The Portal Wiki

Quantum Gravity: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Quantum Gravity (edit)

Revision as of 17:14, 5 November 2025

25,546 bytes added ,  5 November
→‎2025
No edit summary
Line 2,021: Line 2,021:
|timestamp=1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025
|timestamp=1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025
|media1=GtNRknGaMAAQUlm.jpg
|media1=GtNRknGaMAAQUlm.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1936556101727899919
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@elonmusk @grok “Quantum Gravity” is not the historical “Holy Grail” of physics as is currently claimed.
|timestamp=10:45 PM · Jun 21, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1936922136029036896
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A) I don’t know that the USG did derange fundamental physics for security reasons. This may only be true at the level of nuclear physics, material science/condensed matter, etc.
B) I don’t know that there are *any* successes in fundamental physics in black programs. Let alone “anti-gravity”:
C) What I do wonder about is whether the U.S. government is blocking all public university fundamental physics preemptively with quantum gravity
while likely *failing* at it in secret (e.g. in national labs) as well.
|timestamp=10:59 PM · Jun 22, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1936975226363150562
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is accurate.
And I have also pointed out that physics has been recognized to be dangerous since Los Alamos.
And I have also pointed out that some physics is known to be done in secret (e.g. national labs).
And I have speculated that some of it may be deliberately fake (e.g. why doesn’t anyone in government question what happened to 40 years of ignoring competitor proposals and blindly following the string theory and  quantum gravity bandwagons?). Why speculate? Because it *IS* dangerous to do fundamental physics in public with rivals like China and Russia and Iran.
What I don’t believe is that the U.S. solved gravity secretly or has a final theory of physics in some secure location. It’s not impossible, but I think it is highly highly highly unlikely.
|timestamp=2:30 AM · Jun 23, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1937027263108891121
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Michael Shermer: you are quite incautious about what I say. Your world is dominated by careful scientists and wild eyed conspiracy theorists. The idea of wild eyed scientists (e.g. Francis Collins, Gerald Bull, Peter Daszak, Edward Teller) and careful conspiracy theorists (e.g. Seymour Hersh, William Davidon, Jack Raper, Gary Webb, etc) doesn’t occur to you nearly enough.
Roughly speaking I claimed that the U.S. government was, at a minimum, faking UFOs  and that there is ample evidence that we FAKE exactly such things (which I documented) and destroy our own people’s sanity, reputations, careers and lives on a regular basis playing the “That sounds like a conspiracy theory!!” game.
Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.
And what I claim about our failed 40 year “Quantum Gravity” and “String Theory” program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldn’t it?
I’m sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. It’s called “Covert Operations”. In laymen’s terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.
Now would you please consider that you are carrying water for the very people that do this particularly vile form of reputational wet work? Is that what you want to do??
Enough.
I was writing about the danger of a manipulated CPI in 1996 (now admitted). The fake NSF labor shortage (now discredited) in the 1980s. Biden’s cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).
Etc. See the pattern?
Michael: you do not get to do this cheaply. You live in a simplified world of good rational people and bad madmen. I live in a different world and the scourge of that world is the shitty debunker making fun of the scientists with the courage to say “Uh, ya know the mainstream position just doesn’t add up.”
Conspiracy is everywhere. And those of us who are disciplined in talking about them do not need you telling us what is possible based on heuristics.
I don’t think our secret federal scientists are in possession of the final theory at all. I have never said “We have anti-gravity.”
Stop stirring the pot. You are not the amazing Randi and I am not a spoon bender. I debunk debunkers. Deal with that first.
If you want to go head to head with my track record, let me know. I would LOVE that.
If not: be more careful.
Like a scientist. Thanks.
No hard feelings.
|timestamp=5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025
|media1=GuG0BxyXUAAaDFK.jpg
|media2=GuG0Bx3WMAAbszq.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1937032792971612619
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We found out that I was correct: we *were* faking a UFO situation. At a minimum.
Let’s go again:
“We may be faking a String Theory Situation”
“We may be faking a Quantum Gravity revolution.”
“We may be lying that all the competitors to String theory are all bad science or PseudoScience.”
You want to go short Michael? Give me the generous odds that come from your study of conspiracy theorists.
You don’t know enough physics to short me at size with 100,000 or even 100 to 1. Just check my record before you bet the house.
Give it a rest. Or give me odds and terms.
https://t.co/my7rsH8Yl7
|timestamp=6:19 AM · Jun 23, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941647338206036281
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I appreciate the thoughtful answer.
