Quantum Field Theory
On X
2010
That Quantum Field Theory is now far more geometric than General Relativity ever was, seems a needlessly well kept secret from the layman.
The cost of misrepresenting string theory for a 1/4 century is not only loss of public trust. It's many successes trapped in snakeoil jars.
I am only now understanding that even other physicists don't grasp how much 'string theorists' have explained in quantum field theory.
It is gnawing at me that topological quantum field theory lacks a deRahm version and was born in Hodge formulation.
Q: Is it possible that the *framework* of 'quantum field theory' is no more limited to physics than was differential calculus?
2011
I am saddened to read of the death of Dan Quillen. He is arguably the only one of us to have deepened quantum field theory 'en passant.'
2017
@ChaosRapist @SamHarrisOrg @jordanbpeterson
When you're done with Pepe, I'll find some energy.
@ChaosRapist I looked at your post-Pepe feed. "Retard", "Nazi babies", pentagrams, physical fighting challenges, Yet smart.Don't love combo.
@ChaosRapist I'll say a few brief things and then check out. My objection is predicated on the richness of the objects in standard math/phys
@ChaosRapist Freudenthal-Tits, monster group, Spinor reps, Atiyah Singer, Bott periodicity. These are all beyond human ability to create.
@ChaosRapist Further my theory of Geometric Unity suggests an inevitable universe that bootstraps itself into emergent existence from nothin
@ChaosRapist So an inevitable emergently rich physical and mathematical universe beyond human ingenuity is my substrate and starting point.
@ChaosRapist That said, this is not a formal refutation of a human centered universe. It is a refutation based on taste and plausibility.
@ChaosRapist I can steelman intuitionistic arguments to make them unkillable at a corresponding cost of implausibility. That kills interest.
@ChaosRapist But if you want to make a human centered argument for non Abelian Lie groups and Quantum field theory I wish you the best. Ciao
If I had but one paragraph to recommend as the most important in all of literature, it might well be this one. However, as you might imagine, unpacking it, could take up your entire life.
[There is a 'flaw' in the paragraph. The word 'gauge' should be replaced by 'structure'.]
1/ Interesting esoteric features:
i) refers to Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational force. (only implicitly).
ii) refers to the Yang-Mills-Maxwell Equation for the other forces (only implicitly).
iii) refers to the Dirac Equation for matter (yet again, only implicitly).
2/ The Quantum (e.g. quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum measurement, etc...) is relegated to a *secondary* status below the key geometric insights. This was likely done very subtly when the paper was given in the 1980s, as it was, and remains, a revolutionary idea.
End/ An interpretation is that Witten, the greatest living mathematical physicist, was indicating to us that it was only these *abstractions* that were likely to survive, while the instantiations (i.e. the exact equations we still use) would likely perish.
A msg never recieived.
2019
One of the worldâs greatest men has died. Most of you will have no idea who this is. I just donât know how to bridge that gap yet to tell you what he did.
I was very close with his top collaborator. They were the Watson and Crick of mathematics to me. They rewrote my whole life.
Michael Atiyah OM FRS, President of the Royal Society 1990 -1995, died today. He was "a wonderful person who was a true internationalist and a fervent supporter for investing in talent â themes which resonate very clearly today." Read the full tribute https://royalsociety.org/news/2019/01/tribute-to-former-president-of-the-royal-society-sir-michael-atiyah/
There is a little known stone wall on Long Island. While flawed, it is a gift to all mankind that should be a pilgrimage site, as an understanding of the contents is nesessary to understand our world. Think of it as transcendent graffiti. Atiyahâs spray-paint is everywhere here.
Imagine watery planets with holes and twists. Knotted donut planets called base spaces. Crazy oceans called âVector bundlesâ and âPrincipal bundlesâ.
He told us about how the twists and holes determine what waves must live on them and which cannot.
