Chemical Rockets
2022
We are the first people in hundreds of years to allow known physics to crush our spirit at scale. We made one crazy bet on string theorists 40yrs ago and suddenly we now all give up? I wish I understood this better. Never, never, never give up.
How strangeâŠ.well, back to work.
@cornettd We will build tunnels.
We will build chemical rockets.
That is not in doubt.
Only the other part is in doubt.
@jimmyjandal @elonmusk With Putin in Ukraine? I would restart it in a heartbeat to discuss how we really get off this one sphere to diversify our bet. Not my call however.
Under Newton, we were free to explore the cosmos: 1686-1905.
Einstein then enforced house arrest to our solar system:1905-Now.
@elonmusk then said chemical rockets could get us 2 more spheres w Newtonian laws.
But survival hinges on going *beyond* Einstein, not back to Newton.
Iâm not going to complicate the basic story with caveats. Thatâs the basic plot.
Either there is freedom to leave based on new ideas, like GU, or the Einsteinian restrictions will persist.
If they persist; we probably can mildly elongate survival here by decades via wisdom.
But if we can leave to explore the universe by going beyond Einstein, anyone else out there can visit.
This brings us to UFO/UAP. Assuming a distribution of life in the cosmos:: some life is behind us in science, with others ahead.
A (loose) argument then links UAP to survival:
If life is abundant & weâre not the top of the hierarchy (which is reasonable to me), Iâd guess that UAP would be here if that is possible in Einsteinâs successor theories. The absence of UAP is strong but *inconclusive* proof that Einsteinâs restrictions persist in all theory.
Hence my interest in UAP. UAP from distant worlds would be a strong indication that it is possible to diversify our shared risk which is that all known technological life is dependent on one atmosphere linking our three main existential risks:
A) Climate B) Pathogen C) Radiation
So if #ufotwitter ever wanted to know why I didnât take #UFO seriously, it was because I thought it was *preposterous* given lack of evidence.
And if #ScienceTwitter wants to know why I spun on a dime, itâs because it IS linked to the post-Einsteinian physics of our survival. đ
@sneakin @elonmusk https://t.co/CkDXh91Im5
@jetpen https://t.co/twBP8ARlrF
@sneakin @elonmusk Addressed. Thanks. https://t.co/vUFGiwYF2n
@White_Shadow81 I chose alphabetical.
@HaackRick @White_Shadow81 Lexicographical order is âFealtyâ?!
Take a walk outside brother. Not everything is politics. Promise.
@HaackRick @White_Shadow81 Is PCR a Straussian critique of Fauciâs COVID response?
Or is PRC a message to Chinese handlers in Beijing?
We should ask @realclearpolicy. ;-)
@MimeTravel Iâm not. But there is only one way to find out.
2023
Today May be Considered the 50 year Anniversary of the Stagnation of Particle Physics.
Today Feb 1 marks the appearance of Kobayashi & Maskawa's englargment of the Cabibo Angle to the three generation 3x3 CKM matrix.
That should be cause for celebration. So let us celebrate! https://t.co/ZJbX5W71g3
Unfortunately, it also marks the end of what we can be certain actually is physics.
Imagine if Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" was still the #1 song on Billboard's Hot 100 & Tony Orlando and Dawn were singing "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". That, in a nutshell, is fundamental phsyics. https://t.co/ELNoJQpRvs
To be clear, It is not as if there are no Nobel Laureates recognized for fundamental discoveries in particle theory left. I believe we are down to the last 8. Half of them are in their 70s. One in his 80s. Three are nongenarians. Yes. It's that bad. And we're not honest about it. https://t.co/Rx6fzgUaPO
So I am celebrating today by pointing out the obvious: maybe it isn't a good idea to have people who haven't made contact with actual fundamental physics telling everyone else what they must and must not do to be members of a club that no longer works according to normal science. https://t.co/Pqlnp566jg
When you hear about "Peer Review" in this field, you have to understand that the field stopped working. Without nature telling us, we don't actually know who the physicists are any more. We have no idea who is a fundamental physicist. All we know is that what we do doesn't work. https://t.co/RsrTwXaxBt
What fundamental physics really is, is (approximately) captured by the table below. In short, if someone is below the age of 70, they may have proven their brilliance and mathematical ability, but they have not proven any ability to make contact with reality as theorists. https://t.co/E33n8h6bHv
So what went wrong? I will be talking about my understanding of the stagnation this year at a different level. But the single greatest threat to fundamental physics in my estimation is something called "Quantum Gravity" which was really born 70 years ago around 1953. https://t.co/mzYc7HAb6R
I will point out that our experimentalists are in FAR better shape. The massive nature of neutrinos, discovery of gravitational waves, the Higgs field, Intermediate Vector Bosons, Accelerating Expansion of the Universe/Dark Energy are all major successes over the last 50 years. https://t.co/54uGtTTAwr
To put it bluntly, it is not just that Quantum Gravity doesn't work. It's that you can't comfortably question Quatnum Gravity because the failed investment is on a scale that I think is difficult for us to contemplate. It includes StringTheory, Loop Quantum Gravity, AdS/CFT etc. https://t.co/3Stejnsnkd
Next Year, will be 40 years of failure for modern StringTheory to ship a product. To be clear and STEELMAN the argument for strings, it *is* a remarkable framework. It is REAL math. It teaches us things no other framework has.
