The Portal Wiki

String Theory: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

String Theory (edit)

Revision as of 05:55, 9 November 2025

30,608 bytes added ,  9 November
→‎2023
Line 372: Line 372:
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1618347111023800320}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1618347111023800320}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1618764799630004225}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1618764799630004225}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054187512668160}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054190691975168}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054193426661376}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054196949651456}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1621054205107802112}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621058252246237184
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1626761575817433088}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="I remember when rock was young...🎶"
 
Let's get that energy back, by any means necessary.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621058252246237184-Fn8n3VFacAA_dcF.png
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054161885499395
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Today May be Considered the 50 year Anniversary of the Stagnation of Particle Physics.
 
Today Feb 1 marks the appearance of Kobayashi &  Maskawa's englargment of the Cabibo Angle to the three generation 3x3 CKM matrix.
 
That should be cause for celebration. So let us celebrate!
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054161885499395-Fn8U2kYaIAMg8wk.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054165408706560
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unfortunately, it also marks the end of what we can be certain actually is physics.
 
Imagine if Elton John's "Crocodile Rock" was still the #1 song on Billboard's Hot 100 & Tony Orlando and Dawn were singing "Tie a Yellow Ribbon". That, in a nutshell, is fundamental phsyics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054165408706560-Fn8iMnEaUAMg0wC.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054168764133376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To be clear, It is not as if there are no Nobel Laureates recognized for fundamental discoveries in particle theory left. I believe we are down to the last 8. Half of them are in their 70s. One in his 80s. Three are nongenarians. Yes. It's that bad. And we're not honest about it.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054168764133376-Fn8iezwaMAAErrN.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054172224421888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=When you hear about "Peer Review" in this field, you have to understand that the field stopped working. Without nature telling us, we don't actually know who the physicists are any more. We have no idea who is a fundamental physicist. All we know is that what we do doesn't work.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8iwsfaAAAVeiu.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054175483432960
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I am celebrating today by pointing out the obvious: maybe it isn't a good idea to have people who haven't made contact with actual fundamental physics telling everyone else what they must and must not do to be members of a club that no longer works according to normal science.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054175483432960-Fn8jAhDaMAED_d4.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054178570407936
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What fundamental physics really is, is (approximately) captured by the table below. In short, if someone is below the age of 70, they may have proven their brilliance and mathematical ability, but they have not proven any ability to make contact with reality as theorists.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054178570407936-Fn8YxU6acAEQmCD.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054181443514369
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I will point out that our experimentalists are in FAR better shape. The massive nature of neutrinos, discovery of gravitational waves, the Higgs field, Intermediate Vector Bosons, Accelerating Expansion of the Universe/Dark Energy are all major successes over the last 50 years.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054181443514369-Fn8jMQWaQAENPbQ.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054184186613760
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So what went wrong? I will be talking about my understanding of the stagnation this year at a different level. But the single greatest threat to fundamental physics in my estimation is something called "Quantum Gravity" which was really born 70 years ago around 1953.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054184186613760-Fn8jTU3aYAAIeGf.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054187512668160
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To put it bluntly, it is not just that Quantum Gravity doesn't work. It's that you can't comfortably question Quatnum Gravity because the failed investment is on a scale that I think is difficult for us to contemplate. It includes StringTheory, Loop Quantum Gravity, AdS/CFT etc.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054187512668160-Fn8jeqSaUAAU1O9.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054190691975168
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next Year, will be 40 years of failure for modern StringTheory to ship a product. To be clear and STEELMAN the argument for strings, it *is* a remarkable framework. It is REAL math. It teaches us things no other framework has.
 
But, it *destroyed* the culture of honest physics.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054190691975168-Fn8j43gaYAEp0Cd.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054193426661376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We spent almost 80% of this time being told that ST was a 'Piece of 21st Century Physics that fell into the 20th Century.'
 
Uh. Bullshit. That is an excuse. It's not clear that it's physics at all.
 