He helped direct Ed Witten and Graeme Segal to truly tell us what Quantum Field Theory really was beyond being a physical theory. These men took a grab bag of techniques developed for calculation and showed us that they were a mellifluous whole of geometry, topology and physics.
If you want to know why I am so passionate about resisting the reign of terror against true scholarship it is this. Universities housed REAL scholarship beyond your wildest dreams. This kind of scholarship is not socially constructed. Almost no one can even do this level of work.
Very sad news indeed - I knew Michael from when I was at @TrinCollCam he was brilliant, warm & amazing. Was at a conference where he was supposed to speak on thursday #higgscentre - he cancelled at the last minute....
More recently we talked about dark matter and black holes (2 yrs ago now) he was very excited about astro... b4 when i was a student he was just very encouraging and warm
Over time Iâve noted a fair number of scientifically oriented people who found Chemistry inscrutable. Math, biology & physics show up as strengths, but they report Chemistry as the subject they couldnât learn.
Does anyone else have this experience and, if so, can you explain it?
@Turin_Luca Luca, you are my go to guy here.
Let me imagine you had a high school that couldnât possibly exist in reality because it taught quantum field theory by 9th grade and fairly advanced biology in 10th *before* chemistry in 11th grade. Would that make chemistry seem far less random?
@Turin_Luca Wow. Is this complexity persisting through to the research layer partially behind your disputes with chemists/biologists over olfaction?
Attention: I found out from Wikipedia that as of the 17th, I'm NOT a mathematician anymore despite a PhD, but an economist. I now state that I've never taken a class in economics. In physics I have a semester of mechanics. No E&M/QFT.
I'm the Impostor your mama warned you about.
Ok. This is a weird take. The reluctance to engage foundations of quantum mechanics stemmed from the fact that it was far less generative than research in quantum field thy for decades. When Standard Model QFT stagnated & Quantum Gravity stumbled, the opportunity cost decreased.
Shots fired! "Even Physicists Donât Understand Quantum Mechanics. Worse, they donât seem to want to understand it." -- me, in the New York Times @nytopinion #SomethingDeeply
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html
There was an underlying political economy to the issue masked by âshut up & calculateâ. I agree that the quantum field theorists were often, and words fail me, dicks about quantum foundations. But it was really an overlay on a rational calculation of expected return from 1928-74.
2020
This is at the heart of my disagreement with @skdh. I am doubly contrarian with respect to QFT. I believe that many of the things they tried say were abstractly reasonable but clearly misinstanciated. To make their mere calculations beautiful, they were creating a hideous world.
The first talk I ever gave revealing the Physics I was actually working on @ Harvard/MIT was at MIT at the insistence of the great Isadore Singer. The one man who *fully* understood what I said came to me afterwards & insisted we speak. He seemed half mad: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11608
His name was Robert Hermann. I couldn't tell what was going on. He was very excited & wanted to be of any help possible. It was almost terrifying as I was not eager to discuss the work. When I told Singer about it, Singer said "That's a high compliment. Do you know who that is?"
I told Is "I know him from an enormous number of self-published books only" Then the great MIT Professor said: "Eric, that is the first man to figure out that quantum field theory is based on the geometry of Fiber Bundles before Simons, Wu, Yang & I did our work."
I was floored.
This odd man, working outside the University system, outside Peer Review, and outside normal publishing was held in awe by the TOP Mathematician at MIT. The system knew who it had lost and revered him as a serious mind; a man with a viable claim to an earth shattering discovery.
It simultaneously filled me with fear & hope. This odd man was not a nut or lunatic. I had spoken to a true maverick & he had seen me like no one else...even beyond my good friend Is Singer. Years later I tried to contact him but he was in an old age home with dementia. All lost.
A missed moment. I was too scared to leave the damned university system behind me with all of its rules and enforced rituals. I knew what he represented: freedom, genius and irrelevancy except for the tiny number of people at the absolute top of the field.
I was too cowardly.
