Ken Wilson
The number of new particles is a very bad indicator for how predictive a theory is
Thereâre 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
If anyone tells you a theory is more or less motivated by counting particles, they either donât understand this argument or they hope you donât
2/2
So letâs 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.
Iâm not truly understanding even though I think I follow everything you wrote. I sense the word âagnosticâ 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 isnât enough information in the Wilsonian EFT framing to want to worry about any particles/fields/dof that arenât strictly needed to close the observed physics off within the current energy regime. Is that what you mean??
If soâŚyikes.
This is basically EFT in a nutshell though
Many UV theories map to the same set of operators at low energy ("agnostic" but not info-free). The latter correspond (in principle) to observables which, if seen in experiment, could be used to limit the underlying space of UV theories
Nice to meet you.
I am not unaware of thisâŚbut I am shocked by the *change* in the interpretation of EFT during the String Era.
40 years ago, the Standard Model was considered geometrically beautiful but mysterious. âSO(10)â was an example of how to get a 3 factor reductive Lie group and a bizarre series of internal quantum numbers to become elegant. In short, the SM was an EFT, but not a random one. It was a coherent idea that pointed the way towards its own preferred completion/extension. Oddly, String phenomenology recognized this.
Then as the field spun off into mathematically informed medieval theology, the SM started to be seen as ugly. A random EFT without a preferred extrapolation towards its Planckian revelation. Seeing the SM as in anyway distinguished became seen as ânot getting Wilsonâs pointâ analogous to archaic views on strong reductionism.
This is such a disaster to think this is what Martin means. Itâs the physics version of Seligmanâs âLearned Helplessnessââtheory.
Great to meet you too! Been following your work for a very long time đ
I'm not old enough to have witnessed this change, but I *am* old enough to have seen similar dynamics around SUSY in the LHC era (and for many of the same reasons), so your story fits for me.
Longer discussion. But SUSY and GUTs both got associated with particular instantiations of general ideas by zealots.
The SU(5) and MSSM variants failed and then, oddly, the community moved to a dysfunctional interpretation. If no observed SU(5) proton decay then downgrade ALL GUTs. Similar for E-W scale super partners.
The community is just bizarrely intellectually dysfunctional now. Strings has an infinite leash and the other good ideas are ignored with this monstrous new EFT defeatism as the new sophistication. I still canât believe this is our world.
The misinterpretation of Ken Wilson
A failure cult called âQuantum Gravityâ
The ethics of said theory community
âRestricted Dataâ
Closed minds
Theft
Maverick abuse
Low compensation â> Low self-esteem
Senior physicists
The âOnly Game in Town!â monopoly
@pmarcaâs WH convo
What's holding you back from studying physics?
Related Pages[edit]
- Academic Freedom
- Distributed Denial of Cognition Attack
- The Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (The DISC)
- Gated Institutional Narrative (GIN)
- Effective Field Theory (EFT)
- Knarc
- M-theory or String Theory is the Only Game in Town (Edge Essay)
- Managed Reality TM
- Peer Injunction
- Peer Review
- Physics got NERPhed
- Physics Is Dead (YouTube Content)
- Quantum Gravity
- String Theory
- The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)


