Claims
On XEdit
2009Edit
CLAIM: Gauge Theory is the natural marginalism for economics. CHALLENGE: help launch a 2nd marginal revolution virally via social networks.
CLAIM: in the future, the only case for W as greatest US president will be the two words 'Alphonso mangos'. Now where are they??
Ok @dabacon Beauty in Econ: SpaceTime->OrdinalPrefs x Time InternalSymm->Util Re-Params GaugeFields->Indifference\Mkts FieldStrength ...
Now @dabacon: do you know anyone in physics with a blog and the cojones to engage this? I claim that Paul can't define inflation w/o gauge.
So @riemannzeta and @dabacon: I don't want to get specualtive or distracted. Hard claim: Krugman can't define inflation in theory w/o gauge.
I'll be happy to make a precise statement to that effect when a physicist or geometer with some self respect steps forward to host a debate.
Ok Paul: if you even had a perfect world, *define* inflation with evolving ordinal tastes O_t under prices p_t if O_t isn't fixed by Magic?
That "Magic" is lying about H. Sapiens. It is also ugly. Beauty removes the lie. So if we're full of it, invite us to Princeton. I'll come.
New topic: The Self-Hating American Scientist.
I find it fascinating that a couple of top-notch biologists consider themselves lucky to get jobs in "adjacent western states."
I stare in wonder at a highly trained physicist repeatedly 'apologizing for wasting your time' on 'a crazy idea' to his audience.
I gaze in wonder at a math student hitting his head against a window intoning 'i'm so stupid, i'm so stupid' as I find his proof's flaw.
What no one I know is talking about is that manipulation of S&E labor markets is destroying the 'take-no-prisoners' American Scientist.
We are about to start the LHC. Q: Where are the young turks with predictions other than the usual safe SUSY/Higgs offerings? A: In hiding.
Q: Where are the economists who know where the bodies are burried in the neo-classical canon? A: Calculating where their bread is buttered.
Claim: Making scientists cheaper makes scientists crappier. The economic issue is that the brilliance of "L" changes with price.
What if we were to make a pledge that along with training in science came a serious academic freedom committment to protect OUR investment.
If my tax dollar is going to fund your PhD, I want you to have help in the house, and security so that my investment isn't squandered.
I don't mean to sound overly mercinary, but lack of self-esteem, security and power in young scientists is a dilution of U.S. investment.
What to do about physics hype? If the LHC doesn't deliver time-traveling spaceman from a 37D-black hole it will anti-climax.
What makes Goldman fearsome is not that they're smart and stand up for their interests. It's taxpayers who refuse to do likewise.
'Remember laymen: when trying to understand markets crises DONT CONSULT SCIENCE PHDS. They're the cause. Avoid smart people.' -Big Brother
When Krugman's NYT blog promoted the 'smart people are the problem' theory, I realized 'The Matrix' was my favorite documentary.
Parents, your kids are never to young to have 'that talk' with them. Let your child learn basic particle theory from home, not the streets.
So @Gelada asks a great question. The right age to talk about something has to do with what you understand about it.
New Topic: "How to Talk to Exceptional Children" or "The importance of never ever ever ever creating prodigies"
First, fetishizing synthetic prodigies is a direct threat to exceptional children. When you create a street urchin, you create a prodigy.
Almost any child, can be turned into a prodigy by an insecure parent. If you've been in a top math department, you've seen these victims.
But the other week, I gave a plan of how to build a true Klein bottle from 2:1 gears, a lazy susan, and a wheel. That can't hurt anyone.
Now if you push Terry Tao's Gauge theory intro on kids using formal definitions you'll blow their little neurons to bits. Don't do it!
When I ask if I can teach gauge theory to little kids, I'm trying to find examples in real life. Yet we don't understand our own subjects.
So I ask @Gelada, "How well do *you* understand Gödel's theorems?" 22YO-well? 16YO-well? 5YO-well? That's my best answer.
So @republicofmath asks what I mean by 'teach' gauge theory to kids. I mean, can you recognize & understand bundles and their connections.
Bottom line: Prodigy-victims keep us from treating kids as the true geniuses they are. Teach kids about that which moves you without fear.
@republicofmath I mean hand them examples, screen them examples, build examples, analyze examples, invent examples.
CLAIM: I could teach a 7YO why intertemporal economic welfare is based on gauge theory so she could explain Dale Jorgenson's error.