Robert: I never got the chance to "Thank You" for believing in me and your offer of help. My bad. So thank you.
RIP: Robert C. Hermann (April 28, 1931 â February 10, 2020) Maverick and Likely discoverer of the Geometric Basis of the Quantum Field Theory of the Standard Model.
I have been asked by @PBSSpaceTime to appear on Aug. 4th in a new 2 episode Livestream series as the only mathematician among physicists @skdh, @DrBrianKeating, Lee Smolin, @lirarandall, @stephstem, @tegmark, @matt_of_earth & @jbbeacham.
Please join us!
[Not to complain, but given that the focus is "Theories of Everything" (used here as a term of art), there really should be someone representing the mainstream of the quantum field theory community. I am, as a non-physicist, not in the best position to make this case however.]
I donât think there is a problem with string theory per se.
The problem was with *string theorists*. Quite simply, String theory allowed its proponents to put down the work of everyone else by allowing its boosters to claim an imminent solution which never actually ships.
Further, when ever anyone did something (call it X) that was important but seemingly non stringy or anti-string, the string theorists would publish an all but unreadable paper titled like âX and its Stringy Originâ to claim that *all* good ideas are subsumed by String Theory.
Why did this work? Because String Theory attracted top minds from what had traditionally been the cream of the Quantum Field Theory community, and theyâd clearly found a large piece of mathematical structure. What they failed to find was a connection from that to real physics. đ
2021
In strong GU:
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) (Standard Model)
Is contained in U(3)xU(2) inside
Spin(6)xSpin(4) =SU(4)xSU(2)xSU(2)
(Before the more difficult non compact Spin(6,4).)
Iâd look first to the extra 1D reductive U(1) if the experiments hold up. Then to Spin(6) x Spin(4):
@EricRWeinstein What are your thoughts on this and how does it fit with Geometric Unity? https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677
As far as Fermion quantum number predictions that could open up new channels, Strong GU makes clear predictions. Explicitly, here would be the next Spin-1/2 particles internal symmetries we should find:
Additionally, Strong GU predicts that there will be 16 Spin-3/2 particles with Standard model symmetries conjugate to the Spin-1/2 generations and gives their âinternalâ quantum numbers as:
Now, why if GU makes predictions do I appear to some to shy away from them?
A: I donât.
But string theorists hide the fact that they disconnected themselves from normal science by trying to force everyone else *except* String Theorists into answering hyperspecific challenges.
Thus while I can tell you what GU predicts is next, they push for a QFT calculation of energy scale to make others sound vague.
So letâs talk vague: Look at the above containments and SM quantum numbers. Thatâs not vague. Now ask String Theorists the SAME question...and compare.
Lastly: I would caution about getting too far ahead of our experimentalist friends. Let them sort out their confidence and not push them to be too definite prematurely.
But my advice is to watch *relative* predictive responses of those w/ âBeyond the Standard Modelâ theories. đ
P.P.S. Remember that GU rejects three generations. In GU itâs 2 True generations plus 1 imposter. A priori, this could also be an effect of the imposter not being a true generation.
Again I would need QFT colleagues trying to help me see if that is a possible effect.
âIf Maxwell and Yang had never been born, Bundle Geometry & Variational Calculus would have found Yang-Mills anyway. If Bohr and Planck had never been born Symplectic Geometry of line bundles would have found quantum theory anyway.â
Again: am I wrong?
Just to finish up for completeness:
âIf Dirac had never been born, Index Theory & Bordism would have found Quantum Field Theory anyway as an enhanced extraordinary cohomology theory.â
Iâm sorry, but all my statements are as or more accurate than what you tweeted.
Why do string theorists pretending to do physics get to BS everyone actually trying to do physics.
We have worked out a world where string theorists and their supporters attack everyone else but say much more outrageous bullshit to the public than any other group by far.
