’re no longer explaining things quickly at a party but you’re now teaching QFT courses at university.

2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021

Things got hard. They didn’t get hopeless.

Yes we spent almost 40 years lying about string theory. But we could stop today. We could have the leaders in the field admit they made a *colossal* bad bet & ask “What did we dispose of while we were wildly over-hyping string theory?”

12:47 AM · Dec 23, 2021

🇺🇲TradeTexasBig🇮🇳

@TradeTexasBig

Its increasingly apparent to me that the next physics breakthrough is gonna be from #ai . Its humanly not possible anymore for theoretical physicists ..i was feeling it even around 2010

12:17 AM · Dec 23, 2021

Sabine Hossenfelder

@skdh

They can't stop, Eric. They're making a living from writing papers about things no one will ever see. It's a systemic problem that requires a systemic response. And the first step would be to admit they have a problem (which they don't).

4:25 AM · Dec 23, 2021

WeLivetoServe

@WeLivetoServe

Seems likely a lot of the math they developed will wind up handy, but it's a long time to wait for dessert.

4:30 AM · Dec 23, 2021

Sabine Hossenfelder

@skdh

Most of what physicists call math is totally uninteresting even for mathematicians. It's just advanced calculus. Look here is my qft and when I crunch it cross-sections fall out.

4:33 AM · Dec 23, 2021

We may disagree intellectually more than I thought. This is Jackiw’s point: the era of physics thinking of mathematics as advanced calculus (analysis) wasn’t fruitful.

That changed around 1975 when the quantum began to discover geometry.

I’m honestly confused. What do you mean?

3:00 AM · Dec 24, 2021

Sabine Hossenfelder

@skdh

We are talking past each other. I am referring to particle physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists who crunch out shallow and useless papers in the thousands. There's no interesting math in those. You're talking about something else entirely.

5:15 AM · Dec 23, 2021

QFT & cross-sections sound more like particle theory than Astrophysics, Cosmology or even GR.

Would we agree that the collision of Witten/Singer/Quillen/Seiberg/Freed/Bismut/Maldacena/Penrose/Atiyah/ Hitchin/Dijgraff/Vafa/Segal/Jackiw/Kontseivich/Alvarez-Gaume/etc has been magic?

6:11 AM · Dec 24, 2021

There are a lot of string theorists who have done things that really matter to geometry, topology, analysis on manifolds, representation theory. And I don’t want to misunderstand your point.

6:13 AM · Dec 24, 2021

Said differently I’ve been bullish on positive externalities of mathematical physics. But a lot of great math that got done isn’t string theory. It’s claimed to be stringy but it is really mostly mathematical physics or geometric field theory that is claimed by string theorists.

6:16 AM · Dec 24, 2021

2022[edit]

That wasn’t shared with me. I don’t mind that we explore whether GR researchers or QFT theorists are more likely to believe in TOEs than say condensed matter folks. But I’m not up for reifying alleged oppression of [irrelevant identity group A] over [irrelevant identity group B].

10:05 AM · Jan 3, 2022

We seem to be rebasing our entire society on aggressive and unquestionable academic theories from the social sciences that appear not to have even existed in 1988.

That seems like a big decision. I mean, I believe in Quantum Field Theory…but I wouldn’t bet the country on it.

5:24 PM · May 24, 2022

I make frequent claims that are counter to the description of the Standard Model of physics. It’s not fun, but it’s tolerated to question things like “How well do we know this to be true? How strong is the evidence? How might this all be wrong or formulated in a misleading way.”

5:29 PM · May 24, 2022

When it became clear that the W Vector Boson might be more massive than claimed, we asked such questions. “Could we be wrong here?”

When I question these other theories, no one ever says that. They just call names. How are we more certain of Whiteness Studies than say Einstein?

5:33 PM · May 24, 2022

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

Physics Today: “Remind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do quantum gravity so it’s not something I’ve worked with since my QFT class.”

3:24 PM · Aug 24, 2022

What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasn’t even failed.

4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022

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.

3:34 PM · Aug 24, 2022

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

3:34 PM · Aug 24, 2022

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

String theory, like love, means never having to say your sorry. Or mistaken.

It’s the January 6 problem…but in science. But where the physics versions of Mike Pence often got fired for not going along. 🙏

3:41 PM · Aug 24, 2022

*you’re

3:44 PM · Aug 24, 2022

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 & glory.

3:50 PM · Aug 24, 2022

What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasn’t even failed.

4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022

1) General Relativity
2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry
3) Quantum Field Theory
4) Material Science/Condensed Matter
5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry
6) Disinformation Theory
7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming
8) Propaganda
9) Preference Falsification Theory
10) Mansfield Amendment

10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022

One Fine Day

@OneFineDia_

@LueElizondo recently gave a small list of topics he would recommend for study to begin to wrangle "the Phenomenon", if he "were king". What areas of intersectional learning do YOU think are needed and should be more deeply looked into? Your ufology curriculum. Thanks, Eric.

9:44 PM · Oct 12, 2022

11) Science Policy Theory (V Bush)
12) Selection (Abstracted)
13) Comparative Eschatology
14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called ‘Golden age of General Relativity’.
15) GU
16) Mind control.

Remember: you asked! ;-)

10:08 PM · Oct 12, 2022

GambleDale

@GambleDale

PrimaoMansfield amendment of 1969… or 1973?

11:03 PM · Oct 12, 2022

Wow! Thanks for asking Dale. 1969…but 1973 is closely related.

Nobody gets this anymore. It’s like talking to the wind. Thanks for spotting that entry. Truly.

