6,720
edits
Quantum Gravity: Difference between revisions
→2024
(→2025) |
(→2024) |
||
| Line 2,268: | Line 2,268: | ||
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1769147019254481113}} | {{#widget:Tweet|id=1769147019254481113}} | ||
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1769157667166310487}} | {{#widget:Tweet|id=1769157667166310487}} | ||
{{ | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774141554611097804 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=That gives me some insight into your worldview. If I understand correctly, it hugs the shore of observed SM phenomenology to avoid tilting at windmills of geometry or chasing shadows of [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] for the most part. | |||
Right handed neutrinos, for example, are implicit within the old “SO(10)” GUT, but you list them here as ‘new’ because they aren’t here to fill out a Weyl 16 for Spin(10). They just are being posited without much motivation beyond the dark sector. Wilsonian agnosticism as it were. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773605640096620900 | |||
|name=Martin Bauer | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer | |||
|username=martinmbauer | |||
|content=The number of new particles is a very bad indicator for how predictive a theory is | |||
There‘re one-parameter models that predict infinitely many new particles (e.g. SU(N) and models with many, many parameters that predict no new particles (e.g mod gravity) | |||
1/2 | |||
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1773605641703117252 | |||
|name=Martin Bauer | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer | |||
|username=martinmbauer | |||
|content=If anyone tells you a theory is more or less motivated by counting particles, they either don’t understand this argument or they hope you don’t | |||
2/2 | |||
|timestamp=6:58 AM · Mar 29, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773742711579050158 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=@martinmbauer So let’s talk about the best new theories with new particle predictions. | |||
What are your favorite top 5 theories formulated over say the last 25 years ranked by well motivated particle predictions just as you see it Martin? Then as the community sees them? Thx. | |||
|timestamp=4:03 PM · Mar 29, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1774136833665806519 | |||
|name=Martin Bauer | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer | |||
|username=martinmbauer | |||
|content=The SM withstood every experimental test apart from neutrino masses, dark matter & gravity. Explaining those needs new degrees of freedom | |||
Besides this most effort has been put on treating the SM itself as a low energy EFT which implies new dof but is agnostic about which | |||
|timestamp=8:44 AM · Mar 30, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1774053944467374254 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=I’m not truly understanding even though I think I follow everything you wrote. I sense the word “agnostic” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in not giving me 5 modern theories. | |||
One way of making sense of what you just posted is that there isn’t enough information in the Wilsonian EFT framing to want to worry about any particles/fields/dof that aren’t strictly needed to close the observed physics off within the current energy regime. Is that what you mean?? | |||
If so…yikes. | |||
|timestamp=12:39 PM · Mar 30, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1774136833665806519 | |||
|name=Martin Bauer | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer | |||
|username=martinmbauer | |||
|content=The field has changed from a more theory driven approach to a strategy that takes the SM as the central theory and explores perturbations: SM effective theory | |||
We're in the Fermi theory phase of whatever is to come | |||
Models with explicit new states aim at explaining BSM phenomena | |||
|timestamp=6:09 PM · Mar 30, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=6:28 PM · Mar 30, 2024 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||