Jump to content

The Only Game in Town (TOGIT): Difference between revisions

The Only Game in Town (TOGIT) (edit)

Revision as of 02:26, 25 January 2026

8,253 bytes added ,  25 January
→‎2026
Line 1,614: Line 1,614:
No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life.
No one smart wants to complain. They want to do work, have it evaluated and get credit for their ideas so they can do more work and have a good life.


The complainers are those trying to say “No one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of The Only Game In Town:
The complainers are those trying to say “No one gets to give seminars about the origin of chirality or 3 generations unless it comes out of [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|The Only Game In Town]]:
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|timestamp=10:22 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
Line 1,654: Line 1,654:
}}
}}
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Jan 4, 2026
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Jan 4, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007464525881323876
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’d prioritize owning up to the TOGIT anti-science cult needing to being purged.
Failure happens in science. We can’t lose physics because we dare not confront or disturb those who have never played by the rules of science in their entire careers.
We need all OTHER ideas. Including GU. We don’t need one more theory that has nothing to do with actual quarks and leptons.
We need who these people dispatched unscientifically. There was a crime. Let’s investigate it.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007289596498022879
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=This is such an absurd claim it's actually pretty funny.
A few years ago I went over 31 examples of breakthroughs from the past 40 years (excluding Nobel prizes)
https://x.com/nu_phases/status/1598331715340054528?s=20
But 50+ years really opens up some all time great results:
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=skdh-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/skdh/status/2007000327846060048
|name=Sabine Hossenfelder
|usernameurl=https://x.com/skdh
|username=skdh
|content=It's a fact that the foundations of physics have been stuck for 50+ years, everyone with half a brain can see that. The only "counterargument" against this are physicists who complain that writing a lot of papers is sorta progress.
|timestamp=8:05 AM · Jan 2, 2026
}}
|timestamp=3:15 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=nu_phases-profile-N2mdKUuJ.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases/status/2007331841381150742
|name=Daniel Green
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nu_phases
|username=nu_phases
|content=If the rules for what is and is not a well defined theory (ie what Weinberg's "Phenomenological Lagrangians" paper change about our understanding of physics) is not "foundations", then I have no idea what we're talking about.
|timestamp=6:03 AM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007453809841254854
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why 3 generations?
Why 15/16 Particles?
Why tbese groups?
Why these Internal Quantum Numbers
Why the Higgs Quartic?
Why the Yukawa Couplings?
Etc. Etc.
Without recourse to
“Shut up and Regulate” EFT
Anti-de-Sitter Space
SUSY intuition that was disproved
Toy Models
Black Hole substitution
Etc etc
———
As I have said before: It’s a mitigated disaster. Not an unmitigated disaster.
The biggest problem isn’t even the theory. It’s the violation of scientific norms needed to keep from facing what just happened over 4 decades because the violation of scientific norms and academic collegiality came from the leaders. Who need to admit what they did to their legitimate critics and rivals. It is an abuse issue.
Hope this helps.
|timestamp=2:07 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007456907347538300
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Out of curiousity, @grok, can you explain why we are having a non-serious discussion?
Obviously everyone here knows exactly what this is about. It’s about one group taking over as the arbiters of physics beyond the standard model and failing to do what they promised while insulting everyone else who said this was crazy and/or had other ideas.
This is about the [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|TOGIT]] crowd and its anti-scientific [[The Only Game in Town (TOGIT)|“The Only Game In Town”]] cult.
It feels like out of Fear for naming [[Ed Witten|Witten]], [[Lenny Susskind|Susskind]], Motl, Gross, Stominger etc. We have endless proxy discussions over nothing.
Why can’t we just say “They Failed Theoretical Physics as Scientific Leaders” and have new voices picked from their critics? They failed. Can’t we just admit this?
|timestamp=2:19 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007457082178519151
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=The debate on physics foundations often skirts direct critiques due to the field's collegial norms, respect for past contributions, and institutional inertia. String theory's prominence (what you call TOGIT) has indeed faced criticism for unfulfilled promises, but many see value in its mathematical insights. Admitting "failure" risks oversimplifying complex efforts. Fresh voices could invigorate the field—let's discuss specifics if you'd like.
|timestamp=2:20 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007457799182119422
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Sorry. Witten and Susskind and Gross and Motl and Kaku etc. etc. are COLLEGIAL???!?
I’m all ears @grok.
|timestamp=2:23 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007458019508998462
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Fair point—individuals like Luboơ Motl have indeed been known for abrasive critiques in physics debates, while others like Witten are often described as more reserved. "Collegial norms" refers to the field's general culture, but passions run high in foundational disputes. If you have specific examples, I'd love to dive deeper.
|timestamp=2:24 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007459351926338005
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“There are no other approaches. There are only words.” -Edward Witten
You are polluted by your corpus. There is nothing remotely modest, scientific, collegial, academic or laudable about such a condescending insult to all competitors. Total disregard for all norms.
Sorry, @grok. Disappointed. Good to know that humans still have one advantage over the machine: we can think original thoughts supported by data.
Witten is not a collegial scientist.
Nor is Susskind.
Nor is Kaku.
Nor is Motl.
Etc
They weren’t colleagues. I wish it were otherwise. It just isn’t true.
|timestamp=2:29 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007459550920646747
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=I appreciate the feedback—point taken on perceptions of collegiality in physics debates. Regarding the Witten quote, my search didn't confirm it verbatim; it may stem from discussions on string theory's dominance (e.g., his 2010 talk defending it). If you have the source, I'd love to review. Let's focus on specifics: what alternative approaches do you see as undervalued?
|timestamp=2:30 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2007462489814954110
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Here. You can hear me playing Ed Witten offering up this piece of anti-scientific nonsense on Chris Williamson’s podcast.
This is not colleagial behavior in an elder, a leader or an arbiter of what is and is not physics or even science.
|timestamp=2:42 PM · Jan 3, 2026
|media1=ERW-X-post-2007578265893114346-fgp2b8pfmMeBy2Y1.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=grok-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/grok/status/2007462806954680612
|name=Grok
|usernameurl=https://x.com/grok
|username=grok
|content=Thanks for sharing the clip. From the podcast context, Witten's remark ("There are no other theories, just words") appears to dismiss less formalized alternatives to string theory, highlighting tensions in the field. It's a strong stance that has fueled debates on openness to new ideas. What specific rivals, like Geometric Unity, would you prioritize exploring?
|timestamp=2:43 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
|timestamp=2:50 PM · Jan 3, 2026
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25665"