Should we discuss? Perhaps I misunderstood you @michiokaku. But, if so, you are welcome to educate me on my show. But I feel you are *incredibly* aggressive against all non string theorists and you are not comparably challenged by all who know better for reasons I canât fathom.
Dear @michaelshermer,
Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also donât find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of âno isolated discontinuous innovationâ quite interesting!
Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why UAPs cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to UAPs that if true would be decades or centuries ahead of us. History shows no nations/companies of comp development so lag. https://quillette.com/2021/06/03/understanding-the-unidentified/
First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically âcenturies aheadâ is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.
Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? Iâd have guessed âmanyâ (not .5) and been wrong.
Next challenge: doesnât your line of reasoning prove that âRenaissance Technologiesâ is either a fraud or a front? Their Medallion Fund is otherwise a long term unbreached secret, discontinuous from any other know investment fund seemingly thousands of years ahead of competitors.
Now Iâve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, itâs either a counter example to your claims on discontinuous innovation if it is merely a fund or a counter-example to your secrecy claims if it is our secret physics program.
Next: there are really two metrics on innovations.
Metric I: How big the incremental jump in difficulty.
Metric II: How big the jump in what is unlocked.
The great fear is that a small jump measured by 1 leading to an ENORMOUS jump in as measured by II.
You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people canât exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.
They all exhibited the âa little unlocks a lotâ paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.
And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the worldâs top employed anti-gravity researcher(?!) of the 1950s turned in what may be the most impressive 15yr output in the history of the subject by my estimation. How can I begin to explain this?
Itâs not physics exactly. But Edward Witten w support from a small number of folks rewrote Quantum Field Theory as geometry. If Einstein geometrized gravity, then Witten geometrized Quantum Field theory (everything else).
Now, all that change has so far unlocked exactly nothing.
But itâs not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, Witten & Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius & power looking for its 1st application to the đ.
Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I donât know those systems as well so Iâll use the US example.
We know most of the top minds. We pretend that there is a lot of subjectivity about this for social reasons but China wouldnât.
If I thought like CCP, Iâd create a lavish secret theoretical physics program modeled on the Russian Sharashka system. The key would be to get it to look like something else. A boring Tech company or some weird Chinese fund to disguise the reason for the secretive lavish campus.
[Digression: If the US were smarter, weâd do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists & ML experts by a national lab & an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry & physics. But enough crazy talk..]
If CCP could today repeat what Witten (& friends) did building off Geometric Quantum Field Thy, the US would have Zero clue what it unlocks. Even by your own incrementalist theory. It might unlock absolutely nothing. Or passage to the stars via additional degrees of freedom. đ€·ââïž
One last point. I released such a theory. Could well be wrong.
But I can tell you I should have received a call from DOE. Because calls are cheap and relevant trained PhDs are *very* finite. The US should track every geometer, General Relativist, and Particle Theorist working.
You donât have to take a position on me or GU. You can ask Wolfram or Lisi or Barbour or Deutsche or anyone outside the system whether such calls are placed. They are not. No one *in* the system believes in wild discontinuous change from *outside* the system. As per your article.
Which is to say weâre not monitoring. Maybe we think thatâs a waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe we think that a Grisha Perelman of physics is impossible.
How much does a phone call cost if a researcher is wrong vs not bothering if theyâre right? Price the Type I & II error. Nuts.
Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.
We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I canât think of a single story to fit to these reports Iâm hearing about.
I welcome your thoughts. As always.
Warm regards,
Eric
@robnormal Thatâs the beginning. Then that the listeners be *highly* motivated. Also intelligent. Also, that no listeners are trying not to understand. Etc
Pretty soon itâs stone soup. Youâre no longer explaining things quickly at a party but youâre now teaching QFT courses at university.
Things got hard. They didnât get hopeless.
