Jump to content

Nathan “Nati” Seiberg: Difference between revisions

Nathan “Nati” Seiberg (edit)

Revision as of 20:11, 7 January 2026

4,873 bytes added ,  Wednesday at 20:11
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{stub}} {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1562132802279075840 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=@martinmbauer Seiberg/Witten/Dijkgraaf/Maldacena All string folks. Maybe get a string theorist to admit this to you. Brian Greene likely wouldn’t disagree with me. |thread= {{Tweet |image=Eric...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
{{stub}}
=== 2021 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1474262756308119555
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Said differently I’ve been bullish on positive externalities of mathematical physics. But a lot of great math that got done isn’t [[String Theory|string theory]]. It’s claimed to be stringy but it is really mostly mathematical physics or geometric field theory that is claimed by string theorists.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1473817405809778689
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Things got hard. They didn’t get hopeless.
Yes we spent almost 40 years lying about [[String Theory|string theory]]. But we could stop today. We could have the leaders in the field admit they made a *colossal* bad bet & ask “What did we dispose of while we were wildly over-hyping [[String Theory|string theory]]?”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=TradeTexasBig-profile-7puYx-nQ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TradeTexasBig/status/1473809988535697408
|name=🇺🇲TradeTexasBig🇮🇳
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TradeTexasBig
|username=TradeTexasBig
|content=Its increasingly apparent to me that the next physics breakthrough is gonna be from #ai . Its humanly not possible anymore for theoretical physicists ..i was feeling it even around 2010
|timestamp=12:17 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
|timestamp=12:47 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1473872481735827459
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=They can't stop, Eric. They're making a living from writing papers about things no one will ever see. It's a systemic problem that requires a systemic response. And the first step would be to admit they have a problem (which they don't).
|timestamp=4:25 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=WeLivetoServe-profile-wfx-Iowe.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/WeLivetoServe/status/1473873663166451714
|name=WeLivetoServe
|usernameurl=https://x.com/WeLivetoServe
|username=WeLivetoServe
|content=Seems likely a lot of the math they developed will wind up handy, but it's a long time to wait for dessert.
|timestamp=4:30 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1473874437523005443
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=Most of what physicists call math is totally uninteresting even for mathematicians. It's just advanced calculus. Look here is my qft and when I crunch it cross-sections fall out.
|timestamp=4:33 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1474213317568651264
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We may disagree intellectually more than I thought. This is Jackiw’s point: the era of physics thinking of mathematics as advanced calculus (analysis) wasn’t fruitful.
That changed around 1975 when the quantum began to discover geometry.
I’m honestly confused. What do you mean?
|timestamp=3:00 AM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/1474247291687088134
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=We are talking past each other. I am referring to particle physicists/astrophysicists/cosmologists who crunch out shallow and useless papers in the thousands. There's no interesting math in those. You're talking about something else entirely.
|timestamp=5:15 AM · Dec 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1474261469462073344
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Quantum Field Theory|QFT]] & cross-sections sound more like particle theory than Astrophysics, Cosmology or even [[General Relativity|GR]].
Would we agree that the collision of [[Ed Witten|Witten]]/[[Isadore Singer|Singer]]/Quillen/[[Nathan “Nati” Seiberg|Seiberg]]/Freed/Bismut/Maldacena/Penrose/[[Michael Atiyah|Atiyah]]/
Hitchin/Dijgraff/[[Cumrun Vafa|Vafa]]/Segal/Jackiw/Kontseivich/Alvarez-Gaume/etc has been magic?
|timestamp=6:11 AM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1474261875328098308
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=There are a lot of string theorists who have done things that really matter to geometry, topology, analysis on manifolds, representation theory. And I don’t want to misunderstand your point.
|timestamp=6:13 AM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:16 AM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
=== 2022 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25287"