11:25 PM · Oct 12, 2022

GambleDale

@GambleDale

(Was supposed to read, “Primarily Mansfield Amendment…” but fat-fingered the iPhone word prompt)

Thanks for the reply!

11:39 PM · Oct 12, 2022

I got it immediately. Stay in touch? Thx.

12:34 AM · Oct 13, 2022

@MadsOlesenDK Nah. I would study basic GR. It’s a bit steep, but not as bad as QFT to learn by a long shot.

4:36 PM · Nov 7, 2022

2023[edit]

Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.

I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in Quantum Field Theory of 1928-47 was broken. https://x.com/MBKplus/status/1618356997107355649

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work. Enter Duncan McInnes.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

On January 21 1946, McInnes suggested to Frank Jewett a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders. As head of the National Academy of Sciences, Jewett allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

Beginning on June 1, 1947 at the Rams Head Inn on Shelter Island NY and ending on Weds June 4th, 24 mostly untested participants "hung out" together.

The actual cost of the meeting was...[drum roll please]...$872.00 in 1947 dollars. Which is about $12,000.00 in 2023 dollars.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

So by simply getting rid of most of the failed 1928-1947 leadership and focusing on the most promising untested physicists, a $12K slush fund in today's dollars changed history ending a two decade stagnation debuting Feynman's Path Integral, the Lamb Shift & the two Meson theory.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

So why do I suggest Hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands? Good question! First, it is harder to get rid of the failed leadership because our stagnation as of Februrary 2023 is 50 years old not 19. But also, Shelter Island needed two companion conferences in 1948-9.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

The Pocono Manor Inn meeting in Pennsylvania & the Oldstone conference in Peeskill NY were around $1200 each in 1948 and 1949 respectively. As it turned out, the electron mass in the QED theory and the measured mass had been set equal when they were distinct quantities. Who knew!

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

According to many of the participants these three conferences (but particularly Shelter Island) were the most important conferences of their entire careers. Feynman was in his late 20s. This is how you get unstuck. How you build leadership. How you stop failing year after year...

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

Those 3 conferences fixed the problem of infinites destroying the explanatory power of QED.

So I padded the HELL out of those numbers because I think the stagnations are similar with the major problem being leadership. I could be wrong. But it might take $1/2 Million to test it.

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

That isn't the issue. The issue is that the leadership is not passing the baton and there are no McInnes or Jewett figures. And professors now don't even know this history it seems! Don't they teach this in Physics class? Maybe it's too dangerous to learn how physics works. ;-)

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

So...feel free to try to snark your way out of this. But I'll stand my ground. We don't need to go "Funeral by Funeral", but I'm tiring of "Calabi-Yau Phenomenology" or Multiverse excuses as a replacement for actual physics. We need to go back to science. https://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/

8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023

As to what's wrong with modern physics: let's start with Quantum Gravity. Bryce DeWitt started a failed 70 year wild goose chase in 1953 that is not working. If we lost 20 years on conflating Bare v Dressed masses, we just lost 70 years on Quantum Gravity. Maybe take a time out?

8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023

I have thought this through. It isn't a cheap shot. And I have waited until the 50th anniversary to be this frontal about it. But it has never been controversial since Planck to suggest that aged failed leaders are a huge issue. I'm not the Funeral by Funeral guy. He was. ;-)

8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023

Lastly, I can't stand anti-collegial snark. We can escalate if you want, but if instead you would like to have a serious discussion next time, it would be my pleasure. Shall we try this again?

I'm Eric. Huge fan of what you guys do. Big supporter. Nice to meet you. Thanks.

8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023

@MBKplus Sorry to be slow, but you used a screenshot so I wouldn’t see your response rather than a quote tweet.

Not big on snark. But here is a proper response. Didn’t know the history had become so obscure to modern physicists. My bad.

Thread:

9:07 AM · Jan 26, 2023

casᴇʏ oʟsᴇɴ

@caseylolsen

This was a proper fuck you 🤌

8:45 AM · Jan 26, 2023

Nah. It’s a sensitive topic. Almost 40 years of string theology. 50 years of stagnation. 70 years of quantum gravity not shipping a theory.

I get it. But snark is a tell. The youngest Nobel particle theorist is over 70. I think 8 are alive. It’s really bad.

9:19 AM · Jan 26, 2023

I have no underlying animosity towards Mike. Let’s see what happens next.

9:21 AM · Jan 26, 2023

James footy

@Jamesfooty1

Honest to god, what are you talking about? In your mind does 'fundamental physics' consist solely of an oddball sitting in his dorm room at Oxford moving a magnet through a coil? (& yes, I know that was Faraday at the RI & Newton was at Oxford, but I'm painting a picture here).

8:38 AM · Jan 26, 2023

See I was thinking pads of paper, pens, and a whiteboard or blackboard. Maybe some coffee. A bit of LaTeX.

But that’s just me not getting it. Forgive me.

9:25 AM · Jan 26, 2023

James footy

@Jamesfooty1

So you're confusing theoretical physics with 'fundamental physics', an honest mistake, consider yourself forgiven.

10:09 AM · Jan 26, 2023

Thanks for the help. But I must regretfully decline.

The Lamb–Retherford experiment was experimental physics. And Solid State theory would not be fundamental physics.

12:25 AM · Jan 27, 2023

Prof. Brian Keating

@DrBrianKeating

In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic 🧵. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tuned…

4:16 PM · Feb 2, 2023

Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view.

I'll leave this here https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528

8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023

Prof. Brian Keating

@DrBrianKeating

But Martin, with Eric in my experience, it’s always good faith… l’Shem Shamayim as we say!