Yes we spent almost 40 years lying about string theory. But we could stop today. We could have the leaders in the field admit they made a *colossal* bad bet & ask âWhat did we dispose of while we were wildly over-hyping string theory?â
Its increasingly apparent to me that the next physics breakthrough is gonna be from #ai . Its humanly not possible anymore for theoretical physicists ..i was feeling it even around 2010
They can't stop, Eric. They're making a living from writing papers about things no one will ever see. It's a systemic problem that requires a systemic response. And the first step would be to admit they have a problem (which they don't).
Seems likely a lot of the math they developed will wind up handy, but it's a long time to wait for dessert.
Most of what physicists call math is totally uninteresting even for mathematicians. It's just advanced calculus. Look here is my qft and when I crunch it cross-sections fall out.
We may disagree intellectually more than I thought. This is Jackiwâs point: the era of physics thinking of mathematics as advanced calculus (analysis) wasnât fruitful.
That changed around 1975 when the quantum began to discover geometry.
Iâm honestly confused. What do you mean?
We are talking past each other. I am referring to particle physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists who crunch out shallow and useless papers in the thousands. There's no interesting math in those. You're talking about something else entirely.
There are a lot of string theorists who have done things that really matter to geometry, topology, analysis on manifolds, representation theory. And I donât want to misunderstand your point.
Said differently Iâve been bullish on positive externalities of mathematical physics. But a lot of great math that got done isnât string theory. Itâs claimed to be stringy but it is really mostly mathematical physics or geometric field theory that is claimed by string theorists.
2022
We seem to be rebasing our entire society on aggressive and unquestionable academic theories from the social sciences that appear not to have even existed in 1988.
That seems like a big decision. I mean, I believe in Quantum Field TheoryâŠbut I wouldnât bet the country on it.
I make frequent claims that are counter to the description of the Standard Model of physics. Itâs not fun, but itâs tolerated to question things like âHow well do we know this to be true? How strong is the evidence? How might this all be wrong or formulated in a misleading way.â
When it became clear that the W Vector Boson might be more massive than claimed, we asked such questions. âCould we be wrong here?â
When I question these other theories, no one ever says that. They just call names. How are we more certain of Whiteness Studies than say Einstein?
Physics in 1980: âIâm trying to grasp why nature has 3 generations of chiral fermions with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) internal symmetry.â
Physics Today: âRemind me again what the internal quantum numbers are? I do quantum gravity so itâs not something Iâve worked with since my QFT class.â
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
A) High energy physics of real particles became the no-energy physics of toy models.
B) Quantizing Gravity was substituted for unification or extension of the Standard model.
C) Other research programs were obliterated because ST claimed it had it all rapped up.
D) Hype won.
E) Focus shifted to mathematical structure of abstract field/String/M theory. Not our particular worldâs choice of thy.
F) Standards of scientific progress were rewritten to disguise failure.
G) Differential application of standards became the norm.
It ended physics culture
String Theory isnât the problem. String culture is poisonous to science.
String theory, like love, means never having to say your sorry. Or mistaken.
Itâs the January 6 problemâŠbut in science. But where the physics versions of Mike Pence often got fired for not going along. đ
*youâre
P.S. âIt hasnât even failedâ because it canât fail. So far as I can see, it can never fail. In the minds of the faithful, Itâs unable to fail because it *has* to be the way forward. Itâs hard to explain whatâs wrong with that to the enlightened who see its infinite power & glory.
What has string theory done to become the poster child of failed physics? It hasnât even failed.
1) General Relativity
2) (Pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry
3) Quantum Field Theory
4) Material Science/Condensed Matter
5) Nuclear Physics/Weaponry
6) Disinformation Theory
7) Cult Indoctrination/Deprogramming
8) Propaganda
9) Preference Falsification Theory
10) Mansfield Amendment
@LueElizondo recently gave a small list of topics he would recommend for study to begin to wrangle "the Phenomenon", if he "were king". What areas of intersectional learning do YOU think are needed and should be more deeply looked into? Your ufology curriculum. Thanks, Eric.