There is something bizarre about the fear of disruption in the sciences. Yeah, it's disruptive *&* childishly simple. That's the BEST part!
In dialogue with theory, experiment has the last word.
Often, "I'm Sorry! I was so wrong baby. Please don't leave me."
@orzelc The use of 'often' had such a point in mind. But the sins of bad theory are legend. Experiment's, less so.
'What experimental sins?' asks @orzelc. Ask @BretWeinstein about drug testing on lab mice w/o contolling for divergence from wild-type. Oy.
I respectfully disagree in strongest terms with my friend @orzelc about experiment 'trumping' theory in conflict. From whence this edict?
Conflicts between theory & experiment are Prize fights. If you always short theory, I'll selectively take your action. Ka-ching!
I spot 3 separate difficulties in the last tweet alone @orzelc regarding 'trumps', 'useless' & 'reality'. It would be a pleasure to discuss.
A) Experiment doesn't trump theory. B) Observations of reality are not reality. C) All theories that do not fit experiment are not useless.
CLAIM: "Experiment automatically trumps Theory" is broadly distributed science malware. Malware sent to Grad School...but malware it is.
New Topic: Scientific Malware, Theory-Phobia, and the Proxy Economy of Science.
Let me make a claim: Science is too disruptive to result in an orderly market place of ideas. If you like orderly markets, ya got trouble.
What we have built is a compromise: a proxy economy which is nothing if not orderly. In fact, the proxy economy is a towering achievment.
The proxy economy gets results but in a weird way. A falsifiable hypothesis sent to a leading journal can be returned as 'speculation'.
The vulnerability of the proxy economy is that achieves an orderly market place of ideas at the expense of efficiency. Enter "Theory".
There are *distinct* fears surrounding new theory. A) It is crap. B) If not, It threatens stabilty, my grant, my oeuvre, my self-worth.
A game is to make lay people interested in radical progress fear disorderly change as if they were rentseekers, by feeding the fear of crap.
The crap, though, is easy to spot. String triumphalism, genetic determinism, etc.. Yet so is an advancement like gauge theoretic economics.
So, in my case, while *experiment* shows consumer tastes changing, we claim any theory incorporating this is crap. Now, that's some malware!
In particle physics, wagers (more than data) have showed us how weak actual conviction in theory is relative to stated confidence.
Moral: Bad Theory is overblown. Good theory is a remaining threat to orderly science. But if you fear disruption, run the malware. Thx.
So @orzelc claims I'm making a mistake fallling for economics as a science. Yeah. I thought we were apes with behavior to study. My bad.
No doubt, my points about K-meson decay and Hayflick limits in toxicology were also contaminated by my trying to make econ. a science? ;-)
CLAIM: It is unethical to offer rent seekers anonymity w/ peer review if they refuse to risk profit 'shorting' what they block.
2010Edit
Claim: The science world version of the index "Log(Morpheus per unit Neo)" went well negative before a mild recovery.
Claim: "He said / She said" journalism perpetuates the status quo via muddled stalemate. I'll prove it objectively: try covering this story.
2020Edit
I respectfully **strongly** disagree. To many of us âLearning disabledâ kids w/ lousy grades & crappy teacher recommendations they are our only lifeline. True, we may struggle with them as well. But sometimes one can show a C-average student in the >95% percentile on such a test.
This allows a truly marginalized community (those of us w/ significant learning differences) with *no political presence* at all and which is shat upon w/ impunity by almost all educators that the problem is actually âTeaching Disabilitiesâ which show up as terrible evaluations.
How do you explain a student getting Câs w 1400 on an SAT? Those tests w/ all their flaws have been the lifeline of people like me. Without them we have no way of pointing to the problem as being our teachers.
If those tests didnât exist, you would not be following this account.
By all means letâs make our tests better, but give us the means to throw off our damned educators who attempt to destroy my community of learners. So why do they do it? Because we are the one community that consistently reveals the inadequacy of our schools, material & educators.
So Iâm sorry to Black and Latino advocates that may argue that the tests are unfair to those marginalized communities. But there are MILLIONS of voiceless Americans who are **openly** discriminated against and destroyed by our schools.
Itâs totally invisible with *zero* empathy.
Short of asking blind musicians to read music, itâs actually the clearest demonstration of âStructural biasâ we have. Every second of every day of school is based around neurotypical expectations. K-12 is 13yrs of everyday being a humiliation communicating that you are an idiot.