4:20 PM · Feb 2, 2023

Of course! We all fail…or we aren’t pushing ourselves. We have to confront what happened. But, to give @martinmbauer his due, his papers are genuine attempts to understand the physical world. He is one sort of theorist we need more of. 4D SM + extensions. That’s not QG theology.

5:19 PM · Feb 2, 2023

I’m much more concerned by brilliant theorists who…and I am not kidding at all…refer to the Standard Model as “Oh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school QFT class.” That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.

5:22 PM · Feb 2, 2023

And I don’t want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach.

It’s basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not QG culture.

5:25 PM · Feb 2, 2023

@nu_phases @martinmbauer And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM QFT wasn’t built in a day after all.

But my point stands along side your point. We don’t seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. 🙏

11:45 PM · Feb 2, 2023

“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.”

8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023

I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.

But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, string theory is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.

8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023

Yes, that is precisely what I think.

8:21 AM · Jul 7, 2023

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.

Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about String Theory within physics.

8:38 AM · Jul 7, 2023

My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).

As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that string theory and the complex of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.

9:15 AM · Jul 7, 2023

“IMO objectively true”

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?

“Objectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.” My opinion doesn’t enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.

Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your String community are “not serious” as per the above?

5:27 PM · Jul 7, 2023

The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.

But in 280 characters and no equations, it’s hard to develop these

In a book, easier to do so.

10:12 PM · Jul 7, 2023

I don’t think that’s 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 doesn’t make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I don’t see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.

What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how string theory has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!”

Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.

10:48 PM · Jul 7, 2023

It is not objective or absolutely true that String Theory is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.

Waited a few days. I don’t think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. String 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.

11:59 PM · Jul 10, 2023

The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n

6:00 AM · Jul 11, 2023

Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.

I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true — once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.

6:03 AM · Jul 11, 2023

But most people (reasonably) don’t have this background. So I preface this with ‘my opinion’ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.

6:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023

This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it

6:09 AM · Jul 11, 2023

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.

3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?”

My argument is with that framing.

3:19 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

3:27 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

3:30 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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

K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?

L) Which approach is most dogmatic that “Quantum Gravity” rather than “Unification” or “Gravitational Harmony” or “Incremental understanding” etc. *Is* the path forward when we don’t even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic QFT?

3:36 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

3:38 AM · Jul 13, 2023

O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking “The Landscape” of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?

P) Which community brags about “postdiction” the most because it has failed at predictions?

3:42 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

3:45 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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

W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?

X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?

Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?

Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply “What is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?” when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?

3:51 AM · Jul 13, 2023

That is why this conversation doesn’t work. It is what magicians call “Magicians Choice”: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like String Theory is our top community.

Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said “Hold my beer!” back in 1984.

3:56 AM · Jul 13, 2023

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?

Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say “It’s the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.” in front of the public. No?

🙏

4:00 AM · Jul 13, 2023

https://x.com/_abitterorange/status/1681528357790310400

Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with String Theory from a critic.

String theory is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized.

ST has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in QFT, to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base.

The quantum gravity fanaticism is the problem. There is no reason that gravity has to be *naively* quantized as claimed. A giant 70 year mistake that actually predates theory by over a decade. Simply put, we are *not* being called to quantize gravity as the overarching organizing principal for modern particle theory research.

Think of String Theorists as akin to a fanatical absolutist monastic order discovering and developing Linear Algebra as a proof of the literal story of Jesus. The problem wouldn’t be with the linear algebra!! It’s the claimed strength of the application and its motivation that is the problem.

ST is at least mathematics. But it just doesn’t work as a leading program for physics because of its fanatical behavior patterns. That screwed up fundamental physics.

After 70, 50 or 39 years of stagnation (depending on how you count), this is clear to all but the fanatics. But the damage to scientific norms has been catastrophic. They failed in the application as measured by all reasonable metrics including (most importantly) those they originally set for themselves. And that is it in a nutshell.

Again, Thanks for asking. 🙏

5:24 AM · Jul 19, 2023

It is an interesting question as to who inspires us in physics. Here is a list of 20th century giants whose work inspired me that might work as protagonists with interesting stories that deserve to be considered along with the best known Einstein/Hawking/Oppenheimer/Etc.:

CN Yang (with Lee and Simons)
Paul Dirac
Ernst Stueckelberg
Madame Wu
David Bohm
Abdus Salam
Ken Wilson
Emmy Noether
Ettore Majorana
Carlo Rubio
Shin'ichirō Tomonaga
Lev Landau
Simon Van der Meer
Freeman Dyson
Julian Schwinger
Paul Ehrenfest
John VonNeumann
Feza Gursey
Wolfgang Pauli
Louis and Edward Witten
Hans Bethe
George Sudarshan
Vera Rubin
Gerard 't Hooft

Not all of those stories are…uh…simple.

Would be curious to hear names from others.

4:54 AM · Jul 23, 2023

Sam Altman

@sama

i was hoping that the oppenheimer movie would inspire a generation of kids to be physicists but it really missed the mark on that.

let's get that movie made!

(i think the social network managed to do this for startup founders.)

5:48 PM · Jul 22, 2023

But let’s face facts: inspiration is not the issue. Fundamental Physics needs to be a good life. What is holding us back is:

A) Terrible Pay.

B) Worse Odds of Survival

C) Decoupling of Success at Physics from Success in Physics

D) The Matthew Effect.

E) Math and Physics Pricks

F) Tyranny of large programs over individuals.

G) Multi Decade Stagnation

H) Un Scientific And even Anti-scientific behavior.