11) Science Policy Theory (V Bush)
12) Selection (Abstracted)
13) Comparative Eschatology
14) Anti-Gravity Pseudo-science involving top physicists and mathematicians in the era of the So-Called âGolden age of General Relativityâ.
15) GU
16) Mind control.
Remember: you asked! ;-)
PrimaoMansfield amendment of 1969⊠or 1973?
Wow! Thanks for asking Dale. 1969âŠbut 1973 is closely related.
Nobody gets this anymore. Itâs like talking to the wind. Thanks for spotting that entry. Truly.
(Was supposed to read, âPrimarily Mansfield AmendmentâŠâ but fat-fingered the iPhone word prompt)
Thanks for the reply!
I got it immediately. Stay in touch? Thx.
2023
In studio Episode of @Into_Impossible with Dan coming soon where we discussed his epic đ§”. And Martin and Eric and Turok and Sabine get shoutouts! Stay tunedâŠ
Hard to tell whether this is good faith, honestly. Some grains of truth buried here, but you have to ignore many developements to end up w this view.
I'll leave this here https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528
But Martin, with Eric in my experience, itâs always good faith⊠lâShem Shamayim as we say!
Iâm much more concerned by brilliant theorists whoâŠand I am not kidding at allâŠrefer to the Standard Model as âOh, I vaguely remember this from graduate school QFT class.â That is an unbelievable development. People who have literally forgotten the field content of reality.
And I donât want to get rid of them. I want us to go back to real physics. I want us to stop pretending we live in anti-de Sitter Space or that space time SUSY is just out of reach.
Itâs basic to the culture of science. Which unfortunately is not QG culture.
@nu_phases @martinmbauer And as per the Renormalization Revolution, a non fundamental result can unlock further fundamental ones as we saw after the late 40s. YM QFT wasnât built in a day after all.
But my point stands along side your point. We donât seem to be able to push the fundamental physics. đ
âString Theory is absolutelyâŠthe most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the Standard Model and quantum gravity.â
I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, 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.
Yes, that is precisely what I think.
If you said âelectrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard modelâ I wouldnât disagree with that statement. It isnât 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.
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 and the complex of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
âIMO objectively trueâ
As with so many of these 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?
âObjectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.â My opinion doesnât 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 community are ânot seriousâ as per the above?
The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
But in 280 characters and no equations, itâs hard to develop these
In a book, easier to do so.
I donât think thatâs the issue Joseph. At all.
Feynman, Glashow, Wilczek never found them objectively or absolutely compelling.
String theorists like Friedan have written harshly of the Failures.
And what you are saying about subjective opinion and absolute objective fact doesnât make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I donât see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: âThe more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how 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!â
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
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 donât think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. 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.
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
Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true â 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.
But most people (reasonably) donât have this background. So I preface this with âmy opinionâ 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.
This is not ideal - but while saying âgo buy my bookâ 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
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 donât think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. Itâs a solid argument.
I donât think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that âString Theoryâ is the answer to a question you formulated: âOf all the approaches to quantizing gravity which havenât worked, which is the best?â
My argument is with that framing.
The problem I have is with 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?
B) Same as A) but for General Relativity?
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?
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?
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 âQuantum Gravityâ rather than âUnificationâ or âGravitational Harmonyâ or âIncremental understandingâ etc. *Is* the path forward when we donât even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic QFT?
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?
O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking âThe Landscapeâ 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 âpostdictionâ the most because it has failed at predictions?
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?
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 âWhat is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?â when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
That is why this conversation doesnât work. It is what magicians call âMagicians Choiceâ: 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 âHold my beer!â back in 1984.
To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isnât it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say âItâs the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.â in front of the public. No?
đ
Thank you for asking for the Steel-manned version of the issue with String Theory from a critic.
