Jump to content

Ed Witten: Difference between revisions

Ed Witten (edit)

Revision as of 04:19, 26 November 2025

12,356 bytes added ,  26 November
→‎2019
Line 389: Line 389:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/royalsociety
|usernameurl=https://x.com/royalsociety
|username=royalsociety
|username=royalsociety
|content=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 – 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/
|content=[[Michael Atiyah|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 – 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/
|media1=royalsociety-X-post-1083772505934970881-DwpTCTzW0AEJifI.jpg
|media1=royalsociety-X-post-1083772505934970881-DwpTCTzW0AEJifI.jpg
|timestamp=3:48 PM · Jan 12, 2019
|timestamp=3:48 PM · Jan 12, 2019
Line 425: Line 425:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=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.
|content=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.
|timestamp=5:03 PM · Jan 12, 2019
|timestamp=5:03 PM · Jan 12, 2019
}}
}}
Line 452: Line 452:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wow. Did you guys ever talk shop? I have to admit I didn’t always get the most out of him 1 on 1. Singer and Bott were much clearer. Atiyah and Witten tended to tell you something related to whatever you asked but often not in a dialogue. More like a juke box of answers.
|content=Wow. Did you guys ever talk shop? I have to admit I didn’t always get the most out of him 1 on 1. [[Isadore Singer|Singer]] and [[Raoul Bott|Bott]] were much clearer. [[Michael Atiyah|Atiyah]] and [[Ed Witten|Witten]] tended to tell you something related to whatever you asked but often not in a dialogue. More like a juke box of answers.
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Jan 12, 2019
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Jan 12, 2019
}}
}}
Line 459: Line 459:




{{#widget:Tweet|id=1094010049263849472}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1113537524230631424}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1094010049263849472
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Ed Witten|Ed]] doesn’t make me feel stupid. But he still terrifies me. There is smart and there is [[Ed Witten|Witten-smart]]. I’ve only me one of his kind.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=jordanestern-profile-7K25s08O.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/jordanestern/status/1093968036602757120
|name=Jordan Stern
|usernameurl=https://x.com/jordanestern
|username=jordanestern
|content=Haha, does anyone other than [[Ed Witten]] make you feel stupid?
|timestamp=8:21 PM · Feb 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=11:08 PM · Feb 8, 2019
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1113538987824545792
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m impressed by many many people. But I feel I‘m now getting too old to be in awe of anyone. I think Ed is the only remaining one I still just can’t get rid of no matter how hard I try.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1113537524230631424
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Edward Witten.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=jbrandonhall78-profile-zPbKittm.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/jbrandonhall78/status/1113532973452804098
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/jbrandonhall78
|username=jbrandonhall78
|content=@EricRWeinstein who are you intellectually in awe of?
|timestamp=8:05 PM · Apr 3, 2019
}}
|timestamp=8:23 PM · Apr 3, 2019
}}
|timestamp=8:29 PM · Apr 3, 2019
}}




Line 469: Line 517:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@mhartl It would upset (living) people to fill this out. Have to think about the ultimate goal helping this community.
|content=It would upset (living) people to fill this out. Have to think about the ultimate goal helping this community.
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 496: Line 544:
Sudarshan gets nothing</br>
Sudarshan gets nothing</br>
Feynman/Schwinger/Tomonaga diluted</br>
Feynman/Schwinger/Tomonaga diluted</br>
No rules broken for Witten
No rules broken for [[Ed Witten|Witten]]


Etc
Etc
Line 555: Line 603:
BJJ practioners.</br>
BJJ practioners.</br>
Oboe/Bassoon players.</br>
Oboe/Bassoon players.</br>
Fans of Eva Cassidy, Shackleton, Coltrane and Witten.  
Fans of Eva Cassidy, Shackleton, Coltrane and [[Ed Witten|Witten]].  


And all for understandable reasons.
And all for understandable reasons.
Line 564: Line 612:




{{#widget:Tweet|id=1126376935968215040}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1159302692616802305}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1198298631217930241}}
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126376935968215040
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1201952965323444225}}
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s not all Feels. Look at E8 and tell me how you “feel”. Who came up with that? Killing? Freudenthal? Lie? No way. Not even Grothedieck and [[Ed Witten|Witten]] with Feynman and Von Neumann’s help. None of us know what it is. Is hemoglobin socially constructed? Who asks this? No one I know.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=seanilling-profile-Wxc7yP5w.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/seanilling/status/1126092670529671169
|name=sean illing
|usernameurl=https://x.com/seanilling
|username=seanilling
|content=As a language of signs and symbols, math is constructed. Its physical referents are not.
 
Am I missing something?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1125986671663636480
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Today I learned mathematical truth is “socially constructed” from @mattyglesias at @voxdotcom.
 