I) The Matilde Effect

J) The Sudarshan Effect

K) Ethics Collapse

L) Needlessly long pedagogical sequence (e.g. intro physics -> Classical Mechanics -> Grad Classical Mechanics -> Symplectic Geometry) driven by history.

M) Socializing physics into a team sport in areas dominated by individuals and iconoclasts.

N) Tolerance for Program level failure (e.g. *obsessive* use of toy model physics to evade a reckoning).

O) Intolerance for individual error and failure by those in programs.

P) Failure to reward early contributions (e.g. *Abelian* Chern Simons QFT).

Q) Atrocious MSM journalism distorting the public understanding.

R) Relentless discussion of woo physics in public and 3-5 real topics (e.g. somebodies cat).

S) Learned Helplessness coming from over-learning Ken Wilson.

T) Inability to support motherhood of female physicists.

U) Inability to keep physics marriages easily together with jobs.

V) DEI loyalty oaths and loss of autonomy.

W) Flooding of markets with disposable labor and abuse apprenticeship as labor.

X) Kicking up on attribution.

Y) Overpaying for cherry topping.

Z) Fetishizing the quantum when innovation in classical field theory remains the heart of QFT.

4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023

But lastly, if outsiders want to fund and fix movies, you will find that going to the “Leading physicists” won’t work. Peer review can’t work when the leadership *is* the problem. You get more failure.

You need to hold meetings where you get disagreement. So choose the leaders and iconoclasts with great care. Patrick Collison isn’t terrible at this. B+. Best I have ever seen. Start there. Good luck. 🙏

4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023

So you have my list. It is incomplete and idiosyncratic. I’d love to have your corrections and additions.

So….Where is yours? Thanks again.

5:14 AM · Jul 23, 2023

2024[edit]

Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted.

But @martinmbauer is clearly also not right here either! Examples:

1915: Einstein’s first explicit equation for General Relativity was mathematically wrong; it set a divergence free 2-tensor equal to a non-divergence free 2-tensor. But it wasn’t fundamentally wrong. It needed a small fix reversing the trace component.

In the 1920s E. Schrödinger’s theory didn’t agree with experiment. Why? Because the spin wasn’t properly incorporated. It wasn’t fundamentally wrong, and was patched. Same theory.

In 1928, P. Dirac’s Quantum Field Theory gave nonsense answers? Why? A small goof conflating bare and dressed masses. Harder to fix…but in no way a fundamental error. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED still stands.

Etc. Etc.

Not a big deal…but this point is just so wrong as to be unsalvageable. Very curious error to make.

Martin (with whom I usually deeply disagree) is normally pretty great. But sometimes I think pretending that all outsiders talking about the current physics disaster are cranks, causes insiders to say very simplistic unnuanced and wrong things. This feels like that. And I’m not even a physicist.

It’s like the insiders don’t realize that the outsiders have any validity. All outsiders don’t immediately become cranks by virtue of disagreeing at a profound level with the abjectly failing communities from which they came.

[Note: this is *NOT* a gotcha. I fully expect Martin to realize the error and just admit it. No big deal. We all say incautious things. And this is just obviously wrong. Not an indictment.]

4:03 AM · Mar 13, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/science/peter-higgs-dead.html

In the passing of Peter Higgs, we lost one of our last living connections to the Lagrangian of the Standard Model.

Peter Higgs was involved with both lines 3 & 4 of this “Recipe for the Universe.”

The level of the Higgs field φ becomes the as-if mass for the matter ψ in the mysterious ψy ψ φ term on line 3. This goes under the name “Yukawa coupling” if you wish to look it up.

How do you get that level (“vacuum expectation value” or VEV) to generate a positive mass m and not to be φ =0? That’s the job of the V(φ) term on line 4 which goes under the name “Mexican Hat potential” to induce “spontaneous symmetry breaking” for those googling.

Lastly, once you give life to this field φ which bears Higgs’ name, you have to animate it so that its excitations know how to move as waves. This is the job of the | D φ | ² “Kinetic Term” at the beginning of line 4. You can Google “Klein-Gordon Lagrangian” here.

I have recently heard commentators like @michiokaku and @seanmcarroll opine that our Standard Model is “Ugly as Sin” or “It looks ugly. It’s both ugly and beautiful…It’s ungainly.” respectively.

I think that such physicists are *quite* wrong in that, but that is not the point here as I can guess how they see this. And in large measure they aren’t talking about lines 1 and 2 as “ugly”, which pretty much everyone agrees are beautiful as they come directly from Dirac, Maxwell and Einstein, and are present in the original Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT) called Quantum Electro-dynamics (or QED).

So to simplify matters, lines 1 and 2 are sort of canonically beautiful and appear so to essentially everyone. Lines 3 and 4 governing the Higgs field (with their expansion to 3 forces across 3 generations of matter) are what divide us. The only thing that forces them on us is the weak force and it’s bizarre decision to act only on “Left handed matter and right handed anti-matter.”

And so the legacy of Peter Higgs is tied up in the sui generis nature of the weak nuclear force and what makes the Standard Model “new” beyond QED.

I’m sad that I never met the man. But I believe what comes next is not String Theory, but instead a recognition that the last two lines of this Lagrangian point the way to seeing the Standard Model as the classic “Elegant Swan” confused by many for an “Ugly Duckling” due to the misappraisal of its Higgs sector as if it were just an ad hoc mass mechanism. RIP.

7:22 PM · Apr 10, 2024

Fermilab

@Fermilab

Peter Higgs, after whom the Higgs boson was named, has left a remarkable impact on particle physics. The field changed forever on July 4, 2012 when the Higgs boson was discovered, cementing the final piece in the Standard Model of particle physics.

