The Portal Wiki

Richard Feynman: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Richard Feynman (edit)

Revision as of 18:50, 10 January 2026

50,284 bytes added ,  Yesterday at 18:50
→‎2025
Line 891: Line 891:
}}
}}
|timestamp=2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021
|timestamp=2:55 PM · Dec 15, 2021
}}
=== 2022 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479503813396500490
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@AbleEyes4 No, he wouldn’t. He would instead walk on water powered only by science and never ego to distribute bread to the hungry with Christopher Hitchens who also was never wrong. And then w/ the dear leader, they were raptured to heaven on a mountain top near Pyongyang. Because Science!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500706230923266
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A beautiful visual illustration of the relationship between configuration space (position only) and phase space Hamiltonian Dynamics (position + momentum). The tip of their common pendulum is the orbit in phase space of the configuration space of any of the 8 balls.
So sublime.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500708063838209
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Here is the illustrated recipe for Hamiltonian dynamics.
A) Figure out the possible positions of one of these balls (configuration space).
B) Double those degrees of freedom to include ball momentum (phase space with a hidden ‘symplectic’ structure tying position to momentum).
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500708902703106
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=C) Write down the ball’s total energy as a function on phase space (kinetic + potential energies).
D) Differentiate that function as if you were taking its gradient.
E) Feed that ‘proto’-gradient to the symplectic structure of phase space to get a vector field on phase space.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500709590552576
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=F) Flow along that vector field in phase space as the pendulum tip is doing.
G) Push those orbits back to configuration space by forgetting the momentum variable. That’s how your original system will evolve. In general. Not just for oscillating balls but for everything.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500710270017536
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is one of the universe’s most beautiful stories. Arguably, its *most* beautiful (there is a rival version called Lagrangian dynamics).
I don’t expect you to be expert in this or to get it immediately. I just wanted you to know this story exists, and governs your world.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500711159205890
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have plans to use the Portal to show you so many such things, but I get bored of endless negging and interpersonal drama queens (e.g. being told that Feynman could explain it to his poodle so I obviously don’t get it).
I’d love to get back to it & get rid of your drama queens.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1479500711889014787
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Interpersonal drama take the fun out of life for me & I have many things I enjoy doing besides the Portal. But I miss you all!
Thinking of using a walled approach. If you know how this is done, I’d love to do more. But I no longer have DMs open (yet again, Internet lunatics).🙏
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
|timestamp=5:22 PM · Jan 7, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492589654243221512
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And by the way, everything I put together I ran by experts like physics historian David Kaiser at MIT.
What do I make of the fact that most physicists know zip about this? We fictionalized this story to make it respectable. But it wasn’t. Our rigorous minds were getting jiggy.🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492585509071343619
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You aren’t getting it.
For example: Feynman’s story about “The Alibi Room” is also about great math-physics minds of the 1940s-60s dipping into Aerospace companies (Curtiss-Wright in Buffalo). Same with Solomon Lefshetz. Likely Wheeler, Deser, DeWitt.
Y’all just never noticed.
|timestamp=7:44 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492586539053993985
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That famous “G-mu-nu” story where Feynman can’t remember which North Carolina University is hosting the Gravity conference? Is about Bahnson and an *anti-gravity* initiative. Again, you just didn’t notice because of the way we tell the story. Higgs? UNC Physical Fields institute.
|timestamp=7:48 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492587248277241856
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The entire “Golden Age of General Relativity” is misportrayed. Feynman and Uri Geller? Pauling and Feynman at Esselen? The LSD stories? The story about nuclear powered airplane patents? It’s some super freaky pseudo-scientific seeming story about many of our greatest scientists.
|timestamp=7:51 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1492588035787141137
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The fact that many of you never noticed is on you. Do I know what it means? No. My leading theory is that scientists disappeared into the military industrial complex to take $$ for pseudo-science. But that’s only one theory. Shoot the messenger if you like, but you didn’t get it.
|timestamp=7:54 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
|timestamp=8:01 PM · Feb 12, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562468991171379201
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@AlexanderRKlotz @martinmbauer Outsiders? I see.
So those who think there is a problem are outsiders. Like Feynman? Glashow? Etc? Nah.
That’s not really what happened. Look at Hep-th or https://t.co/3By75PQ5o4
I don’t think this is a PR problem. Thinking this is just a PR problem *is* the science problem.
|timestamp=3:56 PM · Aug 24, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1572992856654237696
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no understanding of why we make the career paths of our most singular & powerful US scientists a living hell. We would today drive Feynman, Watson, and Einstein out of science.