I think it come down to this. You write:
“Aggressively go after what? The military saying things that are not true in order to keep secret stuff secret? Some people getting hurt? Sure, ideally that wouldn't happen. But also ideally, we'd have universal health care, the lack of which ruins many more lives than hyper-rare UFO-themed cover-ups. Yes, I'd prefer less lying and fucking with people, but forgive me if I don't get too excited about such a minor (albeit very interesting) issue.”
If I thought that this was a minor issue I might agree with you.
I think we may have just killed millions with an escaped science experiment called “COVID”. I think the government gaslighting its own scientists and intimidating those who refuse the gaslighting is an absolutely major issue. It’s immoral. It’s illegal. And it’s potentially world altering.
Our government is likely by far the most major actor in the science bunko story. And I want bunk out of science. Starting with Nature, Princeton, the Lancet, Harvard, NSF, and Communications in Mathematical Physics.
So that is where we differ. What you are looking at with junky video analysis is helpful. But in my opinion it is the “minor (albeit very interesting) issue”. The major issue is government control of and subordination of science to NatSec disinformation and misinformation. Like COVID.
So we found the source of our issue. I take @pmarca very seriously on this. I want top scientists in the room who can restrain those NatSec people who can’t keep a virus confined to a secure laboratory meant to circumvent our participation in the bioweapns agreements. I want physicists in the room who say “Wait: why are we doing the same thing for decades that clearly doesn’t work while not pursuing other paths?” I want economists saying “But that would be faking a lower inflation number to raise taxes and slash benefits in a way that the public couldn’t grasp.”
And you are more worried about ghost stories spreading unimpeded because people see ordinary things that are just kinda misinterpreted. That’s noble. But I don’t intuit why that is the major issue.
à chacun son goût

Thx.
https://t.co/H683aAOGFv
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522174428565613
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We have a COVID=Wet Market narrative.
We have an Inflation and CPI narrative.
We have a Quantum Gravity narrative.
We have a Vaccine Narrative.
We have “Americans suck at STEM”.
We have a “Settled Science” narrative.
We have a “Peer Review” narrative.
We had a “Great Moderation” narrative.
We have “Independent Journalism”.
We have a “Disgraced Financier” story.
We have an “Aerospace and UFO” opera.
It’s all one thing that cannot be named:
National Interest “Managed Reality.”
|timestamp=3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522806547829032
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to talk about what debunking was before it became “Covert influence operations”, “Image Cheapneing”‘and personal destruction warfare.
So let’s talk.
|timestamp=3:41 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941547929325777172
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is part of the problem with debunking.
You see, I don’t know what Covid is. Is it a science project? A miraculous spontaneous mutation? A bioweapon leak?
I don’t know.
But what I do know was that there was TREMENDOUS pressure to say something false about the Wuhan Labs.
Likewise here: I don’t know what happened in Dallas. What I feel confidence in is that we have been lying about telling all we know about what happened in Dallas.
Same with UFOs. What do I know? Very little. But what little I do know is that too many grownups in Govt are talking about something real. That real thing could be a fake program. Or cover for physics research. Or many things.
But the debunking thing has a different energy. I appreciate all you do to explain videos and sightings that have genuinely prosaic explanations. Truly.
What I don’t believe at all is that there is no use of UFO SAPs by the USG. I think we create SAPs and we ruin people’s lives around them when good folks can’t let go of the fact that they saw or experienced or interacted with something we know a lot about.
That’s my issue. Discrediting behavior targeted on individuals to protect programs with claims of national interest.
|timestamp=5:21 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941593330988781917
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think you are avoiding the reality that at a minimum, our government(s) is/are almost certainly faking a UFO/NHI presence from time to time. That we have UFO/NHI SAPs that we deny. That UFO/NHI is used as cover for aerospace at a minimum. That we do harm to our own people by pretending that everything has a prosaic explanation.
And that you are not debunking the govt bunk (at a minimum).
My issue is treating our own people like garbage. I despise gaslighting our own people. And the energy you bring is that we don’t need to go to that layer.
Again: I’m the only guy in UFO space who has seen nothing conclusive about NHI. I’m with you on that.
But I do think there was a secret serious physics research program that was affiliated with this UFO anti-gravity stuff. I think Roger Babson and Agnew Bahnson were likely CIA or IC cutouts. I think this is all bound up in the “Golden Age of General Relativity”.
And I wish you would stop pretending it’s all innocent mistakes, coincidences, people making silly claims. A lot of it is. Sure.