It's a "Failed piece of 20th Century Physics still hanging around in the 21stC".
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
|media1=ERW-X-post-1621054193426661376-Fn8kDPoacAAwub7.png
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054196949651456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is time to hold conferences dedicated to the issues of groupthink in physics. Why wont our leading voices admit failure? We don't know. Previous generations wanted their students to succeed. But String Theory is dominated by boomers who seem oblivious to danger.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054198824710144
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If we're going to truly wrestle w/ dark matter, or dark energy, or [[UAP]] that supposedly violate our laws of physics (e.g. General Relativity) we can't afford a leaders projecting their fears that THEY have wasted their lives, credibility and students careers on "Quantum Gravity".
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054200439537667
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So by all means, let's celebrate. But it is time to ask new voices for wild, dangerous and irresponsible ideas. Peer review failed. Quantum Gravity Failed. Community norms failed. And soon there will be NO ONE LEFT proven to be able to play this game. So what do we do?
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054201957847040
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to spend perhaps 5yrs asking "If the leaders have not succeeded for FIVE DECADES in moving beyond the Standard Model, then why are they leading this field and directing the resources, research, and path forward? What if we listened to those who the leadership push aside?"
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054203522347008
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As someone who has tried to ask this question, I can tell you that mostly the big programs have granted themselves a science equivalent of 'dipolmatic immunity' from the standards they impose on their intellectual competitors.  But from today forward, we must end that game.
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054205107802112
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's put resources in new avenues, theories and theorists that have yet to fail. The next time you hear a theorist telling you about quantum gravity, the multiverse or String theory or Loops or Supersymmetry or AdS/CFT, etc. Ask them the following dangerous question:
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621054206814871552
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="If you haven't succeeded in 50-70 years, what other theories would be viable if we relaxed the standards you have imposed on your competitors given that your theories do not seem to work? What if your Quantum Gravity were subjected to such standards? Would QG be quackery?"🙏
|timestamp=7:53 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1621055968699383808
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let's honor those who tried before by bringing the same energy they once brought to the attempt to learn our place in the universe. Happy to be corrected. But this is an emergency if we're ever going to go beyond chemical rockets and use physics to take our place among the stars.
|timestamp=8:00 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:09 AM · Feb 2, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626979209578164224
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@MasterMuskkk @bgreene @Columbia @TOEwithCurt @IAI_TV Brian is one of our best public speakers as well. I’ve seen him improvise on his feet in tough situations and I am blown away by how he manages to be accurate, accessible and funny in real time scientific matters. A lightning-fast mind working simultaneously on multiple levels.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626759376110501888
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The IAI asked me to clarify some arguments in an interchange over theoretical physics I had earlier with String Theorist @bgreene of @Columbia, just as Brian was asked about the same discussion on @TOEwithCurt.
 
The @IAI_TV write up is here. Check it out!
 
https://iai.tv/articles/eric-weinstein-the-string-theory-wars-auid-2394?_auid=2020
|timestamp=1:43 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626761575817433088
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think what was new to @IAI_TV was someone who was not against string theory as a framework, but adamant that String culture and Quantum Gravity had been catastrophically enervating for 40-70 years.
 
A part of the original interchange was excerpted here:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=hyFMB1xfePw}}
|timestamp=1:52 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1626763789336215552
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=At 1:32:50, Curt Jaimangul asks Brian Greene about the same issue.
 
I respect Brian a great deal and always found him collegial. I’d be happy to have the state and future of Quantum Gravity discussed at length in open forum if people were interested.
{{#widget:YouTube|id=O2EtTE9Czzo|start=5570}}
|timestamp=2:01 AM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JohnAllenderOT8-profile-3-U9BYwJ.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/JohnAllenderOT8/status/1626937827140452352
|name=JohnAllenderOT8
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JohnAllenderOT8
|username=JohnAllenderOT8
|content=Could list to @EricRWeinstein and @bgreene debate all day. Podcast was killer. Thanks again to both of you intellectual titans!
|timestamp=1:31 PM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Feb 18, 2023
}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1662923540335669248}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1662923540335669248}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441052369158145}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441052369158145}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1675744552039374848}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1675744555814223872}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1675744563154272256}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 422: Line 682:




{{#widget:Tweet|id=1676028532940742656}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744563154272256
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is time to face up to the disaster of string theory. But we need to be fair about what failed and why. The equations of string theory can’t hurt anyone. It’s 40 years of the anti-scientific destruction of scientific standards and norms of collegiality to promote one failed theory over all other attempts that is behind this destruction of what was previously the worlds most accomplished scientific community.
 
It’s time to face up to what actually happened 40 years ago. And it ain’t pretty. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744552039374848
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The good folks at @IAI_TV put together a reel of String Theorist, Prof. @bgreene and I debating [[String Theory]] in Wales in May at @HTLGIFestival.
 