Sooner or later someone is going to pay & *free* your top researchers.
https://t.co/iVxNg5Dwyd
|timestamp=4:54 PM · Sep 22, 2022
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1584518630129078272
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@dkb003 Official panels tend to be tightly controlled in advance through use of insiders. Occasionally that screws up and you get a Jeff Sachs (Lancet) or a [[Richard Feynman]]/Gen Kutyna (Challenger). Galileo Project is an outsider project. Prefer the latter.
|timestamp=12:14 PM · Oct 24, 2022
}}
=== 2023 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618767037672861698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thanks for the help. But I must regretfully decline.
The Lamb–Retherford experiment was experimental physics. And Solid State theory would not be fundamental physics.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522849656082432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.
I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in [[Quantum Field Theory]] of 1928-47 was broken.
https://x.com/MBKplus/status/1618356997107355649
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522853183459329
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work.  Enter [[Duncan McInnes]].
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522856316633088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=On January 21 1946, McInnes suggested to [[Frank Jewett]] a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders.  As head of the [[National Academy of Sciences (NAS)|National Academy of Sciences]], Jewett allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522859172958208
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Beginning on June 1, 1947 at the Rams Head Inn on Shelter Island NY and ending on Weds June 4th, 24 mostly untested participants "hung out" together.
The actual cost of the meeting was...[drum roll please]...$872.00 in 1947 dollars. Which is about $12,000.00 in 2023 dollars.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522862268354560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by simply getting rid of most of the failed 1928-1947 leadership and focusing on the most promising untested physicists, a $12K slush fund in today's dollars changed history ending a two decade stagnation debuting [[Richard Feynman|Feynman's]] Path Integral, the Lamb Shift & the two Meson theory.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522864986230784
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So why do I suggest Hundreds of thousands rather than tens of thousands? Good question! First, it is harder to get rid of the failed leadership because our stagnation as of Februrary 2023 is 50 years old not 19. But also, Shelter Island needed two companion conferences in 1948-9.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522867934842882
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The Pocono Manor Inn meeting in Pennsylvania & the Oldstone conference in Peeskill NY were around $1200 each in 1948 and 1949 respectively. As it turned out, the electron mass in the QED theory and the measured mass had been set equal when they were distinct quantities. Who knew!
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522870640160769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=According to many of the participants these three conferences (but particularly [[Shelter Island Conference (1947)|Shelter Island]]) were the most important conferences of their entire careers. [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] was in his late 20s. This is how you get unstuck. How you build leadership. How you stop failing year after year...
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522874008195072
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Those 3 conferences fixed the problem of infinites destroying the explanatory power of QED.
So I padded the HELL out of those numbers because I think the stagnations are similar with the major problem being leadership. I could be wrong. But it might take $1/2 Million to test it.
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522876956790785
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That isn't the issue. The issue is that the leadership is not passing the baton and there are no McInnes or Jewett figures. And professors now don't even know this history it seems! Don't they teach this in Physics class? Maybe it's too dangerous to learn how physics works. ;-)
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522879964114946
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So...feel free to try to snark your way out of this. But I'll stand my ground. We don't need to go "Funeral by Funeral", but I'm tiring of "Calabi-Yau Phenomenology" or Multiverse excuses as a replacement for actual physics. We need to go back to science. https://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
|timestamp=8:14 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522884598816769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As to what's wrong with modern physics: let's start with [[Quantum Gravity]]. Bryce DeWitt started a failed 70 year wild goose chase in 1953 that is not working. If we lost 20 years on conflating Bare v Dressed masses, we just lost 70 years on [[Quantum Gravity]]. Maybe take a time out?
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522887107018752
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have thought this through. It isn't a cheap shot. And I have waited until the 50th anniversary to be this frontal about it. But it has never been controversial since Planck to suggest that aged failed leaders are a huge issue. I'm not the Funeral by Funeral guy. He was. ;-)
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618522889690714118
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, I can't stand anti-collegial snark. We can escalate if you want, but if instead you would like to have a serious discussion next time, it would be my pleasure. Shall we try this again?
I'm Eric. Huge fan of what you guys do. Big supporter. Nice to meet you.  Thanks.
|timestamp=8:15 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618536081506586624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MBKplus Sorry to be slow, but you used a screenshot so I wouldn’t see your response rather than a quote tweet.