Sad? This is great news actually! It just means that these confusing types simply mean “timeless, universal &amp; true” whenever they say anything is culturally constructed. #ProblemSolved
|timestamp=4:51 AM · May 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=11:53 AM · May 8, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126348389308780544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Yes Sean. There are problems of language here. But there‘s a bigger issue. Most of the important parts of mathematics are neither physical nor “socially constructed”. No one could dream them up. The conversation today is however made impossible  by language &amp; politics. To sum up:
|timestamp=4:49 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126349465785257984
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=2/ First there is a careful philosophical tradition that means something precise by “socially constructed” as well as an activist community that means something dismissive and sloppy by the same phrase. Genrerally, the math community has not been overly interested in either.
|timestamp=4:53 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126350282592358400
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=3/ Most research mathematicians traditionally (but not always) oversold the objective nature of the profession’s norms. This causes historians and philosophers of science agitation. I think that’s fair, but I claim they have also oversold their contributions to pure mathematics.
|timestamp=4:56 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126352693860061187
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=4/ The feeling most solid research mathematicians have is that they’re studying an abstract reality that is independent of the way in which we study it. They can find being called Platonists, intuitionists, mystics etc, kind of weird if labeled by outsiders. Then come activists..
|timestamp=5:06 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126354221589123073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=5/ The activists can try to emphasize the part of mathematical culture, language and practice that are not fully objective in order to cast doubt on claims of universal knowable objective shared reality and primacy that scientists advance over, say, claims of “lived experience”.
|timestamp=5:12 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126355722969608192
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=6/ The biggest problem comes from people who go back and forth talking about say “decolonizing STEM” because “science is socially constructed” but who then retreat to “oh we just mean that philosophically” and it is this move with which many of us have lost patience. A “deepity”.
|timestamp=5:18 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126356624799436800
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=End/ So to sum up. There is a mildly interesting issue w/ the cultural practice of math. There is a major issue with activists trying to emphasize a marginal issue to attack a functioning system of universal truth. And there is an acultural aspect to pure mathematical structures.
|timestamp=5:22 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126373036943298565
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I understand what you are saying but this doesn’t capture the issue.
 
Imagine you are pretty sure you know the world’s smartest people well. And you know their work and yours. The problem is that it isn’t constructable by any of you because it is well beyond all your abilities.
|timestamp=6:27 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126373642475003905
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Imagine you‘re in a desert and you start dusting off a sand dune to find something that looks like Petra. You are pretty sure that you didn’t construct it. Only nobody else did either. That’s the feel of great mathematics. We just don’t worry too much about philosophical labels.
|timestamp=6:29 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126375531669102592
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Are gears culturally constructed? Are Platonic solids? Wheels? You might think so. But no. They are selected for Long before humans found them. Now please don’t lecture me on the exact nature of ‘gear’. It’s not as interesting as the point: These are canonical acultural forms.
|timestamp=6:37 AM · May 9, 2019
|media1=ERW-X-post-1126375531669102592-D6Gwkz-UIAEFvd3.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1126375531669102592-D6Gwkz7UEAAQhQ3.jpg
|media3=ERW-X-post-1126375531669102592-D6Gwkz1UYAAEva3.jpg
|media4=ERW-X-post-1126375531669102592-D6Gwkz2U8AEf2sK.jpg
}}
|timestamp=6:42 AM · May 9, 2019
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1159302692616802305
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@johncarlosbaez @skdh @brkthroughprize As for Super-Gravity, I don’t think you can make the argument that it is fully natural mathematics without a physical application. You can make that argument for SUSY after Kac/[[Ed Witten|Witten]]/Etc..., but even that is not totally clear to me.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1159295088763129857
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@johncarlosbaez @skdh @brkthroughprize Hey John,
 
Why do you think the SUSY/SUGRA math was there to be found if the physical world isn’t using it? Does it connect deeply elsewhere? The physics argument has always been that it must get used physically because it would be too weird to exist and not to be made use of.
 
E
|timestamp=2:47 AM · Aug 8, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1159302097684189184
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@johncarlosbaez @skdh @brkthroughprize I‘m reading your &amp; @skdh’s responses and don’t think Tweets are the right place to argue this. But I‘m still impressed how neither math nor physics has fully naturally accommodated fractional spin to my thinking. We find it everywhere but we still give a semi-‘magical’ treatment.
|timestamp=3:15 AM · Aug 8, 2019
}}
|timestamp=3:17 AM · Aug 8, 2019
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298631826096128
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I would say the one who awes me most is...[[CN Yang]]. I don’t understand why I never hear his name as candidate. He has at least 3 of the greatest achievements: chirality for the weak force (w/ Lee), non-Abelian maxwell theory (w/ Mills), and the bundle revolution (w/ [[Jim Simons|Simons]]/Wu).
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298626952290304
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=My personal &amp; overly condensed view of mathematics and physics in the 20th century would be summarized like this.
 
Mathematics began as a stool on the three legs of Algebra, Calculus, and Geometry where the last appeared to many to be the weakest leg. It turned out otherwise.
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298630618107904
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Repeatedly we find that any important problem from math or physics which we consider to be outside geometry/topology has a hidden geometrical nature to it. And there are only so many times you fall for that before you start to see geometry absolutely everywhere.
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1198298631217930241
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As for Weinberg, he is one of three people I can make the case for as our “Greatest Living Physicist”. I’ve met him. But he still has big bets which are undecided (e.g. asymptotic safety). [[Ed Witten|Witten]] is somehow even smarter but less accomplished in standard predictive theory. But...
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019
}}
|timestamp=5:53 PM · Nov 23, 2019
}}




Line 576: Line 824:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One of the greatest minds of our time, Michael Atiyah, eulogized by his true still-active peers including Witten &amp; Donaldson. With all the confusion/hype of this moment in time, it's worth reminding ourselves of what achievement sounds like w/o inflation:
|content=One of the greatest minds of our time, [[Michael Atiyah]], eulogized by his true still-active peers including [[Ed Witten|Witten]] &amp; Donaldson. With all the confusion/hype of this moment in time, it's worth reminding ourselves of what achievement sounds like w/o inflation:


https://t.co/e73vEMx6n8
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1834.pdf
|timestamp=7:54 PM · Dec 3, 2019
|timestamp=7:54 PM · Dec 3, 2019
}}
}}
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/24229"