So hereâs my claim: those tests are all some of us have. The next time someone says âTests only measure an ability to take tests.â show them this thread and tell them to look at the contributions of dyslexics & others non-neurotypicals.
Fix the educators. Or hands off the tests.
And lest you think this isnât empathic towards racial minorities, the jokeâs on you. Those tests save Black dyslexics. They save Latinos w âattention deficitâ. The multiple choice questions rescue Trans kids w disgraphia.
Yet we arenât even recognized by âDiversity & Inclusion.â
Perhaps my identification before even Male, Jewish or American is non-neurotypical. Precisely because the issue is invisible. My community of neurodivergents isnât a white or privileged issue. Weâre a totally inclusive đ,only weâre somehow in the ultraviolet you donât see yet.đ
2021Edit
One of the things my trolls like to point to is outrageous claims.
One of my most *outrageous* is that my joint work on a 2nd Marginal Revolution for economics was scuttled by the Harvard Department of Economics Boskin Commissioners.
Yet itâs admitted:
https://ritholtz.com/2010/01/why-michael-boskin-deserves-our-contempt/
Â
Itâs kind of an interesting puzzle. Why is it that a Harvard Professor (Mankiw) can say the truth which is that this was a conspiracy to cut entitlements. But the only two people who can CALCULATE a COLA for changing tastes are crazy for saying their work was deliberately buried?
In any event, I stand by my claim. The Boskin Commission was organized by Moynihan and Packwood to deliberately break the CPI in a precise amount to avoid the US paying 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.
And I promise you no leading economist will call bullshit to debate this.
On of the reasons is that one of the commissioners bragged about this being the motivation behind the scenes.
Okay. So why canât we have gauge theoretic economics reevaluated? Everyone admits this is what happened. Why continue to bury the advance?
I dunno. But itâs amazing!
The moral of the story to me is this:
We canât have outside folks calculating and theorizing while the inside economists are fudging and cooking the books.
And calling me crazy wonât change a thing when this is finally understood. Itâs simply institutional academic malpractice.
At this point, the story I am tracking isnât âLittle Green Menâ. It is âOfficials inexplicably change course on UFO narrativeâ.
Also, the story about âTechnology never before seen.â Would make more sense with âTechnologyâ replaced by âPhysicsâ.
High level government officials have given UAPs credibility, but it's still pretty hard for an outsider to analyze the evidence objectively. It's all video footage and testimony. We need much stronger evidence to form any real opinion on UFOs being extraterrestrial or not.
The US/Europe seriously diverted attention from doing real theoretical physics almost 40 years ago in 1984 to explore physics inspired mathematics. Did China/Iran/Russia/Israel? I donât know.
But I can tell you this: no one in government is appropriately focused on new physics.
Imagine in 1900 some âcrankâ told you about thermonuclear weapons. Would you listen or laugh? Well, theyâd be only 5 decades away with no aliens necessary. And powered flight hadnât happened yet!
Thatâs how powerful a ânew physicsâ advantage is. Weâre behaving like lunatics.
Any time ANYONE at least 1/2-way viable says something weird or kooky or interesting (Wolfram, Lisi, etc.) the cost of a Department of Energy 1hr phone call is negligible. Almost no one with that background says anything like this. Maybe less than 1 such PhD âlunaticâ per year.
Do I think Wolfram, Lisi, Kaku, Smolin, Klee Irwin, Sarfatti, Woit/Penrose etc are right or on the doorstep of new physics? No! But Itâs also totally irrelevant to the security risk.
It wouldnât matter to me at all. I would check in with all of them: the cost is zero. The risk?
The thing I like least about Geometric Unity is not being able to know what it would unlock if true, any more than Einstein and Bohr understood Lise Meitner, Stan Ulam & Edward Tellerâs weaponization of New Physics.
We are talking about UFOs while not worrying about New Physics.
Think about the g-2 muon anomaly. Have you heard as much about that suggesting the possibility of New Physics from high precision (rather than high energy) as you have about the TicTac UAP?
Similarly, how often do you hear about UAP technology rather than physics issues. Right??
I have no idea what to make of the change in the UAP narrative. What I can tell you with certainty is that for such an ENORMOUS change in the narrative there is no sane explanation for the DOE not to be talking new physics risks and taking every one of the few claims seriously.