Not big on snark. But here is a proper response. Didn’t know the history had become so obscure to modern physicists. My bad.
Thread:
|timestamp=9:07 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=caseylolsen-profile-65Fvydvt.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen/status/1618530570094661639
|name=casᎇʏ oʟsᮇɮ
|usernameurl=https://x.com/caseylolsen
|username=caseylolsen
|content=This was a proper fuck you đŸ€Œ
|timestamp=8:45 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539094476263427
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Nah. It’s a sensitive topic. Almost 40 years of [[String Theory|string theology]]. 50 years of stagnation. 70 years of quantum gravity not shipping a theory.
I get it. But snark is a tell. The youngest Nobel particle theorist is over 70. I think 8 are alive. It’s really bad.
|timestamp=9:19 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618539524421976065
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no underlying animosity towards Mike. Let’s see what happens next.
|timestamp=9:21 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618528687804272642
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=Honest to god, what are you talking about? In your mind does 'fundamental physics' consist solely of an oddball sitting in his dorm room at Oxford moving a magnet through a coil? (& yes,  I know that was Faraday at the RI & Newton was at Oxford, but I'm painting a picture here).
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1618540646826139649
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=See I was thinking pads of paper, pens, and a whiteboard or blackboard. Maybe some coffee. A bit of LaTeX.
But that’s just me not getting it. Forgive me.
|timestamp=9:25 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=default_profile_400x400.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1/status/1618551618911469569
|name=James footy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Jamesfooty1
|username=Jamesfooty1
|content=So you're confusing theoretical physics with 'fundamental physics', an honest mistake, consider yourself forgiven.
|timestamp=10:09 AM · Jan 26, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:25 AM · Jan 27, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To sum it up: when [[String Theory|string theorist]] are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isn’t it the case that from A-Z maybe [[String Theory|string theory]] is not being honest?
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say “It’s the best yet-to-succeed approach to [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].” in front of the public. No?
🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677230177544470529
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“[[String Theory]] is absolutely
the most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1676908960652066816
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, [[String Theory|string theory]] is absolutely the deepest, most consequential and most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].
|media1=JosephPConlon-1676908960652066816-F0WTvUYWIAExXQ4.jpg
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677231449240399872
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Yes, that is precisely what I think.
|timestamp=8:21 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677235567871021059
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard model” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. It isn’t at all about what you think. It is a true statement.
Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about [[String Theory]] within physics.
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677244875605958656
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).
As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that [[String Theory|string theory]] and the complex  of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
|timestamp=9:15 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677368642328211456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“IMO objectively true”
As with so many of these [[String Theory|String Theoretic]] claims I have no idea what that means.
So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?
“Objectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.” My opinion doesn’t enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.
Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your [[String Theory|String community]] are “not serious” as per the above?
|timestamp=5:27 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677440377559695360
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
But in 280 characters and no equations, it’s hard to develop these
In a book, easier to do so.
|timestamp=10:12 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677449460677509120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that’s the issue Joseph. At all.
[[Richard Feynman|Feynman]], Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
[[String Theory|String theorists]] like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesn’t make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I don’t see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how [[String Theory|string theory]] has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!”
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
|timestamp=10:48 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678554652026220544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is not objective or absolutely true that [[String Theory]] is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.
Waited a few days. I don’t think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. [[String Theory|String theorist]] deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
|timestamp=11:59 PM · Jul 10, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678645376557936645
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that  is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
|timestamp=6:00 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678646205767725058
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true — once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647080774934528
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=But most people (reasonably) don’t have this background. So I preface this with ‘my opinion’ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
|timestamp=6:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647632460128256
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
|timestamp=6:09 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679328534140170240
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the  metric field that leads to gravitation, [[String Theory]] is by far the most advanced. I don’t think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. It’s a solid argument.
|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679329566161276933
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that [[String Theory|“String Theory”]] is the answer to a question you formulated: “Of all the approaches to quantizing  gravity which haven’t worked, which is the best?”
My argument is with that framing.
|timestamp=3:19 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem I have is with [[String Theory|string theorists]] framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think [[String Theory]] is dangerous for this reason.
Try these instead:
A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?
B) Same as A) but for [[General Relativity]]?
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679331799439396864
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?
D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?
E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?
F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?
G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
|timestamp=3:27 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679332528610738178
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?
I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
|timestamp=3:30 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679333915365101568
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?
K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?
