Jump to content

Gauge Theory: Difference between revisions

Gauge Theory (edit)

Revision as of 06:32, 10 February 2026

16,122 bytes added ,  10 February
ā†’ā€Ž2025
Line 212: Line 212:


=== 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 [[Gauge Theory|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 Einsteinā€™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 thereā€™s no cosmological constant by replacing the frought term w/ a natural geometric varying field, invariant under symmetries.
Iā€™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 Einsteinā€™s ā€œBiggest Blunderā€ in light of Geometric Unity & DESIā€™s newest results.
Watch:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=fBozSSLxFvI}}
|timestamp=12:34 PM Ā· May 23, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925892972685447247-Grolc6TXsAAFnXe.jpg
|timestamp=12:34 PM Ā· May 23, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1925895104130097287-GronY-hWcAE6G9w.jpg
|timestamp=12:42 PM Ā· May 23, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928095740926251169
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ah. It has two features that general Ehressmanian geometry generally lacks:
I) A distinguished Choice of Connection (The Levi Civita connection and the connections induced from it on associated bundles).
II) Tensor Decomposition coming from the lack of structure groups auxiliary to those of the tangent bundles.
So actually the specific sub geometry of (pseudo)-Riemannian geometry is an exchange of Gauge Symmetry and field content freedom for these two attributes.
Except in totally exotic cases. Like the one in which we oddly happen to liveā€¦but I digress.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=HeathHimself-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself/status/1926519377404285084
|name=Heath
|usernameurl=https://x.com/HeathHimself
|username=HeathHimself
|content=@EricRWeinstein Caught your debate with Sean Carroll on Piers. Why do you think he was spouting off so much misinformation about GU? "There's no Lagrangian!" I'm looking at the paper right now. There's literally 3 pages worth of Lagrangians like wtf.
|timestamp=6:03 AM Ā· May 25, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Neon__Genesis_-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_/status/1927831447164928207
|name=Neon
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Neon__Genesis_
|username=Neon__Genesis_
|content=The whole debate was very odd, Carroll didn't offer a single criticism of any substance, not a single concept or equation. We need to remember Sean at heart is a philosophy and astronomy major, not a mathematician or physicist despite their self-styling
|timestamp=8:56 PM Ā· May 28, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1928085868054729136
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Not that you said anything wrong, but let me advance a different perspective. Seanā€™s work is a an undisclosed *direct* competitor to GU. Attached in a screenshot are the first three lines of his 1990 abstract.
Let me put them in the language of GU.
ā€œThe Chern-Simons Lagrangian has been studied previously in (2+1)-dimensional spacetime, where it is both gauge and Lorentz invariant. We the authors believe that outside of this special dimension, there is a fundamental trade off where we must either violate Ehresmannian Bundle Geometry (Gauge Theory of Particle Theory) or the pointwise Lorentz Invariance of Riemannian Geometry (Einsteinā€™s General theory ofĀ  Relativity). It appears to the authors that the right way to construct an analogous term in 3+1 dimensions is to create a Chern Simons-like term which couples the dual electromagnetic tensor to an artificial external four-vector which has no supporting evidence or motivation and violates both Einsteinā€™s Special and General theories of Relativity. If we take this four-vector to be fixed, the term is gauge invariant but not Lorentz invariant throwing out one of the two pillars of modern physics. We do it anyway, because we believe the above mentioned tradeoff precludes any other approach.ā€
I personally knew Seanā€™s co-author Roman Jackiw decently well on this topic as he was at MIT. This was his perspective.
Why is Geometric Unity called Geometric Unity? Because we believe you can sacrifice neither geometry or the field will come to a standstill. Itā€™s right there in the name. You need to have both Riemannian and Ehressmanian geometry to combine Gravity and Particle theory respectively.
Seanā€™s work is the DIRECT competitor of this GU theory. And GU sacrificed neither.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1928085868054729136-GsHv4ISaUAcvL0z.jpg
|timestamp=1:47 PM Ā· May 29, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=uniservent-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/uniservent/status/1928093271336665134