As we saw over & over in the 20th century, any small change in physics can change everything almost overnight. From A-Bombs to Semiconductors.
The handful of PhD level claims are of negligible cost to investigate & dismiss compared to a single fighter jet.
DOE lost the plot.
Enough! Letâs get back to UFOs and space opera so we donât have to worry about China & Iran making a breakthrough on a white board in some lab we canât see.
Moral: if you take UFOs seriously but not the risk of new physics, you arenât thinking clearly.
Just think about it. đ
Â
Iâd propose total reassessment of the National Physics program.
Much greater autonomy for theorists.
*Much* higher salaries.
Much greater *diversity* of approaches.
More high precision work.
Fewer graduate programs.
Physics = economic/security priority.
Admit String Thy failure.
We need to hire people who will upset the living hell out of the people doing the hiring.
We need to put fundamental physics theory in receivership. No theory lead advance in fundamental physics for almost 50 years, yet no soul searching about who lost physics?? Are we kidding?
Itâs time to stop listening to the same voices as if they hadnât failed. This is a national priority, not a cult of personality for a STEM generation that had their time..and then ate their own young across every field. Is no one following what we did to destroy our own capacity?
Â
Â
Or should we do yet more 2D Yang Mills on irrelevant groups in non physical signatures? Squarks/Sleptons? Ha!
Letâs say it clearly as everyone young is terrified to say it: the baby boomer theorists were successful as geometers while avoiding actual physics over entire careers.
By mumbling âQuantum Gravityâ every 2 minutes as a mantra and recasting actual High Energy Physics as âPhenomenologyâ they mis-educated an entire generation to think âtoy physicsâ was real physics. Itâs unbelievable.
Toy physics is real geometry & topology. But it ainât physics.
Real physics:
A) Works with dimension 4.
B) Works with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1).
C) Uses observed quantum numbers.
D) Accepts Lorentzian Signature.
E) Focuses on 3 Generation.
There is *Nothing* wrong with toy models now and then. But we are talking *entire careers* playing with toys.
We tell people who are basically mathematicians that theyâre physicists.
Well, they arenât. Physicists say things about the world. And those things *need* to be potentially wrong to qualify as physics.
We have a culture of people who canât *afford* error. So they just do math.
Also, to be a fundamental physicist you really should be telling us what we now have wrong. Every advance partially recovers the one before it but also invalidates it, telling us where to look for error. Weâve made hidden assumptions so you have to tell your elders they goofed.
Well, young people canât say that to elders who hold their academic lives in the palms of their hands. Thatâs why young/iconoclast physicists need FU salaries.
Elder âYou should work on AdS/CFT or âBH informationâ if you want to get a job.â
Young Colleague: âHow does NO sound?â
When I say âThere are only two true generations of Fermions.â Iâm potentially wrong.
When I listed quantum numbers of the remaining particles, Iâm potentially wrong.
As when I claimed Pati-Salam is a maximal compact subgroup of the normal bundle of metrics.
Thatâs not a bug.
Yet you canât do this in academic depts.
Moral: we destroyed our ability to self-police. Peer review wonât work. We need to go back to doing physics. Whatâs holding us back may not be physics but the political economy of academic labor, citation, reputation & attribution.đ
One last thought. If there arenât very compelling UAF revelations coming our way, Iâd redirect our interest in aliens towards terrestrial physics done by humans. If there were such revelations, then Iâd *still* look to physics before tech, as đœ *still* implies new physics to me.
Kayfabrication of the US Senate & economics.
Fiat money, String Thy, âlabor shortagesâ, COVID origin, CRT, 2wks to âFlatten the Curveâ, etc. I donât think people take me seriously that itâs now everywhere.
But that is the claim: Lack of growth led to Kayfabe becoming universal.
"In the early 2000s, I was involved with one of the larger professional wrestling organizations" writes @Motoconomist "In 2018, I worked in the US Senate as an Economics Fellow...The crossover between politics and professional wrestling is quite real" https://ordinary-times.com/2021/05/10/professional-wrestling-is-more-real-than-politics/
Â
Claim: when it comes to inflation and growth, Economists donât even understand the theory of their *own* price and quantity indices mathematically:
WILD IDEA: Maybe the economists don't actually understand what is going on right now? https://x.com/disclosetv/sta/disclosetv/status/1392488787838742536
The problem of inflation index calculation has not been adequately updated since Ragnar Frisch destroyed Irving Fisherâs attempt to axiomatize economic indices following the last great advances of F. Divisia and A. KonĂŒs on continuous and welfare indices respectively.