L) Which approach is most dogmatic that [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] rather than “Unification” or “Gravitational Harmony” or “Incremental understanding” etc. *Is* the path forward when we don’t even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]?
|timestamp=3:36 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679334548646277120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?
N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
|timestamp=3:38 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679335373070008320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking “The Landscape” of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?
P) Which community brags about “postdiction” the most because it has failed at predictions?
|timestamp=3:42 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679336247322636290
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?
R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?
S) Same for brains?
T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?
U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
|timestamp=3:45 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679337827786719239
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?
W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?
X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?
Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?
Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply “What is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?” when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
|timestamp=3:51 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679338937561776129
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is why this conversation doesn’t work. It is what magicians call “Magicians Choice”: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like [[String Theory]] is our top community.
Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said “Hold my beer!” back in 1984.
|timestamp=3:56 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:00 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680217280125472769
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Who turned out to be right?
Everyone who said “Wait: why are we changing the core mission to [[Quantum Gravity|‘Quantizing Gravity’]]?? Weren’t we supposed to explain the observed particle spectrum? And the weirdness of the Higgs sector as Deus Ex Machina? And the origin of chirality? Etc etc.”
[[Richard Feynman|Feynman]]/Glashow/Perl/Etc.
It was a total switcheroo.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680009866382032897
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Some have been making this point for 39 years. We are not now “At a point where we really ought to question
”.
We were there in 1984. And I was not alone at the time. There were *many* of us. Before this [[String Theory]]/ [[Quantum Gravity]] mind virus took over.
I don’t know what to call the behavior pattern where institutions look to someone who has *NOT* been making the important point for forever so they don’t have to deal with the fact that they got EVERYTHING WRONG for 4-7 decades in an obvious fashion.
You have to ask yourself “Who are the real cranks when those accused of being cranks turn out to be right?” And the leaders who accused them turn out to be wrong. Over and over. Again. And again.
Glad to have the company however.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=QuantaMagazine-profile-cBeerOAi.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/QuantaMagazine/status/1679178839673671681
|name=Quanta Magazine
|usernameurl=https://x.com/QuantaMagazine
|username=QuantaMagazine
|content=“We’re at a point where we really ought to question whether this drive and this challenge to quantize gravity was really the right thing to do.” https://youtube.com/watch?v=DkRbNXILroI
|media1=QuantaMagazine-1679178839673671681-F02kPSOXwAk27v6.jpg
|timestamp=5:20 PM · Jul 12, 2023
}}
|timestamp=12:22 AM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1680119766650957824
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=I don’t even know where to start.
Who exactly turned out to be right? About what?
You want to be taken seriously, yet the reason people disagree with you is a ‘mind virus’?
|timestamp=7:39 AM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1680215975084564480
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sorry. By whom? Do I expect to be taken seriously by the many [[String Theory|String Theorists]] who called their colleagues morons, frauds and “not serious” behind their backs? No. I don’t.
I expect them to leave the field. Then we can get back to doing physics. The subset of reasonable [[String Theory|string theorists]] who know this problem well and are still doing science? Well
.They know [[String Theory|ST]]/[[Quantum Gravity|QG]] has a problem and they hate it too. And I do care about them.
That isn’t a mind virus. The mind virus is specifically the tortured defense of [[String Theory|string theory]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]] by attacking colleagues without admitting its massive failure. And that is a mind virus. I stand by that. It’s atrocious.
|timestamp=2:01 PM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
|timestamp=2:06 PM · Jul 15, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682982386936565762
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So you have my list. It is incomplete and idiosyncratic. I’d love to have your corrections and additions.
So
.Where is yours? Thanks again.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977588484947969
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is an interesting question as to who inspires us in physics. Here is a list of 20th century giants whose work inspired me that might work as protagonists with interesting stories that deserve to be considered along with the best known Einstein/Hawking/Oppenheimer/Etc.:
[[CN Yang]] (with Lee and Simons)</br>
[[Paul Dirac]]</br>
Ernst Stueckelberg</br>
[[Madame Wu]]</br>
David Bohm</br>
Abdus Salam</br>
[[Ken Wilson]]</br>
Emmy Noether</br>
Ettore Majorana</br>
Carlo Rubio</br>
Shin'ichirƍ Tomonaga</br>
[[Lev Landau]]</br>
Simon Van der Meer</br>
Freeman Dyson</br>
Julian Schwinger</br>
Paul Ehrenfest</br>
John VonNeumann</br>
Feza Gursey</br>
Wolfgang Pauli</br>
Louis and [[Ed Witten|Edward Witten]]</br>
Hans Bethe</br>
George Sudarshan</br>
Vera Rubin</br>
Gerard 't Hooft
Not all of those stories are
uh
simple.
