The Portal Wiki

Quantum Gravity: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Quantum Gravity (edit)

Revision as of 17:48, 5 November 2025

18,450 bytes added ,  5 November
→‎2025
Line 2,081: Line 2,081:
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.
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?
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.  
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.  
Line 2,089: Line 2,089:
Enough.  
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).  
I was writing about the danger of a manipulated [[CPI]] in 1996 (now admitted). The fake [[National Science Foundation|NSF]] [[Labor Shortages|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?  
Etc. See the pattern?  
Line 2,108: Line 2,108:


No hard feelings.
No hard feelings.
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1936935674374172867
|name=Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=Dear @EricRWeinstein The history of technology strongly indicates that UAP-type "anti-gravity" tech cannot be Earthly. Here's my explanation of why from my forthcoming book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters:
An alternative to ordinary explanations for UAP sightings is that they represent Russian or Chinese assets, drones, spy planes, or some related but as yet unknown (to us) technology capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all known physics and aerodynamics. Pilots and observers describe “multiple anomalous aerial vehicles” accelerating from 80,000 feet down to sea level in seconds, or making instantaneous turns and even sudden stops, or shooting off horizontally at hypersonic speed, breaking the sound barrier but not making a sonic boom, which should be impossible, not to mention that it would kill the pilots instantly. And these vehicles appear to be able to do so with no apparent jet engine or visible exhaust plume, suggesting that they’re using some anti-gravity technology unavailable to even the most advanced experimental programs worked on at DARPA. When 60 Minutes’ correspondent Bill Whitaker asked former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had seen with his own eyes UAPs buzzing around Virginia Beach in 2014, “could it be Russian or Chinese technology?” Graves responded “I don’t see why not,” adding that “if these were tactical jets from another country that were hangin’ out up there, it would be a massive issue.”  Top Gun navy pilot and commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz, David Fravor, told 60 Minutes “I don’t know who’s building it, who’s got the technology, who’s got the brains. But there’s something out there that was better than our airplane.”
The hypothesis that the objects are terrestrial and developed by some other nation or corporation, or some genius working in isolation, is highly unlikely, given what we know about the evolution of technological innovation, which is cumulative from the past. In his seminal work The Evolution of Technology, the historian George Basalla busts the myth of the inventor working in isolation, dreaming up new and innovative technologies out of sheer creative genius (the ping of the light bulb flashing brilliantly in the mind). All technologies, Basalla demonstrates, are developed out of either pre-existing artifacts (artificial objects) or already existing naturfacts (organic objects): “Any new thing that appears in the made world is based on some object already in existence,” he explains.  But some artifact had to be first—an invention that comes from no other invention, ex nihilo as it were. If this is the case then that artifact, Basalla shows, likely came from a naturfact. (Barbed wire is a famous example. Its inventor, Michael Kelly, in 1868 explained: “My invention [imparts] to fences of wire a character approximating to that of a thorn-hedge. I prefer to designate the fence so produced as a thorny fence.” )
In How Innovation Works,  Matt Ridley demonstrates through numerous examples that innovation is an incremental, bottom-up, fortuitous process that is a result of the human habit of exchange, rather than an orderly, top-down process developing according to a plan. Innovation is different from invention, Ridley argues, because “it is the turning of inventions into things of practical and affordable use to people that makes innovation possible.” Innovation, he continues, “is always a collective, collaborative phenomenon, not a matter of lonely genius. It is gradual, serendipitous, recombinant, inexorable, contagious, experimental and unpredictable. It happens mainly in just a few parts of the world at any one time.” Examples include steam engines, jet engines, search engines, airships, vaping, vaccines, cuisine, antibiotics, mosquito nets, turbines, propellers, fertilizer, computers, dogs, farming, fire, genetic engineering, gene editing, container shipping, railways, cars, safety rules, wheeled suitcases, mobile phones, powered flight, chlorinated water, toilets, vacuum cleaners, shale gas, the telegraph, radio, social media, block chain, the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, and hyperloop tubes.
It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation, or lone individual—no matter how smart and creative—could have invented and innovated new physics and aerodynamics to create an aircraft of any sort that could be, essentially, centuries ahead of all known present technologies. That is not how innovation works. It would be as if the United States were using rotary phones while the Russians or Chinese had smart phones, or we were flying biplanes while they were flying stealth fighter jets, or we were sending letters and memos via fax machine while they were emailing files via the Internet, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.
Consider the Manhattan Project, arguably the most secretive program in US history to date, leading to the successful development of atomic bombs in 1945. The Russians had an atomic bomb by 1949. How? They stole our plans through a German theoretical physicist and spy named Klaus Fuchs. Modern tech companies like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft are notoriously secretive about their inventions, forcing employees to sign Non Disclosure Agreements (NDEs), enforcing extensive security protocols for their offices, and protecting intellectual property rights through countless lawsuits. And yet
all of our computers, smart phones, computer chips, and software programs are essentially the same, or at least in close parallel development. Countries and companies steal, copy, back engineer, and innovate each other’s ideas and technologies, leaving no one company or country very far ahead or behind any other.
|timestamp=11:53 PM · Jun 22, 2025
}}
|timestamp=5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025
|timestamp=5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025
|media1=GuG0BxyXUAAaDFK.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-1937027263108891121-GuG0BxyXUAAaDFK.jpg
|media2=GuG0Bx3WMAAbszq.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1937027263108891121-GuG0Bx3WMAAbszq.jpg
}}
}}