Check it out:
 
{{#widget:YouTube|id=eOvqJwgY8ow}}
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744555814223872
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This should really be done at a somewhat more technical level. The biggest damage done by [[String Theory]] was that it quickly redefined the most important problems in Physics to be general aspects of analysis and field theory rather than understanding our *hyper*-specific world.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744557689106432
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, now in the current post-string era, it is perfectly acceptable for people to work on [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] without having to understand essentially anything about the mysterious 3 generations of chiral particles that actually populate our world. In short, they changed the field.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1675744560180502528
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Oddly, even though Roger Penrose and I were on the same side on this stage, I couldn’t subscribe to much of Penrose’s critique of strings and found myself agreeing more with Brian Greene on the technical points.
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
|timestamp=5:53 AM · Jul 3, 2023
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679339931800592390
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=To sum it up: when string theorist are no longer in a position to keep changing the goal posts set by the physical world, isn’t it the case that from A-Z maybe string theory is not being honest?
 
Again. Not personal to you. At all. But it is not a fair move to say “It’s the best yet-to-succeed approach to quantum gravity.” in front of the public. No?
 
🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677230177544470529
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“[[String Theory]] is absolutely…the most likely to be true set of ideas about what sits at the intersection of the [[Standard Model]] and [[Quantum Gravity|quantum gravity]].”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1676908960652066816
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=I can confirm this indeed blows up ones notifications.
 
But, in case of doubt or misunderstanding, string theory 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.
|media1=JosephPConlon-1676908960652066816-F0WTvUYWIAExXQ4.jpg
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677231449240399872
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Yes, that is precisely what I think.
|timestamp=8:21 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677235567871021059
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you said “electrons are absolutely fractional spin fields in the standard model” I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. It isn’t at all about what you think. It is a true statement.
 
Here you are assuring lay people about what is absolute about [[String Theory]] within physics.
|timestamp=8:38 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677244875605958656
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=My responsibility is to make accurate statements (and yes, everything is my (professional) opinion).
 
As the book quote indicates, I try not to overclaim. But: that string theory and the complex  of ideas are around it are more serious than any competitors, IMO objectively true.
|timestamp=9:15 AM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677368642328211456
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“IMO objectively true”
 
As with so many of these String Theoretic claims I have no idea what that means.
 
So for example if I make an argument that this is NOT objectively true, do you fall back on the idea that it was opinion?
 
“Objectively, Electrons are field theoretic at observed energy scales.” My opinion doesn’t enter into it. The claim that it is objectively true eliminates the role of opinion.
 
Does that mean that all who disagree with you and your String community are “not serious” as per the above?
|timestamp=5:27 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1677440377559695360
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The arguments become more convincing/objective, the more one can use graduate-level theoretical physics in them.
 
But in 280 characters and no equations, it’s hard to develop these
 
In a book, easier to do so.
|timestamp=10:12 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1677449460677509120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that’s the issue Joseph. At all.
 
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 doesn’t make sense. I mean you can just see that, no? Not trying to be mean here. But I don’t see what you are claiming is absolute and objective beyond your opinion.
 
What you seem to be saying is the usual trope: “The more you understand about the difficulty of quantizing a spin 2 gravitational field the more you appreciate how string theory has taught us so much about how it is to be done eventually, and that there is no remotely comparable framework for doing so!”
 
Again. Not trying to be combative. Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong.
|timestamp=10:48 PM · Jul 7, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1678554652026220544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It is not objective or absolutely true that [[String Theory]] is our best theory. In fact, it has become, 40 years after the anomaly cancelation, our most thoroughly explored idea. No other path has been picked over like this one.
 
Waited a few days. I don’t think you are making sense about your *opinion* that it is *objectively* and *absolutely* dominant. And that is the problem. String theorist deliberately leave others with the impression that they are following something scientific, objective and absolute. But it is really just a shared subjective hunch. And this does science and physics a terrible disservice.
|timestamp=11:59 PM · Jul 10, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678645376557936645
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=The question about where string theory stands in comparison to other approaches to quantum gravity. I think it objectively true that string theory has given lots of stuff that  is useful/foundational to cognate areas (eg QFT) than any other approach to quantum gravity. 1/n
|timestamp=6:00 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678646205767725058
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=Holography and AdS/CFT is the clearest example but there are others.
 