Would be curious to hear names from others.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=sama-profile-k43GMz63.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/sama/status/1682809958734131200
|name=Sam Altman
|usernameurl=https://x.com/sama
|username=sama
|content=i was hoping that the oppenheimer movie would inspire a generation of kids to be physicists but it really missed the mark on that.
let's get that movie made!
(i think the social network managed to do this for startup founders.)
|timestamp=5:48 PM · Jul 22, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:54 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977591836196866
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But let’s face facts: inspiration is not the issue. Fundamental Physics needs to be a good life. What is holding us back is:
A) Terrible Pay.
B) Worse Odds of Survival
C) Decoupling of Success at Physics from Success in Physics
D) The Matthew Effect.
E) Math and Physics Pricks
F) Tyranny of large programs over individuals.
G) Multi Decade Stagnation
H) Un Scientific And even Anti-scientific behavior.
I) The Matilde Effect
J) The Sudarshan Effect
K) Ethics Collapse
L) Needlessly long pedagogical sequence (e.g. intro physics -> Classical Mechanics -> Grad Classical Mechanics -> Symplectic Geometry)  driven by history.
M) Socializing physics into a team sport in areas dominated by individuals and iconoclasts.
N) Tolerance for Program level failure (e.g. *obsessive* use of toy model physics to evade a reckoning).
O) Intolerance for individual error and failure by those in programs.
P) Failure to reward early contributions (e.g. *Abelian* Chern Simons QFT).
Q) Atrocious MSM journalism distorting the public understanding.
R) Relentless discussion of woo physics in public and 3-5 real topics (e.g. somebodies cat).
S) Learned Helplessness coming from over-learning Ken Wilson.
T) Inability to support motherhood of female physicists.
U) Inability to keep physics marriages easily together with jobs.
V) DEI loyalty oaths and loss of autonomy.
W) Flooding of markets with disposable labor and abuse apprenticeship as labor.
X) Kicking up on attribution.
Y) Overpaying for cherry topping.
Z) Fetishizing the quantum when innovation in classical field theory remains the heart of [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]].
|timestamp=4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682977595321720832
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But lastly, if outsiders want to fund and fix movies, you will find that going to the “Leading physicists” won’t work. [[Peer Review|Peer review]] can’t work when the leadership *is* the problem. You get more failure.
You need to hold meetings where you get disagreement. So choose the leaders and iconoclasts with great care. [[Patrick Collison]] isn’t terrible at this. B+. Best I have ever seen. Start there. Good luck. 🙏
|timestamp=4:55 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1682978751288602624
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@Perterra1 No. And it doesn’t include people for different reasons. [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] is already known to the public. People have no idea who [[Robert Hermann|Robert Herman]] is. Etc.
|timestamp=4:59 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Jul 23, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1688112468021657601
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Richard Feynman|Feynman]] was great. But I’d read that story again quite carefully in a Straussian fashion. Just a thought.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1688111994052747264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Huh. I had a very different read on that story. So did Feynman.
Let’s not forget General Kutyna who served it up to [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]]:
https://t.co/RdK3nsuilc
|timestamp=8:57 AM · Aug 6, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:59 AM · Aug 6, 2023
}}
}}


=== 2025 ===
=== 2025 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1885740712681259460
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ah. Why are European-Americans suddenly so inferior at math since like 1998? Why are the people of Newton, [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]], [[Paul Dirac|Dirac]], [[Francis Crick|Crick]], [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]], Heisenberg etc suddenly no longer able to do first rate science? Excellent question!
Do you want the brutal answer? Those "white kids" are being forced into trying to figure out how to capture the value created by those brown kids, because STEM careers in actual research have cratered in prestige, freedom, support and compensation. It's awful. But true. Do you want to raise a serf?
I'm torn. Which is why I fight for scientists to capture wealth; science is my life, but I cannot stand the exploitation and abuse.
You actually know this already, you just don't realize it.
How many STEM researchers and research scientists have you seen at Mar-a-Lago in photos and stories? Name them. Try.