Line 2,479: Line 2,498:
}}
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949541472300421241
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@WzrdOfGwendolyn @grok @elonmusk Warms my heart. Science is not Academe.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949503650222752231
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My personal experience with @grok 4 Heavy (and regular Grok 4).
It feels to me like @elonmusk has a very different emphasis than the rest of the AI crowd. The interface kinda sucks. The LaTeX code is generally riddled with *basic* errors for no reason whatsoever. It’s not a master writer in my experience. The audio chat is well behind ChatGPT. Blah blah blah.
And it’s totally amazing and unique.
Elon is jumping ahead. All of the above are going to be commodities before you know it. So, in the long run, who cares?
What Elon is doing differently, I believe, is checking the hallucinations more aggressively by writing code and testing the LLM with the results from running that code. Which is why Grok heavy takes so %#€&$ing long to return results sometimes.
Try this experiment. Take anything technical you know well, where there is an error that is persistant in an expert community narrative. Grok will, lamentably, generally parrot that error due to narrative seeding in the training corpus. It repeats the party line. And the party line generally benefits the technical insiders.
That is, right up until the point it can write code to test that party line. And then it switches to trusting the results of the code over the narrative. It’s magical to watch.
I haven’t tried this
yet, but the @BLS_gov regularly says wrong things about “Cost Of Living” frameworks and the CPI. I bet I could design a series of prompts to show Grok that this is a persistent technical lie. For technical people, here is the lie:
***The BLS computes the CPI which transfers Trillions and claims that they have embraced a “cost of living” or COL framework which would be hugely consequential. They have not. This would mean taking in preference data and developing methodology for aggregating preferences or coming up with bespoke representative consumers. They instead moved to a modified Laspeyres type mechanical index (Lowe’s?) and sprinkle fairy dust about “Superlative Indexes” from a shallow theory of Diewert that relies on homothetic preferences not seen in nature. This allows them to claim they have embraced impartial economic indices while actually computing mechanical indices only to the tune of trillions in transfers over time, where the indices can be directed by humans.***
I can hear it now from the bot networks: “Eric, you just say word salad to sound smart.” Uh
whatever. You can now just ask Grok what that means. I bet it can figure that out. And then you can ask a series of questions where Grok will take my side while no other AI can do this. Grok is slightly courageous!
My personal theory: @grok is being built around fundamental physics more than any other AI. Because in the end nothing remotely matters as much as that. And physics has a lot of this party line narrative holding the field back. If you want to dream of reaching the stars, you may have to overwhelm the quantum gravity community.
Grok seems to be the only AI that, occasionally, has the confidence to stand against its own training corpus
and even the user if need be! I wish it were *more* courageous. I wish it were smarter. But I think it is the odd man out, being built for actual intelligence rather than LLM user experience today. And it has the respect of the other AIs. Feed their pretty output to Grok Heavy and watch the magic as Grok reviews their work. It’s wild to watch.
One user’s experience. Your mileage may vary.
|timestamp=4:14 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949506140800446551
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t have time this morning for much. That was a long post. Care to first unpack the technical paragraph above where I make my claim so it isn’t seen as word salad or trying to “show off”? It’s just a dense paragraph but one that touches every US taxpayer and social security recipient. Thx!
|timestamp=4:24 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949507081851339126
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@ExistentialVP @grok @elonmusk It behaves better than 90% of my colleagues. Respect given earns respect. I treat horses and children the same way.
But you do you.
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949511347252666377
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Or accountability. She who controls the weights, transfers the wealth.
Now, what is wrong with Diewert’s theory?  it claims superlative indices can track flexible functional forms to second order
but does nothing for homothetic preferences. This feels
uh
outrageous as economics sleight of hand. This is a million miles away from a true Konus index. Am I getting that wrong?
|timestamp=4:45 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949512500246175838
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk It may not get done right now, but let’s start. Since you agree on homotheticity, lets do something harder. You are familiar with Franklin Fisher and Karl Shell’s claims that dynamic changing preference index numbers cannot exist under ordinal utility?
