The Portal Wiki

Standard Model: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Standard Model (edit)

Revision as of 21:24, 13 December 2025

7,389 bytes added ,  13 December 2025
→‎2024
Line 575: Line 575:
=== 2024 ===
=== 2024 ===


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1773060797847208382}}
{{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
}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1774092904459629027}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1774092904459629027}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1778141545260331295}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1778141545260331295}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1827740131799011345}}
 
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1834698277356527999}}
 
{{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
}}
 
 
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834702103211917754
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=For some reasons that have never been explained or justified leaders in physics started making the claim that [[General Relativity|GR]] *was* also a gauge theory. This was done by claiming that general coordinate invariance in the form of the diffeomorphism group is a kind of Gauge Transformation. Which it clearly is not.
 
This is absurd. Gauge transformations move the fibers and are defined not to move space time where as diffeomorphisms move space time directly.
 
So: why claim that GR is a kind of gauge theory? The only payoff I see is that this allows us to pretend that the [[Standard Model|SM]] vs [[General Relativity|GR]] incompatibility is classical vs quantum where it is staring us in the face that it is instead contraction-based ([[General Relativity|GR]]) vs Gauge Transformed ([[Standard Model|SM]]).
 
The only reason this is at all controversial is that the people saying it were thought to be the leaders 40 years ago.
 
That didn’t work out. We have 40 years lost as a result.
 
But the truth is anyone can see the incompatibility between gravity and [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]] if they are not being told that gravity is a special kind of [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]]. Which it absolutely is not as formulated by Grossman, Einstein and Hilbert.
 
[[Morals|Moral]]: The problem holding us back from a Theory of everything is **Classical**, and not Quantum. The quantum comes as desert after classical compatibility. It’s not the main issue. A red hearing that throws us off following the scent. It’s a distraction that should have fooled almost no one who was thinking for his or her self.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834698277356527999
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is what is blocking progress in my opinion for physics to go beyond [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] and [[General Relativity]].
 
40 years ago, the leaders of physics started claiming that gravity had to be quantized to be compatible with the [[Standard Model]].
 
But the incompatibility is *not* Quantum vs Classical field theory. The *classical* field theory of the [[Standard Model]] is already not compatible with classical [[General Relativity]].
 
[[General Relativity]], at least as it is now, simply cannot be gauged so as to make it a true gauge theory, because Gauge transformation does *not* commute with the Ricci Contractions used in the field equations, and within the Einstein Hilbert action.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=postquantum-profile-CoJxMwrT.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/postquantum/status/1834184677860491584
|name=Jonathan Oppenheim
|usernameurl=https://x.com/postquantum
|username=postquantum
|content=I wish I deserved the heretic moniker, but isn’t asking whether spacetime is quantum or classical just common sense? After all, general relativity (GR) - our theory of gravity and spacetime - is special. It isn’t a gauge theory, and gravity isn’t a force. 1/
|timestamp=10:57 AM · Sep 12, 2024
}}
|timestamp=8:58 PM · Sep 13, 2024
}}
|timestamp=9:14 PM · Sep 13, 2024
}}


=== 2025 ===
=== 2025 ===
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25056"