Economists are holding their own field back by retaining their freedom to just cook up any revised index they want.
Itâs as if physicists retained the right to define temperature differently every year based on a closed door meeting and manufactured new thermometers thereafter.
If youâre going to push us all to move to âtrueâ âeconomicâ indices & chain them to reflect dynamic actors (or to disguise true inflation!), you would end up chaining ordinal preferences. And you canât do that without gauge theory because it is a problem in parallel transport.
Watch the US CPI revisions and methodology going forward. People who like to print money tend to want to change their definition of inflation and therefore donât like anyone taking away freedom to make up methodologies to suit their political objectives involving wealth transfer.
Our fact checkers have one job. Only one reason for being. They are supposed to focus on facts only & check them.
This is not fact checking @PolitiFact. This is consensus checking. That has nothing to do with facts.
You arenât a fact checker. You opened us all to groupthink.
Â
Claim: @PolitiFact and our other fact checkers are reliable fact checking organizations as they simply check their own facts without bias and nothing more.
Truth-O-Meter:
Â
Most of us flawed humans arenât so bold as to say we are the bastions of truth. We get things wrong. We struggle. We lie at times. We appeal to experts. We throw up our hands. We remain silent.
Saying you are a fact checker is a BOLD claim. Hence, the need for a total rethink.
2022Edit
Increasingly I see a story about some factual thing w quotes, dates, or numbers & data. It is in @nypost or @FoxNews. And I think âWow. That would be insane. Better see how the @washingtonpost or @npr is covering the same story so I donât get spun.â
And I find *zero* coverage.
That is new. In the old days everyone would cover the same stories from different perspectives.
But now what I regularly see in place of that is a spun version of a real story on one side of the aisle and NO STORY reported by the other.
Is anyone else noticing such a shift?
To sum up the claim: We are no longer separately spinning a common reported reality which we are all forced to acknowledge. Itâs now just two different notions of what can be ignored and what must be spun. If that is true, itâs a big shift towards ungovernability.
I would say I have seen this effect for about 5-7 years now.
@seanonolennon In what sense? Itâs been about 6 years Iâve been thinking it is going on. I donât think it has been going on for 10.
2023Edit
@TomBilyeu @JosephPConlon My completely crazy claim: I donât think there is a log jam. String theory is relentlessly jamming the future. It has taught people how to *stop* progress.
The future of physics is not necessarily evenly distributed.
2024Edit
I've a tradition where I use April 1 not for pranks, but to say a difficult thing that's actually TRUE.
We're now in a current fad where famous physicists deride even the mere idea of any crisis in fundamental physics, treating those who claim one as delusional.
They're lying: https://t.co/Vd1veqR50W
Here is the alternative text explaining the picture above.
ALT TEXT: "Graph of the youngest living Nobel Laureate in Fundamental Physics over the last 100 years.
Before the 1984 explosion in String Theory, the graph shows a physicist 50 or younger. After 1984, the graph shows that there has not been a single year in which we have had such Nobel Laureates below that age. Since 2021, the youngest such living laureate has been above the age of 70 and was given the prize done for work that is now more than 50 years old as of 2024.
While the String Era is not the sole cause of this crisis, it has covered up this crisis by pretending that the field of fundamental physics is in a normal regime. This is widely disputed within the field....and even privately among the String Theory community. Most importantly, no one in the field actually believes that there is anything delusional or abberant about seeing this crisis. The String-Theory / M-Theory community members have simply decided to misportray & strawman their critics against all scientific ethical norms."
I am prepared to stand by the following claim: I believe that every single member of the theoretical physics community knows that there is *nothing* at all abberant about seeing the current regime as a potentially catastrophic crisis for fundamental physics.
Without exception.
[Note: This Graph dramatizing just how dramatically we have reached a new regime was made in good faith, but was both complicated and somewhat involved to put together. I am solely responsible for its construction; any oversights or errors within it lie entirely with me. I encourage others to check it, and I will be happy to correct it if necessary. However, the basic point is that the Standard Model and General Relativity are now both 50 years old, and the hope that String Theory / M-Theory would provide the next big insight has been downgraded many times in the years since the 1984 G-S anomaly cancelation ushered in the modern String Era. ]
2025Edit
The title of this @joerogan clip from #1945 is literally: "We might be faking a UFO situation."