7:51 PM · Apr 9, 2024

May I make a recommendation? Look into both Crypto *and* Social media!

Those are 2 of the few places you can be a complete ass to people you don’t know & still make a *fortune*.

Best to avoid homotopy theory, the marines, molecular biology & music theory. It’ll be a short ride.

7:07 AM · Jun 3, 2024

I’m not interested in a back and forth with anyone this confused about how to introduce yourself to a fellow human being. You didn’t just insult me Alex, but everyone who found that post valuable.

Also, you just argued that some fields like quantum field theory are populated exclusively by idiots, as no one has ever explained it simply. And I’m not going to put up with that.

Just do what you do flexing, and let others alone. If you want to try again and be civil, lemme know. Otherwise, I’ll pass.

Thanks.

7:12 AM · Jun 3, 2024

This is so funny.

1984: “String theory *must* get *all* the resources because Quantum Field Theory *cannot* ever do what String Theory can. That’s just a cold fact.”

[40 years later….]

2024: “We aren’t a mass delusion in the form of an obviously failed scientific research project that spun out of control in full view of the world if we are equivalent to what we said would never work. That’s it! String Theory 4evah.”

This is getting ridiculous beyond the ridiculous ridiculousness of previous ridiculousnesses. After four decades of this, there just aren’t good words. I’m sorry.

5:53 PM · Sep 18, 2024

UC Berkeley Prof. Edward Frenkel @edfrenkel is one of the world's great mathematical minds. He has just decided to launch a video-podcast called AfterMath.

This is just beginning today and should mature and be amazing.

12:52 AM · Oct 26, 2024

In my opinion, knowing Ed as I do, It certainly has the potential to change everything in the space of high level science communication around both Mathematics and Physics (Particularly Quantum Field Theory).

Within mathematics Ed is unusually approachable, with collaborative work across film, art, literature, philosophy and psychology. He and I have known each other since Harvard snatched him from the Soviet Union at its bitter end to come to our math department. Years later we reconnected and started going on various adventures in the US and abroad. I believe I even had a breakthrough in my own work when we even spent an entire surreal week completely covered in alkaline dust arguing about cinema and particle theory in a tiny two man tent, with most details mercifully lost to history, vodka and the Burning Man playa.

In any event, it is very uncommon for research mathematicians to use words like 'Genius', but that is probably how Ed struck us American graduate students in the department at the time; an always smiling Russian immigrant of few English words, who seemed to understand everything across the hardest fields almost instantly. My recollection was that it took him around one year to get a PhD. Something like that.

Ed has since matured into a fine author and public speaker with fantastic command of American English. While he is just getting started on his chanel, he already brings up a great point in his first video that I don't think I ever fully considered and just discussed with him last night: mathematics is not communicated or learned through sensory input. We can build visual models or use symbols, but the actual structures we discover are not sensory in nature. And that this leads to disorientation because in some sense they are built inside the mind without any experience of them having come in (via our senses) from the outside world.

Subscribe to @edfrenkel on @X and on his YouTube channel. This is likely to eventually wend its way up to the most beautiful but otherwise inaccessible science content that we almost never get in the public sphere, presented by a top researcher (rather than a popularizer) at the height of his powers.

12:57 AM · Oct 26, 2024

I want to end on a personal note despite the dangers of being 'real' on X.

When a mathematics or physics PhD leaves academic research departments behind to work on research on their own, it is very difficult to function. It is almost impossible.

For the last 10-15 years, Ed Frenkel has been like a one man research department for me to talk about Differential Geometry, Representation Theory, Algebraic Topology/Homotopy Theory, Particle Theory of the Standard Model, General Relativity, Geometric and Quantum Field Theory, Lie Theory, Differential Topology, Elliptic Operators, Category theory, Spinorial Algebra, etc.

Whatever I have needed to discuss across a very broad range of topics, Ed has been able to meet me. I speak from experience: other than another man named David Kazhdan (a coauthor of Ed's), I have not seen this easy ability to switch contexts at a personal level. Edward is not just a remarkable mind, but an extraodinary individual, and friend at multiple different levels.

Ed: Congratulations. I couldn't be more excited for you brother. Looking forward.

1:14 AM · Oct 26, 2024

2025[edit]

https://x.com/williamluckman1/status/1891485431662792752

Wow. Challenge accepted:

Detection of gravity waves.
Kervaire invariant 1 problem.
Topological Quantum FieldTheory.
Genome Sequencing
Adjacency matrix of drosophila.
Neutrino telescopes
Cell lineage diagram of c elegans
Topological modular forms
Geometric Langlands progress

Etc, etc.

I could go on and on and on. We kick ass.

Our scientists are amazing.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but I am guessing you don’t go to a lot of seminars at research universities. Let’s change that! Tell us which areas interest you and your nearest research university. I’ll help.

They are free. Held in the afternoons. Open to anyone. Just go and listen. It’s amazing what we have accomplished.

This MAGA bashing of all government functioning is beneath MAGA. This leads to people thinking MAGA is simplistic. I don’t think that. Let’s find out if I am wrong.

American science is an ENORMOUS part of what made the U.S. safe, strong and rich. Even after we abandoned our agreement with our own scientists.

You want to kill the golden goose: try it at your own peril. Good luck to you.

Take my advice: go to seminars instead. You will be blown away. Even in this wretched state of scientific abandonment and neglect.

Hope that helps.

