Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions

From The Portal Wiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1170821377537925121}}
== On X ==
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1222552045674102784}}
=== 2019 ===
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1379872186740080647}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1379874520526299136}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1471131752085147649}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1474261469462073344}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1170821379786100736
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1477944293436235776}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1562460747560497153}}
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1589658089846079489}}
|username=EricRWeinstein
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1621197260238503937}}
|content=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.
{{#widget:Tweet|id= 1621293652936105985}}
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1170821377537925121
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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]] [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] stagnated & [[Quantum Gravity]] stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Seanmcarroll-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/seanmcarroll/status/1170355961673863168
|name=Sean Carroll
|usernameurl=https://x.com/seanmcarroll
|username=seanmcarroll
|content=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
|media1=seanmcarroll-X-post-1170355961673863168.jpg
|timestamp=3:19 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=10:09 PM · Sep 8, 2019
}}
 
=== 2020 ===
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1222552045674102784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is at the heart of my disagreement with @skdh. I am doubly contrarian with respect to [[Quantum Field Theory|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.
|timestamp=4:08 PM · Jan 29, 2020
}}
 
=== 2021 ===
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379874520526299136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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 [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872173033017346
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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):
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=11Equity-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/11Equity/status/1379832703848230916
|name=11
|usernameurl=https://x.com/11Equity
|username=11Equity
|content=@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity?
https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
|timestamp=4:25 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872179026677760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872179026677760.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872184387039232
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with [[Standard Model|Standard model]] symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their ‘internal’ quantum numbers as:
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1379872184387039232.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872185871822848
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872186740080647
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a [[Quantum Field Theory|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.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872187692187648
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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.
🙏
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1379872188593926144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. Happy to attempt to sharpen what [[Theory of Geometric Unity|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 [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] colleagues). Working outside from home it’s probably impossible.
|timestamp=7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:11 PM · Apr 7, 2021
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471131752085147649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@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 [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] courses at university.
|timestamp=2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1474261469462073344
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@skdh @WeLivetoServe [[Quantum Field Theory|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?
|timestamp=6:11 AM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
 
=== 2022 ===
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1477944293436235776
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That wasn’t shared with me. I don’t mind that we explore whether [[General Relativity|GR]] researchers or [[Quantum Field Theory|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].
|timestamp=10:05 AM · Jan 3, 2022
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562467397281337351
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. “It hasn’t even failed” because it can’t fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, It’s unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. It’s hard to explain what’s wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power & glory.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1562121660194504705
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasn’t even failed.
|timestamp=4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022
}}
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562460747560497153
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Physics in 1980: “I’m trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.”
 
Physics Today: “Remind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] so it’s not something I’ve worked with since my [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] class.”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1562121660194504705
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasn’t even failed.
|timestamp=4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022
}}
|timestamp=3:24 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562463292345372672
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
 
B) [[Quantum Gravity|Quantizing Gravity]] was substituted for unification or extension of the [[Standard Model|Standard model]].
 
C) Other research programs were obliterated because [[String Theory|ST]] claimed it had it all rapped up.
 
D) Hype won.
|timestamp=3:34 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562463294014627841
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/[[String Theory|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
|timestamp=3:34 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562465038962610178
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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. 🙏
|timestamp=3:41 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562465914695520256
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>you’re
|timestamp=3:44 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
|timestamp=3:50 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1589658089846079489
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MadsOlesenDK Nah. I would study basic GR. It’s a bit steep, but not as bad as [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] to learn by a long shot.
|timestamp=4:36 PM · Nov 7, 2022
}}
 
=== 2023 ===
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621293652936105985
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@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 [[Quantum Field Theory|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. 🙏
|timestamp=11:45 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621198036608389120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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 [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] culture.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đŸ§”. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tuned

|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1621066085826166785
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=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
|timestamp=8:40 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|media1=DrBrianKeating-X-post-1621180690976079872-Fn-W-EeaMAIquVs.jpg
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1621181848243310595
|name=Prof. Brian Keating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=DrBrianKeating
|content=But Martin, with Eric in my experience, it’s always good faith
 l’Shem Shamayim as we say!
|timestamp=4:20 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621196551434682368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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 [[Standard Model|SM]] + extensions. That’s not [[Quantum Gravity|QG]] theology.
|timestamp=5:19 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621197260238503937
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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 [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] class.” That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
|timestamp=5:22 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:25 PM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
 


== Related Pages ==
== Related Pages ==

Revision as of 19:44, 7 January 2026

On X

2019

Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Seanmcarroll-profile.jpg
Sean Carroll

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

Seanmcarroll-X-post-1170355961673863168.jpg
3:19 PM · Sep 8, 2019
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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

Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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

Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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):

ERW-X-post-1379872173033017346.jpg
7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
11Equity-profile.jpg
11

@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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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:

ERW-X-post-1379872179026677760.jpg
7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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:

ERW-X-post-1379872184387039232.jpg
7:02 PM · Apr 7, 2021
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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


Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

@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


Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

@skdh @WeLivetoServe 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

2022

Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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


Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Martinmbauer-profile.jpg
Martin Bauer

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

4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

*you’re

3:44 PM · Aug 24, 2022
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Martinmbauer-profile.jpg
Martin Bauer

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

4:56 PM · Aug 23, 2022


Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

@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

Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

@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


DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
Prof. Brian Keating

In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đŸ§”. 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
Martinmbauer-profile.jpg
Martin Bauer

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
DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
Prof. Brian Keating

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

4:20 PM · Feb 2, 2023
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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
Eric profile picture.jpg
Eric Weinstein

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

MW-Icon-Warning.png 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=25273"