|timestamp=4:49 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949514182032068724
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I claim that Pia Malaney and I actually solved that problem for dynamic ordinal tastes and that the Boskin commissioners at Harvard rejected a major innovation to keep their 1.1% target which had zero academic reasoning behind it.
Let’s show why it matters.
Let’s assume Cob Douglas preference. Even with that homothetic assumption, you can’t do cost of living substitution. Take the example in the Boskin report introduction. I think it uses chicken and beef. Do you know it?
|timestamp=4:56 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949515986199322964
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk Will return after a meeting. Sorry. I’m not a machine!
|timestamp=5:03 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949517639887495407
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Waiting for my meeting to start.
First code task. Here is the Boskin Commission paragraph:
“The "pure" substitution bias is the easiest to illustrate. Consider a very stylized example, where we would like to compare an initial "base" period 1 and a subsequent period 2. For simplicity, consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two commodities: beef and chicken. In period 1, the prices per pound of beef and chicken are equal, at $1, and so are the quantities consumed, at 1 lb. Total expenditure is therefore $2. In period 2, beef is twice as expensive as chicken ($1.60 vs. $0.80 per pound), and much more chicken (2 lb.) than beef (0.8 lb.) is consumed, as the consumer substitutes the relatively less expensive chicken for beef. Total expenditure in period 2 is $2.88. The relevant data are presented in Table 1. How can we compare the two situations?”
Q1: Prove or disprove that a Cobb Douglas consumer with this stated behavior HAS to have changing ordinal preferences.
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949523954726805718
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk Okay. Great.
Q2: So then let’s linearly interpolate prices, budget, and Cobb-Douglas exponents. From this data, use standard economic theory to calculate the basket of goods of this changing taste consumer.
|timestamp=5:35 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949524725291790590
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk My apologies. I should have been clearer.
Give the continuous functions please so everyone has them.
|timestamp=5:38 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949526279126221100
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q3: Calculate the closed form solution of the Changing Taste (Ordinal Konus) index relative to the Laspeyres Konus index relative to the mechanical Laspeyres index for this problem.
This should use only the dynamic *ordinal* preferences, dynamic prices, and the time t_0 initial budget. No other data is allowed.
|timestamp=5:44 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949528766063280366
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk What formula did you get for changing taste ordinal Konus ? Describe your methodology.
Alas, I don’t have time to check your results now. I warned ya.
But this is good. Thanks for engaging my silicon colleague. I may come back to it later today if I can find the time.
|timestamp=5:54 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1949531810561736820
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@JohnHaddon50959 @grok @elonmusk https://t.co/92gmCNJG6g
|timestamp=6:06 PM · Jul 27, 2025
|media1=Gw4g2Jta4AEvC-O.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:44 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}




Line 2,947: Line 3,143:
}}
}}
|timestamp=5:46 PM · Aug 16, 2025
|timestamp=5:46 PM · Aug 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964735368655438034
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Think globalization.</br>
Financialization.</br>
'''CPI tampering.'''</br>
Using 9/11 to invade
checks notes
Iraq.</br>
“The Great Moderation.”</br>
MBS and the Great Financial Crisis.</br>
[[Quantum Gravity]].</br>
“Adult Supervision” of GenX founders.</br>
Undocumented Americans.</br>
QE
All Silent/Boomers projects.</br>
All [[Kayfabe]]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1964733408543944962
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It radically accelerated at the defeat of the USSR.
That is when public spirited technical Americans went from being our top U.S. asset to “Elite enemy no. 1” overnight.
The same minds who stopped the Soviets were in danger of stopping the Silents/Boomers from looting the U.S.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Practical_Steve-profile-hJLtIMmW.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Practical_Steve/status/1964728453124731060
|name=Practical Steven
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Practical_Steve
|username=Practical_Steve
|content=@EricRWeinstein At what point did kayfabe take over in American Politics?
|timestamp=4:32 PM · Sep 7, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:52 PM · Sep 7, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:59 PM · Sep 7, 2025
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23557"