Anything But Physics: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561365545947137 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=But in standard Relativity theory as an effective theory, I donât think about FTL. Sorry. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413552255077208066 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Physicsâ Overton Window. | |||
We can talk about CRAZY stuff thatâs irrelevant to our lives & never progresses: Boltzmann Brains, Many Worlds, String Theory Unification, AdS, Super-partners, etc. | |||
[[Anything But Physics|We canât talk about anything that COULD suddenly change everything.]] UAP, other TOEs, etc | |||
|timestamp=5:34 PM ¡ Jul 9, 2021 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413554336068632576 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=My point isnât at all that low probability topics are likely to change everything. Itâs that we feel *safe* knowing certain crazy ideas always seem to lead nowhere. But we feel unsafe when we donât know if what weâre looking at *could* surprise us by suddenly changing our world. | |||
|timestamp=5:43 PM ¡ Jul 9, 2021 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561361838186496 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=An example: In GU, relativity theory is recovered from the Observerse which is constructed around two separate spaces X and Y. Einsteinâs Spacetime (a signature (1,3) 4-manifold with [[(Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry|pseudo Riemannian metric]]) is recovered from observations of Y by X. | |||
|timestamp=6:11 PM ¡ Jul 9, 2021 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1413561363629105152 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Another example. Some see spacetime as the commutative limit of a non-commutative manifold. That would be beyond relativity. | |||
Others see topology changing operators that allow agents to change spacetime topologically. Again that would be beyond the usual relativity theory. | |||
|timestamp=6:11 PM ¡ Jul 9, 2021 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=6:11 PM ¡ Jul 9, 2021 | |||
}} | |||
Revision as of 04:06, 18 March 2026
Physicsâ Overton Window.
We can talk about CRAZY stuff thatâs irrelevant to our lives & never progresses: Boltzmann Brains, Many Worlds, String Theory Unification, AdS, Super-partners, etc.
We canât talk about anything that COULD suddenly change everything. UAP, other TOEs, etc
My point isnât at all that low probability topics are likely to change everything. Itâs that we feel *safe* knowing certain crazy ideas always seem to lead nowhere. But we feel unsafe when we donât know if what weâre looking at *could* surprise us by suddenly changing our world.
An example: In GU, relativity theory is recovered from the Observerse which is constructed around two separate spaces X and Y. Einsteinâs Spacetime (a signature (1,3) 4-manifold with pseudo Riemannian metric) is recovered from observations of Y by X.
Another example. Some see spacetime as the commutative limit of a non-commutative manifold. That would be beyond relativity.
Others see topology changing operators that allow agents to change spacetime topologically. Again that would be beyond the usual relativity theory.
But in standard Relativity theory as an effective theory, I donât think about FTL. Sorry.
*If* we are being visited, it is likely not with conventional propulsion. It is insane that we are not talking about this as possible new physics. The conversation will go right back to technology, security, skeptism etc.
I cannot understand what we are doing here.
It makes zero sense. Give science our data. Now.
The unwillingness to turn our own physical data over to our own scientists makes this whole thing sound to me like we are choosing to fake extra-terrestrial visitation. That would be the main reason to think this is all a moronic psy-op. But why do that? It can't work in the end.
Sooner or later we are either going to be asking why our government faked this moronic story OR why they withheld our data from the people we needed to see it.
This is not primarily a technology issue. It's either a propoganda/mind-control issue or a science issue at this point.
Who isnât turning over What physical evidence? Whatâre you referring to?
@MLGACE Whatever our data is for UFO/UAP. Accelerations. Heat signature. Cloaking. Transmedia behavior. Cornering ability. I have no idea. I just know we aren't looking at high quality data and I know we have MUCH higher quality data than has been released.
And the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics does not go to physics...
âAnything but Physicsâ has tremendous predictive power.
We can discuss Spin Foam.
Or Boltzmann Brains.
Or 3D Chern-Simons.
Or Strings.
Or Alien warp drives.
Or Quantum computing.
Or Calabi-Yau manifolds.
Or Machine Learning.
Or Tenure/PeerReview/Grants.
Etc Etc
But not physics.
Mark my words: âAnything-But-Physicsâ.
And I badly want to eat those words.
But weâll literally do anything around advancing physics that does not amount to advancing theoretical physics.
Thereâs an âAnything But Actual Theoretical Physicsâ force field shielding us from GR+SM.
đşđ¸ NEW NASA CHIEF JARED ISAACMAN: TRUMP'S SPACE ORDER IS "MOST SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT SINCE KENNEDY ERA"
Isaacson revealed that Trump's sweeping space executive order signed last week represents America's biggest space commitment in over 60 years, laying out plans for a permanent lunar base and nuclear-powered deep space exploration:
"It's been a week, we've been going near 24-7.
The president's national space policy is probably the most significant commitment to American leadership in space since the Kennedy era.
It reaffirms our commitment to return to the moon and establish the infrastructure so we can maintain an enduring presence.
Build the moon base.
From there we're gonna start making investments in nuclear power in space, nuclear propulsion so we can make that next giant leap in human space exploration. Extraordinarily exciting time at NASA."
Source: CNBC @rookisaacman
Weâll do quantum computing.
We can do quantum information.
Weâll try fusion.
Weâll fund String Theory.
Weâll do space exploration.
Weâll celebrate chemical rockets.
Weâll have space stations.
Weâll talk meta-materials.
Weâll launch telescopes.
All to starve fundamental physics.
Has anyone else noticed how consistent this is? Anyone?
Anything that sounds like theoretical physics, but isnât fundamental physics gets a green light.
This is glaring at this point.
Unmistakeable.