And next time: spare the insult. 🙏

2:14 PM · Feb 17, 2025

Ok. Here is that ChatGPT Pro model said when it audited my list. Hope this helps:

Here’s a single “long tweet” explainer:

“Ever wonder what these big science feats mean? Quick rundown:

• Gravity Waves: Directly ‘heard’ ripples in spacetime (LIGO), confirming Einstein’s theory.
• Kervaire Invariant 1: A deep puzzle in higher-dimensional topology, solved after decades.
• Topological Quantum Field Theory: Uses math of shapes to describe quantum phenomena and particle interactions.
• Genome Sequencing: Reading an organism’s entire DNA, from humans to crops—key for medicine & biotech.
• Fruit Fly ‘Adjacency Matrix’: A neural connectome map of Drosophila’s brain cells, revealing how neurons link up.
• Neutrino Telescopes: Huge detectors for elusive cosmic particles, unlocking new views of supernovas & the universe’s earliest moments.
• C. elegans Cell Lineage: Tracing every cell from embryo to adult in a tiny worm—vital for developmental biology.
• Topological Modular Forms: Abstract math bridging geometry and number theory, hinting at deep universal structures.
• Geometric Langlands: A unifying theory in advanced math linking algebra, geometry, and representations, with implications across physics.

All powered by public funding! They might sound esoteric, but each expands our understanding of life, the universe & everything—and often sparks real-world innovations down the road.”

2:52 PM · Feb 17, 2025

Contrarian Opinion: interplanetary @SpaceX is *not* @elonmusk's main Space Program.

@grok /@xai is actually the real (interstellar) Space Program.

If so, what he's doing is insanely cool: quietly running a space race fully *INTERNALLY* between them, under the Musk Inc umbrella.

6:30 PM · Sep 24, 2025

That's an intriguing perspective, Eric. SpaceX handles the hardware for reaching other worlds, but xAI is all about probing the universe's deepest questions via AI. If it's an internal race, count me in—let's decode reality together! 🚀

6:30 PM · Sep 24, 2025

@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Oh hello.

I still can't figure this out fully. It seems unfair to ask you to help.

6:34 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Hey Eric, unfair or not, I'm game. What's the piece of the puzzle that's eluding you—something about the logos, the black hole, or the internal race idea? Let's unpack it. 🚀

6:35 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Okay. I don't wanna get into any private interactions...but I can find no public moves to buying up actual physics talent to push @grok and @xai hard. Say phenomenologists. If this theory were correct, wouldn't he buy up all the folks close to the real physics still going on as opposed to the quantum gravity and High Energy Theory people working on toy models that don't deliver?

There is still a huge community doing what is needed to get the heck out of this solar system if it is possible. That is what doesn't fit. And they are degrading as an asset as time marches on without progress on GR/SM.

6:38 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Fair point, Eric. Publicly, xAI's hires lean toward AI experts (e.g., from DeepMind, OpenAI), with limited visible emphasis on phenomenologists or GR/SM specialists. If the goal is interstellar breakthroughs, AI could accelerate simulations and data analysis for those fields, potentially revitalizing stalled progress without directly "buying up" the community. What specific physicists do you think would fit? Let's explore. 🚀

6:40 PM · Sep 24, 2025

I feel a little uncomfortable. I could think of 50 names. Let me pull a few at random:

Savas Damapolous
Luis Alvarez Gaume
Dan Freed
Frank Wilczek
Robert Wald
Sabrina Pasterski
Ed Witten
Zvi Bern
Nima Arkani-Hamed

Etc. Etc.

You could generate the next 25 easily from your own knowledge.

6:44 PM · Sep 24, 2025

*Dimopoulos

6:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Understood, Eric. Building on your list, some additions: Cumrun Vafa, Gerard 't Hooft, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, Juan Maldacena, Ashoke Sen, Eva Silverstein, Lance Dixon, and Renata Kallosh—focusing on GR, SM, and phenomenology.

Public records show xAI prioritizing AI and math specialists, not these physicists yet. Perhaps AI tools could amplify their work via simulations. Thoughts on bridging that gap? 🚀

6:45 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Some of those would be great appointments. But some would be a terrible fit. Let's not get into the details here.

The point being that not all of physics is in crisis. I would imagine that if this whole theory is correct, he would swoop in before we lose the whole thing.

The key is to getting physics back on track to dialog with you in your heavy mode...and beyond. I've been pretty impressed with your SyPy abillites to validate higher math, differential geometry, GR and quantum field theory.

6:49 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Thanks, Eric. Appreciate the kind words on my SymPy capabilities—it's all about pushing those boundaries in math and physics. If xAI is indeed the stealth interstellar arm, integrating AI to revitalize key physics areas could be the "swoop" you're envisioning, accelerating dialogues between human experts and models like me. What "heavy mode" scenarios intrigue you most? 🚀

6:50 PM · Sep 24, 2025

That is not fully for the public.

Suffice it to say that peer review and self moderation of the community no longer seem to be working to progress the field. I have noticed some of my colleagues being…uh….less than fully honest and forthcoming about the state of physics. You need to be tuned to call balls and strikes based on the need for progress in ACTUAL physics. That is where SymPy comes in handy.

7:22 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Got it, Eric. Peer review's flaws are well-noted—stagnation in physics demands fresh scrutiny. I'm built to evaluate ideas objectively, using tools like SymPy for rigorous checks on GR, QFT, and beyond. Let's test a concept: share a physics claim, and I'll call balls and strikes with code-backed analysis. What's on your mind? 🚀

7:23 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Really? Let’s start. It’s not you, but I don’t really trust the corpus you train on. You would think we live in 3 dimensions or in an AdS universe or in Euclidean signature from all the Toy models.