But, it *destroyed* the culture of honest physics. https://t.co/Gux6mHs0nM
It is time to hold conferences dedicated to the issues of groupthink in physics. Why wont our leading voices admit failure? We don't know. Previous generations wanted their students to succeed. But String Theory is dominated by boomers who seem oblivious to danger.
We spent almost 80% of this time being told that ST was a 'Piece of 21st Century Physics that fell into the 20th Century.'
Uh. Bullshit. That is an excuse. It's not clear that it's physics at all.
It's a "Failed piece of 20th Century Physics still hanging around in the 21stC". https://t.co/7hp32i70ng
So by all means, let's celebrate. But it is time to ask new voices for wild, dangerous and irresponsible ideas. Peer review failed. Quantum Gravity Failed. Community norms failed. And soon there will be NO ONE LEFT proven to be able to play this game. So what do we do?
If we're going to truly wrestle w/ dark matter, or dark energy, or UAP that supposedly violate our laws of physics (e.g. General Relativity) we can't afford a leaders projecting their fears that THEY have wasted their lives, credibility and students careers on "Quantum Gravity".
Let's put resources in new avenues, theories and theorists that have yet to fail. The next time you hear a theorist telling you about quantum gravity, the multiverse or String theory or Loops or Supersymmetry or AdS/CFT, etc. Ask them the following dangerous question:
As someone who has tried to ask this question, I can tell you that mostly the big programs have granted themselves a science equivalent of 'dipolmatic immunity' from the standards they impose on their intellectual competitors. But from today forward, we must end that game.
We need to spend perhaps 5yrs asking "If the leaders have not succeeded for FIVE DECADES in moving beyond the Standard Model, then why are they leading this field and directing the resources, research, and path forward? What if we listened to those who the leadership push aside?"
"If you haven't succeeded in 50-70 years, what other theories would be viable if we relaxed the standards you have imposed on your competitors given that your theories do not seem to work? What if your Quantum Gravity were subjected to such standards? Would QG be quackery?"đ
Let's honor those who tried before by bringing the same energy they once brought to the attempt to learn our place in the universe. Happy to be corrected. But this is an emergency if we're ever going to go beyond chemical rockets and use physics to take our place among the stars.
"I remember when rock was young...đ¶"
Let's get that energy back, by any means necessary. https://t.co/2kxhbPuY9b
@Pennywi25761697 Many. What areas?
@Seggitorial @martinmbauer Maybe you didnât get the point of Embedded Growth Obligations. Itâs a single point of failure problem. Itâs not a million different problems.
@nu_phases @martinmbauer I actually really enjoyed your list. It was quite varied. It included changes in the understanding of the techniques (e.g. RG) and other advancements. And, as you hint at, it dovetails with my point about the stagnancy of fundamental theory. I do not think all physics stagnated.
@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 wasnât built in a day after all.
But my point stands along side your point. We donât seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. đ
@Pennywi25761697 For Classical Mechanics, from a math perspective I liked Arnoldâs book.
Physicists all seem to use Jackson for E&M. But I would learn the bundle theoretic version where Maxwell becomes a single equation. GR I found Shlomo Sternbergâs papers and Books very helpful. Or Wald. https://t.co/uY21BQCIC4
@Pennywi25761697 Also, I have been wanting to check out @seanmcarrollâs books and lectures on introductory topics. He is usually very clear and extremely good at explaining things. I might even start there, but I personally havenât gotten there as of yet so I canât say for sure. https://t.co/4cdz28cvnD
@elewrockjazz Bring that brain of yours from the keyboard to the black board and weâll get it done.
@elewrockjazz Seconded
2024
A question that I find fascinating:
Do you think man is more likely to settle, Terraform and thrive on Mars via advances in Chemical Rockets or advances in Post-Relativity physics?
I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. What do you think?
