6,465
edits
Theory of Geometric Unity: Difference between revisions
→2025
(→2023) |
(→2025) |
||
| Line 2,275: | Line 2,275: | ||
=== 2025 === | === 2025 === | ||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1925895104130097287 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=To define this term, Geometric Unity constructs an Inhomogeneous Gauge Group as the source for the terms in the difference, and then replaces the Einstein field equations, term by term, with a new equation on a space of fields, far better behaved than Einstein’s space of metrics. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1925892972685447247 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Geometric Unity predicted that there’s no cosmological constant by replacing the frought term w/ a natural geometric varying field, invariant under symmetries. | |||
I’ve given several talks on this recently in different physics depts. This was filmed at one in the U.S. in April. | |||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1925588585782419472 | |||
|name=Prof. Brian Keating | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating | |||
|username=DrBrianKeating | |||
|content=A Universe without a cosmological constant? | |||
@EricRWeinstein presents a technical lecture @UCSanDiego on the future of Einstein’s “Biggest Blunder” in light of Geometric Unity & DESI’s newest results. | |||
Watch: | |||
{{#widget:YouTube|id=fBozSSLxFvI}} | |||
|timestamp=12:34 PM · May 23, 2025 | |||
}} | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925892972685447247-Grolc6TXsAAFnXe.jpg | |||
|timestamp=12:34 PM · May 23, 2025 | |||
}} | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925895104130097287-GronY-hWcAE6G9w.jpg | |||
|timestamp=12:42 PM · May 23, 2025 | |||
}} | |||
| Line 2,298: | Line 2,336: | ||
Thanks for the question. | Thanks for the question. | ||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=ArterraForever-profile-xntZ6gUJ.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever/status/1926008222902542502 | |||
|name=Gerald Welch | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ArterraForever | |||
|username=ArterraForever | |||
|content=Eric, | |||
I have a sincere and respectful question for you. | |||
You’ve rightly criticized string theory for introducing unobservable extra dimensions and for prioritizing mathematical elegance over empirical necessity. But in Geometric Unity, you also introduce additional dimensions (fourteen in total) to house the fields and symmetries needed for unification. While I understand these dimensions serve a structural rather than vibrational purpose, I’m wondering how we justify them any more than string theory justifies its own. | |||
What makes GU’s extra dimensions more physically grounded? Is there an observational path that distinguishes them, or are we still relying on elegance over first principles? | |||
Why not begin instead with the most minimal assumption: what must exist for the universe to behave as it does? Repulsion dominates the cosmos. Time governs emergence. Must we construct fields to explain what spacetime may already be doing by default? | |||
With all respect, I ask whether our best hope for progress lies not in building more elaborate systems, but in returning to the simplest foundational questions. | |||
Jerry | |||
|timestamp=8:11 PM · May 23, 2025 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=4:13 PM · May 24, 2025 | |timestamp=4:13 PM · May 24, 2025 | ||
}} | }} | ||