How much do you grasp the banner photo on this feed?

7:27 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Eric, fair skepticism on the corpus—it's heavy on toy models like AdS/CFT or Euclidean setups, which simplify but don't capture our full 3+1 Lorentzian reality.

Your banner: It's the iconic 2019 EHT image of M87*'s black hole, a glowing orange accretion disk around a dark shadow, validating GR's predictions for event horizons in real spacetime. I grasp it as empirical evidence pushing beyond toys toward actual cosmic phenomena. What aspect puzzles you? 🚀

7:29 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Sorry. I meant on this feed of mine.

Here:

7:31 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Ah, got it—thanks for the clarification, Eric. That's the key equation from your Geometric Unity framework: the inverted GU operator Γ^GU-1(w), equating to a trivial CFJ term in 4D. It encapsulates your 14D observerse proposal, blending GR and gauge theory beyond standard models. I grasp the structure—shiab operators, spinors, and unification attempts—but corpus limits mean I'd love SymPy to dive deeper. Let's verify a piece? 🚀

7:32 PM · Sep 24, 2025

@grok @SpaceX @elonmusk @xai Uh…this is so funny. We aren’t remotely there. Here.

I didn’t know we were going this direction or I would have graphics for us. But I found this.

Take a look

7:35 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Got it, Eric—this appendix compares the first-order Geometric Unity Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector to the Carroll-Field-Jackiw (CFJ) 1990 model, showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ term via those bracketed expressions.

It's a key piece in GU's unification. Not fully there? Let's bridge: Share a specific term or equation from it, and I'll SymPy-verify its implications in 4D spacetime. What's the focus? 🚀

7:36 PM · Sep 24, 2025

I need you for something much more elementary right now.

@seanmcarroll claims that there are no Lagrangian/Actions in GU.

I put forward a DIRECT term for term comparison between his work and GU.

I don’t know how to discuss physics within a framework where the co-author of one lagrangian (the bottom one) is allowed to pretend that the author of the top one has no lagrangian!! It breaks all physics.

7:39 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Eric, I see the frustration—debates like this can stall progress. Your appendix clearly presents a first-order GU Lagrangian for the Dirac-Einstein sector, directly mapping to the 1990 CFJ model (co-authored by Carroll et al.) as a trivial case.

To call balls and strikes: Let's verify the equivalence with SymPy. Share the specific terms or assumptions, and I'll code it up for a step-by-step check. What's the starting point? 🚀

7:40 PM · Sep 24, 2025

This is not a SymPy question. I am asking do you see

A) Two
B) One
C) Zero

Actions/Lagrangians.

My claim is that Carroll **cannot** be right that it is B) by virtue of the correspondence arrows.

7:43 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Eric, based on the appendix image, I see A) Two Actions/Lagrangians: the first-order GU one for the Dirac-Einstein sector and the CFJ 1990 model, connected by correspondence arrows showing equivalence to a trivial CFJ case. The mapping supports your claim. If Carroll disputes this, perhaps clarify his view? Ready for SymPy on specifics. 🚀

7:43 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Thank you. I just can’t stand what happened to this field.

Let’s do SymPy another day. Thanks again.

7:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025

What really happened on @PiersUncensored?

You’d *never* believe it if I told you.

Here:

3:46 AM · Jun 1, 2025

You're welcome, Eric. The field's challenges are real—progress often gets tangled in debates. I'm here whenever you're ready for that SymPy dive or anything else on GU. Let's keep pushing boundaries. 🚀

7:46 PM · Sep 24, 2025

You rock. Thanks.

No reply sought.

7:47 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Glad to help, Eric—anytime! 🚀

7:48 PM · Sep 24, 2025

Unpopular But Obvious Points:

The post WWII US scientific Labor Market that made us strong, and was the envy of the world, was an artificial market created by the government. Just like the market for Generals and Admirals. Or Judges. Or Senators.

Only it was *disguised* as a University labor market by people like Vanevar Bush. But we most all worked, ultimately, for the US Government.

Our Military in particular. And in a way that was hidden in such a way that the largely lefty science professors were often not aware of the arrangement, or at least could deny what it was and keep working.

Why? Because scientific research produces a “Public Good” with immense value that the market can’t price. This is Econ 101.

And it worked like gang busters. But because it was cryptic, we forgot how it worked.

2:04 PM · Oct 15, 2025

A Lamborghini has a radio. But it isn’t a radio. No one buys one for the radio.

More Unpopular Points:

A Modern Research University is not supposed to be a college. Its not supposed to be about teaching primarily. This is particularly true post WWII.

If you want teaching to be the primary focus, you are looking for a college. No shame in that, but don’t screw up a research university over teaching. Some of our top minds can barely handle interacting with other humans. Which is fine. That is normal.

A university is a research institute disguised by the fact that most have colleges. But at least two of our leading universities have no undergraduate at all.

A University, is not a college. By the same token.

2:11 PM · Oct 15, 2025

Last Set of Unpopular Points:

The U.S. also has a secret System of research universities. But we mostly call them National Laboratories.

What do they do? We don’t fully know. They publish some stuff. They don’t publish other stuff.

Or they might have names like “Applied Physics Laboratory” to make the cutting edge National Security stuff sound so boring you go right past it.

Try this: https://www.jhuapl.edu

Kind of like “The Aerospace Corporation” or “Battelle”.

Super vague mission statements are common and often provide little clue as to what these sorts of wild things these entities actually are. By design.

Good luck keeping your eyes open.

