Jump to content

General Relativity: Difference between revisions

General Relativity (edit)

Revision as of 20:22, 12 December 2025

11,175 bytes added ,  12 December 2025
→‎2024
Line 849: Line 849:
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441052369158145}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1666441052369158145}}


== 2024 ==
=== 2024 ===
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1767763283270935027}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1773060797847208382}}
{{Tweet
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1827740131799011345}}
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767902861025845708
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You wrote: “In physics, theories are "fundamentally wrong" if they're mathematically inconsistent or contradict experimental evidence.”
 
That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way
but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them.
 
Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the Scientific Method was the entire point of [[The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature - Paul Dirac|Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote]] about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon:  
 
“I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.”
 
P.A.M. Dirac
 
I have no illusion that the point will ever die. But I was scratching my head when YOU made it, just as I was scratching my head watching you and @CburgesCliff hosted by some guy who seems to rely on strawmanning and personal invective as his schtick or act. I find you are usually pretty reasonable. That discussion was painfully biased and was pretty anti-collegial low level internet bullshit in my opinion. Yuck.
 
Anyway, here is the source:
 
https://scientificamerican.com/blog/guest-blog/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763283270935027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ya know, I disagree with @elonmusk here because I don’t know how he got to such a strong conclusion. I wish he would say more. Seems unwarranted.
 
But @martinmbauer is clearly also not right here either! Examples:
 
1915: Einstein’s first explicit equation for General Relativity was mathematically wrong; it set a divergence free 2-tensor equal to a non-divergence free 2-tensor.  But it wasn’t fundamentally wrong. It needed a small fix reversing the trace component.
 
In the 1920s E. Schrödinger’s theory  didn’t agree with experiment. Why? Because the spin wasn’t properly incorporated. It wasn’t fundamentally wrong, and was patched. Same theory.
 
In 1928, P. Dirac’s Quantum Field Theory gave nonsense answers? Why? A small goof conflating bare and dressed masses. Harder to fix
but in no way a fundamental error. The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics or QED still stands.
 
Etc. Etc.
 
Not a big deal
but this point is just so wrong as to be unsalvageable. Very curious error to make.
 
Martin (with whom I usually deeply disagree) is normally pretty great. But sometimes I think pretending that all outsiders talking about the current physics disaster are cranks, causes insiders to say very simplistic unnuanced and wrong things. This feels like that. And I’m not even a physicist.
 
It’s like the insiders don’t realize that the outsiders have any validity. All outsiders don’t immediately become cranks by virtue of disagreeing at a profound level with the abjectly failing communities from which they came.
 
[Note: this is *NOT* a gotcha. I fully expect Martin to realize the error and just admit it. No big deal. We all say incautious things. And this is just obviously wrong. Not an indictment.]
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1767495496157831284
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=In physics, theories are "fundamentally wrong" if they're mathematically inconsistent or contradict experimental evidence
 
Here it means *doesn't feel right to me*
 
And Nature absolutely doesn't care for personal feelings
|timestamp=10:18 AM · Mar 12, 2024
}}
|timestamp=4:03 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767763933807497314
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@lexfridman @elonmusk @PhysInHistory Can you explain? I keep hearing this. Thx.
|timestamp=4:05 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767766506870297031
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@elonmusk @PhysInHistory Huh. What are you seeing that others are not? I’m confused by the repeated references to an implied argument that I don’t think I know. Thanks.
|timestamp=4:15 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767768104690499763
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@codeslubber @elonmusk @martinmbauer Ken Wilson kinda did. He sorta created a new one. But that is different. I think he succeeded pretty well.
|timestamp=4:22 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1767768881450320225
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@codeslubber @elonmusk @martinmbauer 1984.
|timestamp=4:25 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=martinmbauer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1767823661107425660
|name=Martin Bauer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/martinmbauer
|username=martinmbauer
|content=Not sure what's the argument here. I didn't say every wrong theory must be fundamentally wrong ? 
 
My point is that personal feelings from 'outsiders' or 'insiders' (weird distinction) don't have any bearing on whether a theory is wrong or not
|timestamp=8:03 AM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
|timestamp=1:17 PM · Mar 13, 2024
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060797847208382
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Note for Curt: This is the whole point of [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]]. They are three geometries. Which are all one geometry, and that is only possible in the rarest of circumstances. Which we are in oddly.
 
Metric Geometry: [[General Relativity|General Relativity GR]]
[[Bundles|Fiber Geometry]]:  [[Standard Model|Standard Model SM]]
Symplectic Geometry: Hamiltonian Quantization of the SM. ]
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=TOEwithCurt-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt/status/1773057150199238985
|name=Curt Jaimungal
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TOEwithCurt
|username=TOEwithCurt
|content=I'm confused. This lecture doesn't negate the geometric foundations of GR. Einstein differentiates between how gravity and electromagnetism relate to the structure of space, all the while pointing to his ultimate goal of unification. As for the rest of the original article linked, I'm unsure how the quotes from Einstein support the author's title. GR is indeed a geometric theory; however, Einstein's viewpoint was that its geometric nature doesn't singularly distinguish it from the broader domain of physics, where geometry has always played a fundamental role. If anything, Einstein is saying not to confuse the map with the territory.
|timestamp=6:39 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1773060553411641673
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=He is correctly anticipating the Simons-Yang discovery of the [[Wu-Yang Dictionary|“Wu Yang dictionary”]].
 
Maxwell became Yang Mills</br>
Yang Mills became Simons Yang.</br>
Simons Yang became the Wu Yang Dictionary.</br>
[[Wu-Yang Dictionary|Wu Yang]] was (except for one entry) was [[Bundles|Ehressmann fiber bundle geometry]].
 
Think of metric geometry, fiber geometry and symplectic geometry as the geometry of symmetric metric 2-tensors, [[Bundles|fiber bundle connections]] and anti-symmetric 2 tensors respectively.
|timestamp=6:52 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:53 PM · Mar 27, 2024
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827761781261103246
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=NOTE: I was addressing these questions directly to my friend @skdh as a reponse  to the OP when I posted. That said, many people are interpreting this as a general request and I am delighted to hear their takes as well.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827740131799011345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Interesting. If that’s what’s wrong, what would physics done right be?
 
Q1: What are the 3 most promising general lines of attack on fundamental physics?
 
Q2: Who are 5 theorists, in your opinion, closest to pursuing a breakthrough beyond the Standard Model/General Relativity?
🙏
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1827724986427281497
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=all that's wrong with theoretical physics in one simple graph
|media1=skdh-X-post-1827724986427281497-GV1iMAkXwAAOBNM.jpg
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
|timestamp=4:09 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1827741517571887579
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Yet another cut would be:
 
If the caption were instead reversed to read “All that is right with theoretical physics in one simple graph.”, what would that look like visually?
 
I’m genuinely super curious to learn about what you’re most excited, as I realized I don’t really know!
|timestamp=4:15 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
|timestamp=5:35 PM · Aug 25, 2024
}}
 
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1834698277356527999}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1834698277356527999}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25035"