OBVIOUSLY.
As I have said before, "When we do something secret and cool, we generally pair it with something fake." This is standard operating proceedure (e.g. Operation Overlord was D-Day/Operation Fortitude was a Faked Norway Invasion). This is what 'Covert' means. Covert means 'Deniable'. Not secret, but *deniable*.
BOMBSHELL: Pentagon created fake UFO evidence, promoted false alien stories https://nypost.com/video/bombshell-pentagon-created-fake-ufo-evidence-promoted-false-alien-stories/
Â
Imho, This @nypost article is **NOT** the big story. That is coming.
CLAIM: We will find that there is a minimum of *one* pair of fake/real programs and that it is much much bigger than the hazing ritual being reported. But, more importantly, there are likely many more such pairs of REAL/FAKE programs in this area.
Yes: we fake UFOs. And yes, there is a REAL Aerospace program that hides under cover of the FAKE UFO program.
But this is not about an Air Force Hazing ritual. This isn't a prank. This is a whole life ruining program where we will find that we regularly destroy the minds of our own people with disinformation and threats to their mental health and families. Military heroes. Scientists. IC spooks.
The real FAKE programs are bigger than this. And the REAL program is also bigger than just conventional Aerospace. I wish to mark this claim now: eventually, this is going to be about the actual SCIENCE of Physics.
I don't think Quantum Gravity as it is practiced is a real research program. It is the obvious candidate for the "inhibitor" that, when added to research, stagnated physics...and it didn't come out of some longstanding program from the birth of quantum mechanics. It came out of nowhere right before we stopped making progress on the Lagrangian of the real world.
Â
This is going to explain what @pmarca keeps talking about with @bariweiss, @bhorowitz and others: we took whole areas of physics off line after the Manhattan project and that was *NOT* limited to just the Nuclear Physics of nuclear warheads.
CLAIM: These FAKE and REAL programs will keep going and extend to "The Golden Age of General Relativity". We will eventually learn that the mysterious philathropists Roger Babson and Agnew Bahnson who funded Louis Witten and Bryce deWitt (respectively), along with others were (obviously) NationalSecurity cutouts. They were real people giving cover to some major Post-Manhattan physics thing.
From Australian Intelligence (circa 1971) we have this which I both believe and hypothesized LONG before finding it:
Â
It's time to come clean. The disclosure is coming. One way or the other. A so-called "Limited Hangout" is impossible in 2025. This is not going to work. There is too much information out here already:
Â
Claim: We are going to learn that just as public work on chain reaction physics mysteriously vanished during the Manhattan Project, research in fundamental physics changed character TWICE. Once in the late 1960s-early 1970s with the Mansfield Amendment, after the quark model and spontaneous symmetry breaking and then more dramatically around 1983-1984 shortly after the catastrophic disclosures of Howard Borland and John Aristotle Philips to handle the "Streisand Effect" problem, which had no such name at the time.
Eventually we learned why progress immediately stalled in physics due to secrecy and the building of the atomic bombs. We have an obvious second candidate and we aren't allowed to ask questions about why we aren't getting back to real physics in open universities. The dangerous and powerful kind that can build prosperity, weapons, energy, travel, propulsion and insight.
Â
We have now found out that we were lying to our own people. As I predicted to you all.
I predict that this is **way** more interesting. This revelation about the lies is just the beginning. And it may have nothing whatsoever to do with NHI or flying saucers.
But either way, let us be bold enough to ask for the *full* lie. About our own history. Our science. Our Intelligence Community. Our Defense Contractors.
It's our country after all. At least supposedly...
đ
Â
We picked up this weird Quantum Fetish in the 1980s.
CLAIM: Discoveries in Classical Field theory have been FAR more important historically for our deep understanding of the physical world than Quantum theory. As late as 1986, this wasnât even that controversial of an observation.
Further, the theory of Geometric Quantization can be interpreted as saying that classical Hamiltonian systems are roughly *Self Quantizing*. Which is huge and rectified a huge oversight.
I am not sure why I am constantly supposed to ooh and aah about all things quantum (âItâs entangled!!!â âThe cat is both dead AND alive!â âIt goes through both slits!!â) while pretending that our classical field theory is just a low energy effective theory.