|name=UniServEnt
|usernameurl=https://x.com/uniservent
|username=uniservent
|content=Given info on this link, why do you need RiemannianĀ  geometry in the first place if it is a subset of Ehressman?
https://chatgpt.com/share/68386b13-93e0-8013-a47d-75b2769f464d
|timestamp=2:17 PM Ā· May 29, 2025
}}
|timestamp=2:27 PM Ā· May 29, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978512486447120459
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I am excited to use AI to destroy Peer Capture in Peer Review.
The people who donā€™t understand their own fields (like many economists) have captured the ability to keep out new ideas. Why would I accept their review?
Economics IS a full blown [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]]. Thatā€™s a fact discovered by myself and a collaborator.
If you donā€™t get that @florianederer you have less than a year left to be a raging bully. Enjoy your time. Tempus fugit.
Itā€™s going to be bitter. Learn something from this interaction and you will be better for it. Times change.
As of now, you just donā€™t get it. And itā€™s your field. Supposedly. Iā€™ll just wait. Wont be long either.
Econ Conversation starts here. Collegial. Interdisciplinary. Good faith.
|timestamp=5:25 PM Ā· Oct 15, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 288: Line 419:
}}
}}
|timestamp=1:22 PM Ā· Oct 30, 2025
|timestamp=1:22 PM Ā· Oct 30, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984198906859885042
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok Back to sleep. Thanks for that.
Appreciated.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984192170094739868
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The position of most news organizations explaining their low interest in Epstein has been that this is mostly a non story. An Internet-meme spun out of control.
Iā€™ve maintained for ~20 yrs that this was about a lot more than sex. This was a major operation of some kind.
|timestamp=9:34 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984192172284158461
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The stripping of Former Prince Andrewā€™s titles shows to our news organizations that this story is real: mere internet memeā€™s donā€™t bring down princes.
We are going to find a collection of different major sub-operations. And one of them is going to be about gravitational physics.
|timestamp=9:34 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984192174192578884
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=At some point this story is going to stop being principally about sex.
And it is going to stop being principally about Jeffrey Epstein.
Itā€™s going to be about ā€œsources & methodsā€ of an extremely large transnational covert operations hub protected by ā€œState Secrets Privilegeā€.
|timestamp=9:34 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984192176839135578
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Do I know this for sure? No.
Am I idly speculating? No. Iā€™m lodging a crisp prediction with high conviction.
The story appears to be moving backward from deniability rather than forward from evidence.
It would be too easy to break this story. The participation of editors at all leading news organizations is way too high.
Too many reporters have started reporting on this story, only to be shut down *quite* late in their investigations. Trust me on this.
The level of personal credibility being lost in pretending ā€œnobody caresā€ cannot be explained without an even larger incentive to play dumb.
This is going to be partially about state interest in Gravity/Physics/Science and National Security. And for the life of me I canā€™t figure out the specifics.
If I had to guessā€¦and this is much lower conviction than the preceding ā€¦the US government will eventually at some point be forced to switch strategies and pivot to openly invoking SSP to stop the bleeding. Ghislaine will be pardoned. There will be some vague mentions of internal closed door hearings andĀ  investigations. There might be an executive order that minors can never be used in covert operations.
But the absurdity of:
1) Trafficking girls to no one.
2) A non-story that brings down princes.
3) Near zero news interest in a story that obsesses an entire planet with claims of ā€œno one cares, we all moved on.ā€
4) Claims that we have mountains of evidence that somehow also donā€™t exist.
This is going to collapse under self contradiction. The credibility loss alone is already unfathomable.
|timestamp=9:34 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984196331959972282
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, this was just a bad operation.
