6,486
edits
General Relativity: Difference between revisions
→2025
(→20255) |
(→2025) |
||
| Line 2,038: | Line 2,038: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|timestamp=3:26 PM · Feb 24, 2025 | |timestamp=3:26 PM · Feb 24, 2025 | ||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1926310635408617534 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=You ask: | |||
Q: “What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles?” | |||
A: Because, unlike String Theory, GU introduces *zero* extra dimensions. None. All 14 dimensions come from data within Einstein’s 4 dimensions. | |||
Every Einsteinian space-time X^4 is ALREADY a section of the bundle of possible metric tensors. That bundle Y^14(X^4) has dimension 14 within General Relativity. All those 14 dimensions are endogenous and not extra dimensions. The data is all within X^4. | |||
Extra means non-endogenous. These are endogenous. | |||
SUMMARY. GU introduces no extra dimension beyond those already found in General Relativity. All data is within X^4. | |||
[GU also introduces FAR LESS data than is introduced within the standard model. I believe there is no other theory that introduced fewer initial assumptions or is even close to GU in this regard.] | |||
Thanks for the question. | |||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=ArterraForever-profile-xntZ6gUJ.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever/status/1926008222902542502 | |||
|name=Gerald Welch | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever | |||
|username=ArterraForever | |||
|content=Eric, | |||
I have a sincere and respectful question for you. | |||
You’ve rightly criticized string theory for introducing unobservable extra dimensions and for prioritizing mathematical elegance over empirical necessity. But in Geometric Unity, you also introduce additional dimensions (fourteen in total) to house the fields and symmetries needed for unification. While I understand these dimensions serve a structural rather than vibrational purpose, I’m wondering how we justify them any more than string theory justifies its own. | |||
What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles? | |||
Why not begin instead with the most minimal assumption: what must exist for the universe to behave as it does? Repulsion dominates the cosmos. Time governs emergence. Must we construct fields to explain what spacetime may already be doing by default? | |||
With all respect, I ask whether our best hope for progress lies not in building more elaborate systems, but in returning to the simplest foundational questions. | |||
Jerry | |||
|timestamp=8:11 PM · May 23, 2025 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=4:13 PM · May 24, 2025 | |||
}} | }} | ||