This should be reversed in my opinion. Perhaps we arenât making progress following the Quantum Fetishists with their Quantum Gravity that doesnât work.
HERETICAL CLAIM: Classical Theory is FAR more important than the failed Quantum Gravity crowd understands. We would be much further ahead if we stopped the quantum fetish. The world *IS* quantum. But it is *also+ likely classical in a way that is equally if not more profound. We should split the field into quantum supremacists and mixed Quantum / Classical people and see if the second group doesnât outpace the fetishists within the first.
This is how String Theorists lost the plot and everyone outside of physics.
@elonmusk makes a comment about String Theory not making any Predictions. He sees the next move coming and uses the word âtestableâ.
What could we say to an engineering CEO who *LOVES* physics, needs it to traverse the cosmos, and could save the field single-handedlyâŠif we just wanted to piss him off instead by making it sound like the field is fake?
âI didnât forget your birthday at all! I just wrote you a birthday card that is 10,000,000,000,000,000x smaller than a quark. You just canât read it.â
âString Theorists never claimed that Super-Symmetric String Theory would almost certainly mean Superpartners at LHC energies. It only seems that way to stupid people.â
âWe didnât fail to deliver a Unique Theory of Everything in 10 years as we claimed in the 1980s when we murdered the reputations of all our competitors as being stupid people who just didnât get it. No no no. Instead you merely got impatient in 2025 after a mere 4 decades of âaleged failureâ. Because you donât get science the way we do!!â
I didnât say that. I think @elonmusk thinks *theory* is dead or all but dead.
And I could not disagree with him more on this. But I *totally* understand why he would think this. Consider this:
âWell, the Challenger Space Shuttle Worked Perfectly,, except for one silly O-Ring. So the mission was actually a success if you think about it from that perspective.â
I would read the room and never say this. Itâs important to admit failure.
String Theory failed. It was a hyper aggressive dismissive movement that cut it self off and became a cult and a culture that could not face its own failures. Letâs admit it, take the losses, listen to the OTHER voices who called this fiasco correctly, and move on before we piss off the last of our friends and supporters.
Andreas, I can defend String Theory and itâs technical accomplishments. And I can do so honestly.
But the âpromisesâ were not âjust overblownâ:
We are *NOT* trying to measure physics as the âbest candidate for unifying gravity and quantum mechanicsâ. The goal of fundamental physics is to progress our Actions, Equations, or the Lagrangians.
CLAIM: String Theory has at no point in its modern history Since 1984, been the unambiguous leading candidate for going beyond the Standard Model and/or General Relativity.
@karch_andreas @elonmusk The âpromisesâ were not âjust overblownâ. Careers of competitors were ended. It was a time of âJoin or Dieâ.
There was a bloody takeover of theoretical physics.
A lot of people had alternatives. Where are they now? They are gone.
Letâs try a science post to show you the problem with the hijacking of science:
CLAIM: Quantum Gravity has been a 41 year disaster for physics. EVERYONE knows the String Theory leadership told us exactly what they were about to do, and then FAILED physics.
A mitigated disaster:
Â
Everyone who has followed fundamental physics closely since â84 knows this is true.
If science were healthy we would discuss that. But we canât, because we have unwanted leaders. Those leaders are refereeing their OWN games. And, they win all games that they both play & referee.
So has physics failed you? No! Fundamental Physics is fine. But it got hijacked by a crew. That crew created a cult called âThe Only Game In Townâ or TOGIT. Literally. That is what they called it. Pure hubris and murder.
TOGIT failed you. And TOGIT hijacked fundamental physics for 41 years. But science didnât.
Fundamental physics is sitting right where it was overpowered, mugged, robbed, and tied up by String Theory and Quantum Gravity and left for dead in 1984.
Itâs fine. The Standard Model is amazing. As is general relativity. In fact: itâs totally spectacular. We could get back to work tomorrow if we could get out from under the cult and get our own resources back.
But we canât yet run De-Stringification schools, undo Quantum Gravity Indoctrination and get back to actual science. We are still run by zombie ideologies refereeing fundamental physics. Or what is left of it. And that is why I post like this. Itâs a fight to get you to grasp what happened.
Similarly for COVID Zoonotic origin theory. Or Economic Theory and Neo-Classical theory. Or Neo-Darwinism. Etc. Etc. You got hijacked. We all did.
One and all. And I am suggesting we take OUR cockpits back.
 This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.