It caught ordinary people in its web. I believe Epsteinā€™s masters wanted to fund me. But using a bank to funnel a mathematician into a bizarre alternate reality to indirectly fund him via book deals or hedge fund allocations is f*****g stupid.
Epstein didnā€™t know low dimensional [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]]. I promise you that. But someone in this operation did. And whoever that was knew that ā€œSelf-Dual Yang-Mills theoryā€ was, despite the name, a LOT closer to [[General Relativity]] and gravity than it is to [[Yang-Mills equations|Yang-Mills Theory]] and the [[Standard Model]]. That was *exceedingly* rare knowledge to have for a dilettante. Still is. Even for an expert. A *huge* clue.
This isnā€™t principally about sex or Epstein. Itā€™s about a large bad covert operation hub that may have been well built for secrecy but couldnā€™t survive the modern internet age.
And, I believe, it is about state interest in *Gravity* among many other things.
|timestamp=9:50 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984196598973485130
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Any thoughts @grok? Care to explain SSP, Covert vs Clandestine, and SDYM?
|timestamp=9:51 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1984198514495422503
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Thanks @grok.
Would you agree that in 2005, most all experts would have seen Euclidean signature SDYM as much closer to the Standard model than GR?
Or do I have that wrong?
Be honest. I have my own impression and will not take offense if you have another that disagrees.
Take your time. This is a rather important and pivotal clue as I see it.
|timestamp=9:59 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
|timestamp=10:00 AM Ā· Oct 31, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990534949397803328
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So to sum it up: he is not wrong.
I think what I said to him is that after the 1950s, inflation became a modern tool/weapon rather than a measurement starting with the [[Price Statistics Review Committee (Stigler Commission)|Stigler Commisson]]. I explained my view that the @BLS_gov is a quiet version of the @federalreserve. An insanely powerful ā€œStatisticsā€ organization where economists actually implement policy by simply chosing how to compute economic numbers.
Numbers that just so happen to automatically transfer trillions and touch every aspect of our lives.
He already knew a lot of the [[Boskin Commission|Boskin]]/[[Gauge Theory|GaugeTheory]] story from Harvard. Less about [[George Stigler|Stigler]] if I remember correctly.
Iā€™d love to ask Larry about all this now.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990530011191992536
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I believe Epstein is referring implicitly to the ā€œ[[Price Statistics Review Committee (Stigler Commission)|Stigler Commission]]ā€ of 1959-1961.
This comes from a phone conversation around 2004.
|timestamp=9:18 PM Ā· Nov 17, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990530014107107416
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In a telephone conversation around 2004, he somehow was already well aware of the [[Boskin Commission|1996 Boskin Commission]] and Harvard Economics department burying our work on [[Gauge Theory]] in economics called ā€œ[[Geometric Marginalism]]ā€. That seemed pretty weird at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight and scrutiny, I now understand that he was connected to AT LEAST two of my colleagues from my time as an Economist in the @HarvardEcon department and @nber. To say nothing of the fact that he was connected to AT LEAST two more of colleagues from my time as an math graduate student in the @HarvardMath department. He was evidently in the background of *everywhere* I was over three and a half decades from 1985-2019. Itā€™s astounding.
I believe from memory what he means is the following:
In the 1950s inflation was not yet the tool of policy that it became after the ā€œ[[Price Statistics Review Committee (Stigler Commission)|Price Statistics Review Committee]]ā€ around 1960, and the indexing of Social Security to [[CPI]] in the mid 1970s. It was a simple gauge.
After that time, it became a quiet tool. And a weapon. You could use it to transfer not billionsā€¦but trillions. Why? Because a GIANT amount of all U.S. Federal receipts are indexed.
He thought it was funny that we expected our work to be heard given that trillions were being stolen.
I hope that there is a transcript of this conversation as well as the gravity phone calls about [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]]. If so, it will likely point back to Litauer and Rosovsky, Jorgenson and Summers.
|timestamp=9:18 PM Ā· Nov 17, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:38 PM Ā· Nov 17, 2025
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25743"