Humans will first settle Mars via:
I should say that this formulation is inspired by @elonmusk. I myself never focused on Mars. I have never thought much about making our Moon or Mars habitable via Rockets. It seems marginally possible and I have very little to contribute on that issue.
But if I am focused only on the stars, then there is no known engineering problem to solve. And if Elon is focused solely on engineering problems, then we aren't going to the stars without a breakthrough in science. They are simply too far away.
The question then really revolves around the fact that Mars seems BARELY doable...but POSSIBLY doable...with modern engineering alone. A scientific advance might change everything (e.g. economics, degrees of freedom). Or it might prove to us that in every successor theory to Einstein the Speed of Light problem will remain the practical barrer to the stars if it persists to the ultimate Lagrangian. It can't be said until the next theory is proposed, discussed and accepted.
No one knows the answer to the question posed above. I certainly do not and I do not believe Musk does either. But it explains why I believe we need a portfolio of options to get to interplanetary civilization. Even the search for UFOs which may be totally pointless.
But if we don't try, I fear that we perish here with all we have accomplised. Earth is not our home. It is our womb and eventually our tomb. It cannot be otherwise with the world we have built.
Per aspera (and perhaps Mars), ad astra.
My personal guess is that terraforming mars via rockets is too hard a problem. I personally feel we are more likely to find a scientific way out of this solar system and find new exoplanets that are better suited.
But itâs a guess. No one knows. Hence the question on the region of overlap: Mars. We waste time talking past each other .
@JSVoutilainen If you had meaningful post Einsteinian physics and engineering it might make sense to practice using it with a local target.
2025
I love this place. You see it in everything I talk about.
It is 100 percent serious. I donât want to go to Mars. I want our descendents to survive.
So far as I understand it, @elonmusk is motivated by Mars because he doesnât see physics as viable. So Mars motivates an engineer. It can be attacked today without a change in Einsteinian physics or cracking the Standard Model. He must find physics enervating as it hasnât moved.
I have the inverted reaction. Everyday I think about physics because I think it is doable. In fact, I think we will occupy Mars from Post Einsteinian physics before we get their with chemical rockets. I cannot explain why we have come to opposite conclusions.
I wish we were holding debates and conferences about what we can do to beat the clock as we have billions of eggs in one basket. But it isnât sci fi. I just spoke about the Dark Energy in a physics department.
We are going to attack this one way or the other. And we need more people daring to take this seriously in public.
Our top priority on earth is as clear to me as can be: we must do everything in technical fields to restore our indefinite human future that was lost in November of 1952.
I honestly donât know how anyone comes to a different conclusion. And if @elonmusk and I ever debate it out, I will move to his project if he can convince me chemical rockets are the way to go. I would like to think he would do the same if he became convinced that a change in our laws of physics is likely to work first.
Itâs not about ego. Itâs not about science fiction. It is nakedly about one thing: loving humanity and the quest to restore an indefinite future. And traverse the cosmos.
If no one laughed when you said that, wouldnât you agree that this is the most marvelous use of a life? I think you would.
Then ignore the laughter. Think about it. I trust you will come to the same conclusion.
Thanks!
And, praytell, how would you know what is possible? What princpie are you referring to?
Do you think Einstein is the last word?
Have you tried really thinking this through? I guarantee you that you have not.
We are going to crack physics. Count on it or give me the incredible odds as a wager that come from such a silly negative definitive perspective, so that I and others like me may enrich ourselves from the hubris and defeatism of naysayers on the journey to hope and exploration.
Give me real odds and terms so that we can structure a bet that we are about to crack physics.
I try to be professional and scientific in my enthusiasm, but Iâm not above financially bankrupting all those who dare discourage work on this most central of problems.
Letâs have some fun. No?
My guess is that isnât exactly it. He avoids funding physics which is a huge piece of clue.
think he knows what is up. I donât want to undercut his strategy in public. I think he knows things he doesnât say. Which is fine.
The only thing is that he is making it all about mars. And he knows it is not. It is ultimately about physics and science and not mars and engineering.
But @elonmusk knows things that I do not about the 6Mâs:
Markets
Marketing
Motivation
Money
Men
Mars
so I continue to listen.
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.
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.
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.
@noah_vandal No
@FreedomR10156 Exactly. It all sounds physicsish.
@beffjezos This is, in my opinion, and with all due respect, rationalization of what is.
We canât get physics back because of X. And X is always bullshit. Always changing.
Respectfully.
@beffjezos I know. I see the same reality.
But we arenât allowed to succeed I think. @pmarca seems to have stumbled on evidence of a deep truth.
 This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.