I think this is objectively, uncontroversially true — once people have the background in theoretical physics that they understand topics like QFT on a technical level and have some real sense of the subject.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647080774934528
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=But most people (reasonably) don’t have this background. So I preface this with ‘my opinion’ in recognition that the core and guts of the argument, and the real reasons behind it, are not accessible to most people who read these tweets.
|timestamp=6:07 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPConlon-profile-f6V5Cs5l.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon/status/1678647632460128256
|name=Joseph Conlon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPConlon
|username=JosephPConlon
|content=This is not ideal - but while saying ‘go buy my book’ is a slight cop out, the book is my full argument at a level as non-technical as possible of why string theory has the position it does DESPITE the lack of direct experimental evidence for it
|timestamp=6:09 AM · Jul 11, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679328534140170240
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Joseph. Imagine I were to temporarily stipulate to the idea that of all the known approaches to quantizing the  metric field that leads to gravitation, [[String Theory]] is by far the most advanced. I don’t think that is unreasonable whether or not it is true. It’s a solid argument.
|timestamp=3:14 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679329566161276933
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t think that is the relevant argument anymore. So you are framing it in such a way that “String Theory” is the answer to a question you formulated: “Of all the approaches to quantizing  gravity which haven’t worked, which is the best?”
 
My argument is with that framing.
|timestamp=3:19 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679330391063433219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem I have is with string theorists framing of the field and its issues and questions. I think [[String Theory]] is dangerous for this reason.
 
Try these instead:
 
A) Which approach is most likely to successfully alter or explain the [[Standard Model|Standard model]]?
 
B) Same as A) but for [[General Relativity]]?
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679331799439396864
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=C) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why there are 3 generations of observed fermions?
 
D) Which approach is most likely to shed light on why the generations are chiral?
 
E) Which large community most regularly makes sweeping claims that it later must privately invalidate while publicly claiming a new revolution?
 
F) Which large community is most likely to ignore other ideas?
 
G) Which is the most aggressive large community despite no proven connection to observed reality?
|timestamp=3:27 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679332528610738178
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=H) Which community is most likely to spend all their careers working on toy models with the wrong dimensions, signatures or field content claiming that we are building up the toolkit?
 
I) Which community is least likely to own up to the disaster of past public declarations about accessible energy SUSY?
|timestamp=3:30 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679333915365101568
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=J) Which approach has been the most investigated and thus thoroughly picked over for low hanging fruit?
 
K) Which approach best explains the odd nature of a seemingly fundamental Higgs sector?
 
L) Which approach is most dogmatic that [[Quantum Gravity|“Quantum Gravity”]] rather than “Unification” or “Gravitational Harmony” or “Incremental understanding” etc. *Is* the path forward when we don’t even know if gravity is quantized as we expect it at all in models beyond relativitistic [[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]]?
|timestamp=3:36 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679334548646277120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=M) Which approach comes closest to explaining the origin of the internal symmetry structure group of the Standard model?
 
N) Which approach comes closest to explaining why there appear to be 16 particles in a generation with their observed internal quantum numbers?
|timestamp=3:38 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679335373070008320
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=O) Which approach is most at risk of invoking “The Landscape” of impossibly many theories to test after saying that the power of the approach was that there were only 5 possible theories?
 
P) Which community brags about “postdiction” the most because it has failed at predictions?
|timestamp=3:42 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679336247322636290
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q) Which community is least collegial and most insulting to colleagues outside the approach?
 
R) Which HEP theory community consumed the most in resources over the last 40 years?
 
S) Same for brains?
 
T) Same for producing PR and puff pieces?
 
U) Which community has broken the most trust with lay people in HEP theory?
|timestamp=3:45 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679337827786719239
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=V) Which community substitutes mathematics results for results about the actual physical world we live in when talking to the public?
 
W) Which community is most likely to restore the culture of successful physics research to HEP theory?
 
X) Which not yet successful approach has been most self-critical?
 
Y) Which community is most respectful in absorbing the results by others with proper credit?
 
Z) Which community relentless makes its argument by mis framing the question as if the question were simply “What is our deepest collection of ideas of how to quantize a massless spin 2 gravitational field?” when the previous 25 framings are all arguably more important after 39 years without contact with physics?
|timestamp=3:51 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1679338937561776129
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That is why this conversation doesn’t work. It is what magicians call “Magicians Choice”: the lay person is lead into thinking they are free to disagree. But the question you keep asking is DESiGNED to make it look like [[String Theory]] is our top community.
 
Joseph: it failed in the terms it gave for taking over. It chose the terms. It said what it was and what it was going to do. And it flat out failed in EXACTLY those terms it chose when it said “Hold my beer!” back in 1984.
|timestamp=3:56 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
|timestamp=4:00 AM · Jul 13, 2023
}}
 
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1676623160110874625}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1676623160110874625}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1677230177544470529}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1677235567871021059}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1678554652026220544}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679328534140170240}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679329566161276933}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679330391063433219}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679338937561776129}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679339931800592390}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679572655496888322}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1679572655496888322}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23658"