String theory is basically a fairly self consistent mathematical constellation of geometric ideas related to Quantum Field Theory developed by brilliant minds. If Gravity is to be quantized in the form that physicists naively expected, it would be likely that it would be our first or at worst second best guess as to how that works. I am willing to say this clearly. But there is no one telling us that gravity must be naively quantized.
ST has taught us many things (e.g. dualities in QFT, to means of avoiding super luminal Rarita Schwinger fields, coupled to internal symmetry, etc.) that are now part of our knowledge base.
The quantum gravity fanaticism is the problem. There is no reason that gravity has to be *naively* quantized as claimed. A giant 70 year mistake that actually predates theory by over a decade. Simply put, we are *not* being called to quantize gravity as the overarching organizing principal for modern particle theory research.
Think of String Theorists as akin to a fanatical absolutist monastic order discovering and developing Linear Algebra as a proof of the literal story of Jesus. The problem wouldnât be with the linear algebra!! Itâs the claimed strength of the application and its motivation that is the problem.
ST is at least mathematics. But it just doesnât work as a leading program for physics because of its fanatical behavior patterns. That screwed up fundamental physics.
After 70, 50 or 39 years of stagnation (depending on how you count), this is clear to all but the fanatics. But the damage to scientific norms has been catastrophic. They failed in the application as measured by all reasonable metrics including (most importantly) those they originally set for themselves. And that is it in a nutshell.
Again, Thanks for asking. đ
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)
Paul Dirac
Ernst Stueckelberg
Madame Wu
David Bohm
Abdus Salam
Ken Wilson
Emmy Noether
Ettore Majorana
Carlo Rubio
Shin'ichirĆ Tomonaga
Lev Landau
Simon Van der Meer
Freeman Dyson
Julian Schwinger
Paul Ehrenfest
John VonNeumann
Feza Gursey
Wolfgang Pauli
Louis and Edward Witten
Hans Bethe
George Sudarshan
Vera Rubin
Gerard 't Hooft
Not all of those stories areâŠuhâŠsimple.
Would be curious to hear names from others.
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.)
But letâs 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 QFT.
But lastly, if outsiders want to fund and fix movies, you will find that going to the âLeading physicistsâ wonât work. Peer review canât 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 isnât terrible at this. B+. Best I have ever seen. Start there. Good luck. đ
So you have my list. It is incomplete and idiosyncratic. Iâd love to have your corrections and additions.
SoâŠ.Where is yours? Thanks again.
2025
Thanks. Where do we disagree scientifically? I imagine on QG and whether the (real) advances in the structure of QFT like dualities are signs of real progress in the understanding of this particular physical world.
Know that I have read many of your papers. Iâm not hostile to real work. If it were up to me I would increase funding to your group but also fund groups that radically disagree with 40 years of QG/string/m-theory dominance.
Thanks for the kind words above.
I would point you to my favorite documents. Gell-Mannâs 1983 Keynote from Shelter Island II is the best of all because it is RIGHT before the GS anomaly cancellation. QG is not one of the leading 4 problems at the time. Clearly.
You see String Theory in the address but it is subordinate to N=8 Sugra. As the leading TOE.
I would also point you to Wittenâs 1986 âPhysics and Geometryâ address to the ICM. It is clear that the quantum is not even in the top 3 insights of fundamental physics as he sees it. Itâs all classical field theory. And that is Ed.
This QG focus titrated by energy level is a very late focus. Itâs a very Ken Wilson/QFT centric view of the SM. And it seems like you are unaware that this looked very different before the QG mania that cost us so many decades. And continues.
Martin: it just hasnât worked out. Itâs okay to admit that it was a mistake to make this into QG tunnel vision. Itâs been 40+ years and itâs embarrassing.
@_mistaacrowley @martinmbauer Exactly. That is a fine strategy. âLook at the boundaries between regimesâ is something I support.
But we can also guess it more or less from here I believe. That apostrophe and L arenât seen by most for the clues they are.
Related Pages
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.