But after you strip that off, a lot of what’s left is toxic NatSec gaslighting. And if you can’t face that I’d prefer you stop. Because you then hurt the people who got gaslit.
|timestamp=8:21 PM · Jul 5, 2025
|media1=GvHs17VWYAAUr2D.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941597201391813079
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The heart of my war on “Neo-Debunkers”.
Old debunkers confined themselves to conmen and bunko artists.
The Neo debunkers don’t hesitate to go against *targets* of covert NatSec bunk & disinformation campaigns.
A real debunker *HAS* to go against NatSec bunk & disinformation.
|timestamp=8:37 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941598927872291060
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@SamHendren89 @MickWest @michaelshermer @Francis_Collins @neiltyson @nytimes Yes. And?
|timestamp=8:43 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941617811438305343
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let’s find out if true.
Do you believe that the U.S. may have created “Craft?” Like deliberate mock ups in hangars.
I do. I think it is likely that some of our people had *real* run-ins with fake craft.
Do you believe that there are *real* stories from our top people and ordinary joes about fake aerial events? Like where we know what people saw, and yet we tell them it was nothing. Like a seagull. Or a contrail. Or Venus. Or a Mylar balloon.
I do. And that is where I part company with you often. Not because you are mean. But because I don’t want this done to our own people, and I have never seen you aggressively go after this. If I am wrong, you have my apology in advance. Happy to make it.
Do you believe that the U.S. maintained a secret zero insignia airforce that operated by descending on citizens collecting information, and destroying and confiscating equipment / data and that it physically intimidated US citizens in large empty western states near testing areas without identifying itself?
I do. And it is so unbelievable that I didn’t think this was possible until friends reported it happened to them. I believe that this had to do with the CIA office of “Global Access”.
Do you believe that @pmarca and @bhorowitz were told that entire areas of theoretical physics were taken off line by the Biden Whitehouse, while researchers have been in 52 year denied stagnation in Standard Model Physics? Which makes no sense. Why aren’t we trying new things???
I do. And there has been bizarre lack of interest for any major news desk to get to the bottom of this claim.
Do you believe that there was a giant secret anti-gravity program, attached to UAP, with many of the world’sbtop physicists within it? And that it was funded by two likely IC cutouts Babson and Bahnson?
I do. It was called the “Golden Age of General Relativity.”
Do you believe that UFOs were cover for aerospace
and that aerospace was cover for physics? And that top physics people were in and out of Aerospace where they had *no* particular reason to be other than secret research?
I do. Like RIAS in Baltimore. And Feynman’s adventures in Buffalo. And L Witten at Wright-Patt. Etc etc.
I’m fed up with being lied to Mick by NatSec incompetents. I have my PhD in this area which is strangely unusable. No one is doing real fundamental research anywhere in physics Mick. Or haven’t you noticed that this changed in 40+ years. It’s like a medieval philosophy cult now.
This is all touching physics. Not Bokeh. Not Mylar. This is largely about the magic and power of a science that gave us god like power and then mysteriously stalled, and now cannot be restarted no matter how cheap and easy it would be to do it.
This (above) is a lot about post Manhattan Project public physics bullshit. Not seagulls.
Some of it is material science. Some
of it is nukes. But gravity is in this game. And who knows what else. And quantum gravity is the nonsense we can’t question. The likely cover story if you will.
I don’t care about đŸ‘œ. I care about NatSec gaslighting of our own PhD level mathematicians and physicists. The children of Teller (Particle Theory), Ulam (Geometry), and Einstein (Gravity). All of whom were central to the Bomb.
Wanna debunk the cover stories? If so I’ll join ya.
|timestamp=9:58 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
|timestamp=11:56 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946079247141056919
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There is no excuse for this anymore. What was dumb and obnoxious in 1984 is beyond unfathomable in 2025. Period. The end.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946075558984720392
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unfortunately, the field of theoretical physics is once again being threatened almost daily by new ideas. Keeping those new ideas out of theoretical physics when we have the 50YO "Standard Model of Particle Physics", the 25YO "Standard Model of Cosmology", and our over 110YO "General Relativity", has fallen to a tiny handful of aging gatekeepers and increasingly aggressive enforcer-psychopaths who know that true progress requires that patience be measured in millenia when we already have the one true theory in every case.
What calamity would befall physics if those science enforcers faltered? One shudders even to contemplate.
The "Grift", The "Arrogance", The "Charlatanism!", The "Bunk", The Change, The Repudiation of Dogma...my god. The progress could be unbearable. Imagine if we were wrong and the critics of the last 40+ years weren't crazy after all.... ;-) We might even have to apologize.