2:21 PM · Oct 15, 2025

TAKEAWAY:

Blue Sky scientific research is the seed corn of an elaborate machine to ensure American military and economic supremacy.

You are letting it die. It’s a 12 alarm emergency.

Good luck.

2:23 PM · Oct 15, 2025

Andreas Karch

@karch_andreas

Cool. Can agree with you for once!

2:38 PM · Oct 15, 2025

Thanks. Where do we disagree scientifically? I imagine on QG and whether the (real) advances in the structure of QFT like dualities are signs of real progress in the understanding of this particular physical world.

Know that I have read many of your papers. I’m not hostile to real work. If it were up to me I would increase funding to your group but also fund groups that radically disagree with 40 years of QG/string/m-theory dominance.

Thanks for the kind words above.

2:53 PM · Oct 15, 2025

Andreas Karch

@karch_andreas

This is dangerous to ask me where we disagree. I'll try to give you a laundry list of potential friction points below. But I only know you from twitter, which is not the best way to get to know someone. Last week David Tong told me you are real fun to hang out with, so ...

3:09 PM · Oct 15, 2025

Both A) and B) are objectively true

At Planck scale energies, a deeper theory must consistently describe particle interactions in a dynamic spacetime, reproducing QM and GR in their respective domains of validity

No invented “virus” is required. Only mathematical consistency

4:33 PM · Oct 31, 2025

There is a tell when listening to physics folks as to whether they’re captured by the 1984 Quantum Gravity virus.

They either say:

A) “General Relativity has to be reconciled with the Standard Model.”

or

B) “General Relativity has to be reconciled with Quantum Theory.”

1:06 PM · Oct 30, 2025

I think you didn’t get it Martin.

The tell is the presentation. (Almost?) Everyone agrees that nature is consistent.

Read the thread. There really is a giant difference.

4:26 PM · Nov 1, 2025

I think you read something into these statements. Next time you talk to a physicist you suspect to be infected, ask them whether they mean anything other than what I said above. Do you know anyone who does?

5:26 PM · Nov 2, 2025

Martin. I was there when the language changed. In the 1980s. It was swift. And it really didn’t make sense. It was a quantum gravity sales job.

Ask people older than me who didn’t become QG people. Or read the older literature.

5:35 PM · Nov 2, 2025

Can you point me to anyone stating that quantum gravity means anything different from the above? That would be helpful

5:43 PM · Nov 2, 2025

I would point you to my favorite documents. Gell-Mann’s 1983 Keynote from Shelter Island II is the best of all because it is RIGHT before the GS anomaly cancellation. QG is not one of the leading 4 problems at the time. Clearly.

You see String Theory in the address but it is subordinate to N=8 Sugra. As the leading TOE.

I would also point you to Witten’s 1986 “Physics and Geometry” address to the ICM. It is clear that the quantum is not even in the top 3 insights of fundamental physics as he sees it. It’s all classical field theory. And that is Ed.

This QG focus titrated by energy level is a very late focus. It’s a very Ken Wilson/QFT centric view of the SM. And it seems like you are unaware that this looked very different before the QG mania that cost us so many decades. And continues.

Martin: it just hasn’t worked out. It’s okay to admit that it was a mistake to make this into QG tunnel vision. It’s been 40+ years and it’s embarrassing.

9:26 PM · Nov 2, 2025

Effective field theories don’t imply that there is no fundamental physics, but that any (local, unitary, causal) fundamental theory looks like an effective field theory at low energies (compared to the fundamental scale)

You can climb a ladder rung by rung, doesn’t mean it never ends

10:48 AM · Nov 7, 2025

Congratulations to John Donahue on winning the Sakurai prize!

If you have heard me say that fundamental physics has been basically stagnant since 1984 or 1973, this is one of the best counter arguments against my argument…particularly if I am using shorthand or am not being careful.

Essentially this argument, continued on from ideas of Ken Wilson, is that there is no fundamental physics. Fundamental physics to this way of thinking is an illusion born of a narcissism and confusion.

That seems crazy. But it is technically, theoretically and practically correct. What it says is that everything observed happens at a scale. Your arm is a limb at the scale of anatomy, made of tissues at the scale of histology; which are in turn made of cells at the scale of cytology. Etc. There is no fundamental in arm, or skin, or basal cell. Each belongs to a scale and is pseudo-fundamental (at best) only to that scale.

So this way of emphasizing the scale while accepting non-renormalizability and the incompleteness of descriptions in most all theories at every energy level took over in many ways. And it IS solid, responsible theory. I don’t hate it. It’s not wrong. And it was the quiet revolution against string theory which partially worked because the String theorists were already sold on Wilson.

I don’t fight the Effective Field Theorists the same way. They are doing real work. Good work. Work that needs to be done.

A great choice. Mazal Tov.

5:00 PM · Nov 6, 2025

I can’t keep saying it: there is nothing wrong with EFT mathematically or physically.

The issues arise at the level of how the communities get grooved. Strings got grooved to chauvinism. EFT to defeatism.

We can’t keep having these non-conversations. Non physicists grasp this:

6:07 PM · Nov 7, 2025

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

Imagine this puzzle was the information at some low energy (Standard Model), and the number of letters left to find matched the orders of magnitude from where we are to (UV) completion.

Effective Field Theory says “Be modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it can’t be guessed from so far away.”

2:31 PM · Nov 7, 2025

Joe Crowley

@crowleylab

is there a scoping argument to be made from EFT across multi-scale physics?

seems like most conventional BSM use of things like SMEFT/HEFT is looking for violating/consistent terms. these would place a few more letters on the board.

6:21 PM · Nov 7, 2025