When you think modern AI do you think about the 8 authors of the Transformer LLM architecture that changed our entire world with one paper? Can you name them? Any of them? Or do you think Altman, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc. like the rest of us (myself included)? Be honest. You think C-Suite or Sand Hill road VCs.
The researchers simply vanish or become businessmen.
We too often erase the people who do the actual STEM research. The PhD most responsible for the GFP revolution in biology (Douglas Prasher) got to drive a shuttle bus in Alabama for his career. Those who exploited his research felt so bad that they flew him to Stokholm to watch *them* get the Nobel prize. It's totally insane. No one knows this because we keep looking to Billionaires...those who capture the most value...to represent STEM.
STEM rests on "[[Science Coolies|SCIENCE COOLIES]]". That is what a UCSF lab head (PI) called his army of Chinese and Indian biologists in an interview with me around 2000:  "My Science Coolies tell me..."
The absence of white kids is because they generally come from native English speaking families before the 1965 immigration act that have been in the US a long time. Thus they get accurate information that grueling STEM research careers are now a terrible investment due to STEM EMPLOYER practices (e.g. [[H-1B Visa|H-1B]], illegal collusion, lobbying) and the abandonment of STEM by the Federal Government beginning with the [[Mansfield Amendment (1969)|Mansfield ammendment]] 50+ years ago. They will eventually almost all move from the lab bench, the blackboard and the command line to signing pieces of paper in VC shops or Private Equity or some such higher value endeavor. We in STEM are all being pushed from creating the value to capturing the value. It's awful.
"à€—à„‹à€°à„‡ à€Źà€šà„à€šà„‡ à€Żà€čà€Ÿà€ à€•à„à€Żà€Ÿ à€•à€° à€°à€čà„‡ à€čà„ˆà€‚?" or something like it is what I heard in New Jersey when our family traveled to the science fair. Literally asking "Why are there white kids here?" Can you imagine?? In New Jersey!
Those Tamil and Bengali Brahmins from English speaking households will soon leave research too, to be replaced by Nepalese and Biharis. Then they will all get the message as well and search for non-research jobs.
Before long you will see a push for Vietnamese and Cambodians. The Nigerians, Philipinos  and Ethiopeans will be welcomed, but will soon depart in turn as the STEM employers continue to search for servants and 'coolies' anywhere they can find them. All using one bizarre mantra "The Best and the Brightest!"
Because the employers treat researchers like servants. Fungible geeks. That is the culture we have to break.
Those brilliant brown American kids winning our Olympiads will dream of flying Business Class. Maybe even First Class one day. Those equally brilliant white kids who would have loved to do science leaving the olympiads, now dream of not even being on the same airplane as long as they are also avoiding coach.
Sorry "Cornered Hindu". I hate it. But you asked. Don't shoot the messenger.
|timestamp=5:23 PM · Feb 1, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1909999954338484731
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let me be clear. This post is not targeted at foreign born STEM. [My apologies to those of you who know me well on this point for decades. But it is always deliberately misinterpreted by those who seek to depress salaries.]
Read carefully, it's target is American STEM employers who lie as a way of life about the quality of our own STEM people in order to gain access to foreign labor.
My contention is that we destroy American STEM which is the best in the world because it is expensive, irreverant and high risk/high return.
If you want to go shopping abroad for future americans who are expensive, irreverant and high risk/high return, let me know and I will design your labor market.
But I will never put up with Americans who misportray just how good U.S. STEM really is in order gain access to oceans of plient low variance high value labor.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1909997395406098622
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Woah. Slow down. Because then we would be stuck with American STEM workers. Ya know, those lazy, stupid, unmotivated can't do, low-IQ pseudoscientific stoners who play video games all day long and can't be bothered to crack a book.
It would be like being stuck with [[Richard Feynman|R. Feynman]], [[Jim Watson|J Watson]], M Gell-Mann, [[Ken Arrow|K. Arrow]], G. Hopper, JR Oppenheimer, [[Steven Weinberg|S. Weinberg]], [[Paul Samuelson|P Samuelson]], M. Nirenberg, [[Joshua Lederberg|J Lederberg]], [[Steve Smale|S. Smale]], D. Mumford, J Doudna, [[Sidney Coleman|S. Coleman]], B. McClintock, and [[Mark Ptashne|M. Ptashne]] all over again. And we can all agree that we need the best and the brightest.
<nowiki>;-)</nowiki>
cc: @VivekGRamaswamy.
|timestamp=3:50 PM · Apr 9, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:00 PM · Apr 9, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25420"