Jump to content

The Portal Wiki

Toggle the table of contents

Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions

From The Portal Wiki

Revision as of 20:00, 7 January 2026

On X

2019

@EricRWeinstein

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

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

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

3:19 PM · Sep 8, 2019

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

2021

@EricRWeinstein

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

@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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

@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

@EricRWeinstein

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🇮🇳

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

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

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

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

*you’re

3:44 PM · Aug 24, 2022

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

@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

@EricRWeinstein

@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

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…

DrBrianKeating-X-post-1621180690976079872-Fn-W-EeaMAIquVs.jpg

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

@EricRWeinstein

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

Related Pages

This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/index.php?title=Quantum_Field_Theory&oldid=25275"