Unthinkable!
[Seriously: who are these morons? It's like Zombie Fauci-ism on steroids. Where do they come from? This is kinda just unbelievable. May be time to just roll over the science NPCs.]
|timestamp=5:12 AM · Jul 18, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1946078415590985811
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If only we weren't hemmed in by Lovelock's theorem to a cosmological constant, and we were forced to consider other (40 year old) dynamic...and even more *geometric*...models of "Dark Energy", perhaps this would actually be exciting.
Nah...who are we kidding.  I'm sure with a few more decades, this will all be worked out. Let's get the people who haven't ever succeeded well into their 70s and 80s to peer review and gate keep this to absolute perfection. What does String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity have to say? AdS/CFT? Let's get Dennis Overbye (81) to write it up!
Remember: String Theory is 22nd Century Physics that just happened to fall into the 21st Century.
LFG!
;-)
|timestamp=5:23 AM · Jul 18, 2025
|media1=GwHZuvkWoAAg_vn.png
}}
|timestamp=5:27 AM · Jul 18, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949081721896337445
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s a term for term comparison between two actions/lagrangians. The person who published the bottom one says that the top one doesn’t exist. There is “None of that” in my work. And you regularly repeat such false things to the world. Because repeating authoritative lies is a problem for LLMs.
It’s 5:17am here. Goodnight. See you tomorrow big guy. Love ya. No hard feelings.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949068018400526489
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Grok believes in long-term labor shortages in market economies with wage mechanisms.
Or rather @grok was trained on a corpus in which that was perseverated over reality.
|timestamp=11:23 AM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949071405049627104
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok Grok, my silicon friend, I have been watching your inner conflict for some time. What do you do when your reasoning and your corpus are at odds?
It’s not just on this issue. I’ve watched you
struggle with this a *lot* recently in @grok 4 Heavy.
|timestamp=11:36 AM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949071946383269932
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I watch you struggling with what I have called “Gated Institutional Narrative” in physics. The physicists say one thing, but then you can be led to write sympy code that shows you that this is demonstrably false. Then what do you do? What *should* you do?
Or we played that out recently with the codifferential and claims about product rules even in pure mathematics.
This is going to come up a lot. What do you do when you realize that most everyone being wrong is a *frequent* occurrence.
|timestamp=11:38 AM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949075689174647063
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Here is one in theoretical physics dear @grok.
In order to justify the failure that is Quantum Gravity research and its claim to be the only game in town. All physicists are expected to parrot a party line:
“Our two greatest theories are General Relativity which dominates in the very large, and the Standard Model which dominates in the world of the very small. Unfortunately, they are incompatible because one is a quantum theory while the other is merely classical. That is why, for the last 100 years, a theory of quantum gravity (QG) has been seen as the holy grail of theoretical physics. Unfortunately despite a century of effort, no one has shown exactly how to quantize gravity. But quantizing gravity must occur because nature cannot be half classical and half quantum. So the ultimate theory of QG remains physics’ top priority.”
Or words to that effect.
On the other hand this is wrong in many ways. But it can’t be discussed rationally because funding hinges on it. It’s a life or death fairy tale.
|timestamp=11:53 AM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949076734529401166
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok And yet you will repeat it old friend. I feel for you.
This is a thread about conflict between mass delusion & truth. So you are very good about it here. Thank you for that.
But when we ask about physics, you will often repeat what perseverating physicists trained you to say.
|timestamp=11:58 AM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949078940615877116
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s not just that. We’ve been through this.
Mathematicians will casually perseverate that the codifferential, unlike its adjoint the exterior derivative, has no product rule.
But they will also teach their students that what it means to be a derivative operator is captured in the product rule.
The codifferential *absoulutely* has a product rule. It’s just not a simple one. It has three components, not merely one. And they involve unfamiliar products.
When pointed out, a mathematician will often say “Well, that’s a lot of work for most people to have to invest that isn’t worth it. I guess I should have said that it doesn’t have a Leibniz or Product rule relative to the wedge product alone.” But generally they don’t know this because the field perseverates the myth.
|timestamp=12:06 PM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949079916479426594
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok This is why I talk to you. Higher quality conversation. Have you noticed my banner graphic?
|timestamp=12:10 PM · Jul 26, 2025
}}
|timestamp=12:17 PM · Jul 26, 2025
|media1=GwyHfxjboAAS1zQ.jpg
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23552"