Jump to content

Quantum Field Theory: Difference between revisions

Quantum Field Theory (edit)

Revision as of 05:18, 8 January 2026

12,381 bytes added ,  Thursday at 05:18
ā†’ā€Ž2021
Line 643: Line 643:
}}
}}
|timestamp=7:11 PM Ā· Apr 7, 2021
|timestamp=7:11 PM Ā· Apr 7, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740903254814723
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Should we discuss? Perhaps I misunderstood you @michiokaku. But, if so, you are welcome to educate me on my show. But I feel you are *incredibly* aggressive against all non string theorists and you are not comparably challenged by all who know better for reasons I canā€™t fathom.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740901224779782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=ā€œIf Maxwell and Yang had never been born, Bundle Geometry & Variational Calculus would have found Yang-Mills anyway. If Bohr and Planck had never been born Symplectic Geometry of line bundles would have found quantum theory anyway.ā€
Again: am I wrong?
|timestamp=12:37 AM Ā· May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740901908455424
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Just to finish up for completeness:
ā€œIf Dirac had never been born, Index Theory & Bordism would have found [[Quantum Field Theory]] anyway as an enhanced extraordinary cohomology theory.ā€
Iā€™m sorry, but all my statements are as or more accurate than what you tweeted.
|timestamp=12:37 AM Ā· May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1389740902575349762
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why do string theorists pretending to do physics get to BS everyone actually trying to do physics.
We have worked out a world where string theorists and their supporters attack everyone else but say much more outrageous bullshit to the public than any other group by far.
|timestamp=12:37 AM Ā· May 5, 2021
}}
|timestamp=12:37 AM Ā· May 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131507686363138
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Discontinuous innovation is always unlikely. But never impossible.
We are both skeptics. But this UFO story is weird beyond belief Michael. I canā€™t think of a single story to fit to these reports Iā€™m hearing about.
I welcome your thoughts. As always.
Warm regards,
Eric
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131487692115972
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Dear @michaelshermer,
Thanks for this. Very sober. I myself also donā€™t find the authenticated videos so far released compelling. But I do find your challenge of ā€œno isolated discontinuous innovationā€ quite interesting!
Might I propose a friendly debate among friendly skeptics?
{{Tweet
|image=michaelshermer-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1403837966305300481
|name=Michael Shermer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/michaelshermer
|username=michaelshermer
|content=Dear @EricRWeinstein Please see my argument for why [[UAP|UAPs]] cannot be foreign assets capable of physics & aerodynamics attributed to [[UAP|UAPs]] that if true would be decades or centuries ahead of us. History shows no nations/companies of comp development so lag.
https://quillette.com/2021/06/03/understanding-the-unidentified/
|timestamp=10:13 PM Ā· Jun 12, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131494289760259
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=First of all, I am concerned that the paradigm of being scientifically or technologically ā€œcenturies aheadā€ is all wrong. This came up in a phone call with our buddy @SamHarrisOrg.
Q: How many centuries ahead is 1952-3 from 1900? Iā€™d have guessed ā€œmanyā€ (not .5) and been wrong.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-1.jpg
|media2=ERW-X-post-1404131494289760259-2.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496059805698
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next challenge: doesnā€™t your line of reasoning prove that ā€œRenaissance Technologiesā€ is either a fraud or a front? Their Medallion Fund is otherwise a long term unbreached secret, discontinuous from any other know investment fund seemingly thousands of years ahead of competitors.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131496844165120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now Iā€™ve had the odd question about Renaissance (front not fraud) for just this reason. But either way, itā€™s either a counter example to your claims on discontinuous innovation if it is merely a fund or a counter-example to your secrecy claims if it is our secret physics program.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131497641082880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Next: there are really two metrics on innovations.
Metric I: How big the incremental jump in difficulty.
Metric II: How big the jump in what is unlocked.
The great fear is that a small jump measured by 1 leading to an ENORMOUS jump in as measured by II.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131498391871490
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You are, to me, arguing powerfully that certain people canā€™t exist: Rodney Mullen, Edward Van Halen, Bob Beamon, Dick Fosbury, Hiroji Satoh, Satoshi Nakamoto, etc.
They all exhibited the ā€œa little unlocks a lotā€ paradigm with Zero-Day exploits that were each decisive.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499197157376
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And that brings us to theoretical physics. Beginning around 1982 , the son of the worldā€™s top employed anti-gravity researcher(?!) of the 1950s turned in what may be the most impressive 15yr output in the history of the subject by my estimation. How can I begin to explain this?
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131499977318403
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Itā€™s not physics exactly. But [[Ed Witten|Edward Witten]] w support from a small number of folks rewrote [[Quantum Field Theory]] as geometry. If [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] geometrized gravity, then [[Ed Witten|Witten]] geometrized [[Quantum Field Theory|Quantum Field theory]] (everything else).
Now, all that change has so far unlocked exactly nothing.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131500753182720
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But itā€™s not that nothing happened in physics. While we were pretending that string theory was working, [[Ed Witten|Witten]] & Co revolutionized our mathematical framework. Think of it as an enormous amount of unrealized gains. Pent up genius & power looking for its 1st application to the šŸŒŽ.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131501512433665
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you gave us [[Ed Witten|E Witten]], [[Jim Simons|J Simons]], [[Isadore Singer|I Singer]], [[CN Yang]], M Atiyah, D Quillen & G Segal, in a quiet program in 1975, I could argue that they didnā€™t need much more. In fact you donā€™t need all 7 but for the sake of argument I can make the case using this. But Witten is the main engine.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131502275776512
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Now let me show you how I could get discontinuous innovation if I were China or Russia. I donā€™t know those systems as well so Iā€™ll use the US example.
We know most of the top minds. We pretend that there is a lot of subjectivity about this for social reasons but China wouldnā€™t.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503064289281
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If I thought like CCP, Iā€™d create a lavish secret theoretical physics program modeled on the Russian Sharashka system. The key would be to get it to look like something else. A boring Tech company or some weird Chinese fund to disguise the reason for the secretive lavish campus.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131503827685378
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[Digression: If the US were smarter, weā€™d do it by setting up a mythic secret $B hedge fund that employs top differential geometers, theoretical physicists & ML experts by a national lab & an off brand university w/ inexplicably strong geometry & physics. But enough crazy talk..]
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131504586838016
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If CCP could today repeat what Witten (& friends) did building off [[Quantum Field Theory|Geometric Quantum Field Thy]], the US would have Zero clue what it unlocks. Even by your own incrementalist theory. It might unlock absolutely nothing. Or passage to the stars via additional degrees of freedom. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131505350201345
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One last point. I released such a theory. Could well be wrong.
But I can tell you I should have received a call from DOE. Because calls are cheap and relevant trained PhDs are *very* finite. The US should track every geometer, General Relativist, and Particle Theorist working.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506121961473
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You donā€™t have to take a position on me or GU. You can ask Wolfram or Lisi or Barbour or Deutsche or anyone outside the system whether such calls are placed. They are not. No one *in* the system believes in wild discontinuous change from *outside* the system. As per your article.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404131506876928003
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Which is to say weā€™re not monitoring. Maybe we think thatā€™s a waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe we think that a Grisha Perelman of physics is impossible.
How much does a phone call cost if a researcher is wrong vs not bothering if theyā€™re right? Price the [[Type I & Type II Error|Type I & II error]]. Nuts.
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:40 PM Ā· Jun 13, 2021
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25318"