Jump to content

String Theory: Difference between revisions

String Theory (edit)

Revision as of 23:27, 24 February 2026

5,885 bytes added ,  24 February
→‎2025
Line 6,049: Line 6,049:
}}
}}
|timestamp=1:22 PM ¡ Oct 30, 2025
|timestamp=1:22 PM ¡ Oct 30, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990136779379544333
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The “promises” were not “just overblown”. Careers of competitors were ended. It was a time of “Join or Die”.
There was a bloody takeover of theoretical physics.
A lot of people had alternatives. Where are they now? They are gone.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990121490810089959
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is how [[String Theory|String Theorists]] lost the plot and everyone outside of physics.
@elonmusk makes a comment about [[String Theory]] not making any Predictions. He sees the next move coming and uses the word “testable”.
What could we say to an engineering CEO who *LOVES* physics, needs it to traverse the cosmos, and could save the field single-handedly…if we just wanted to piss him off instead by making it sound like the field is fake?
|timestamp=6:15 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1990121490810089959-G55U8pvb0AA8O4y.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990124746047115523
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“I didn’t forget your birthday at all! I just wrote you a birthday card that is 10,000,000,000,000,000x smaller than a quark. You just can’t read it.”
“[[String Theory|String Theorists]] never claimed that [[String Theory|Super-Symmetric String Theory]] would almost certainly mean Superpartners at LHC energies. It only seems that way to stupid people.”
“We didn’t fail to deliver a Unique Theory of Everything in 10 years as we claimed in the 1980s when we murdered the reputations of all our competitors as being stupid people who just didn’t get it.  No no no. Instead you merely got impatient in 2025 after a mere 4 decades of ‘aleged failure’. Because you don’t get science the way we do!!”
|timestamp=6:28 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=karch_andreas-profile-g6DopkAf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas/status/1990123765183750608
|name=Andreas Karch
|usernameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas
|username=karch_andreas
|content=So Elon was about to fund string theory big time but because of my one accurate but maybe slightly self-defeating comment he won’t? That’s what you are saying Eric? Are you sure about that?
|timestamp=6:24 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990128854628016368
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I didn’t say that. I think @elonmusk thinks *theory* is dead or all but dead.
And I could not disagree with him more on this. But I *totally* understand why he would think this. Consider this:
“Well, the Challenger Space Shuttle Worked Perfectly,, except for one silly O-Ring. So the mission was actually a success if you think about it from that perspective.”
I would read the room and never say this. It’s important to admit failure.
[[String Theory]] failed. It was a hyper aggressive dismissive movement that cut it self off and became a cult and a culture that could not face its own failures. Let’s admit it, take the losses, listen to the OTHER voices who called this fiasco correctly,  and move on before we piss off the last of our friends and supporters.
|timestamp=6:44 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=karch_andreas-profile-g6DopkAf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas/status/1990129880617369785
|name=Andreas Karch
|usernameurl=https://x.com/karch_andreas
|username=karch_andreas
|content=I do not agree with this asessment. String theory has not lived up to its promises from the 80s, but they were just overblown. It remains our best candiate for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, and has seeded tremendous progress in quantum field theory and math.
|timestamp=6:48 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990131761431613549
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Andreas, I can defend [[String Theory]] and it’s technical accomplishments. And I can do so honestly.
But the “promises” were not “just overblown”:
We are *NOT* trying to measure physics as the “best candidate for unifying gravity and quantum mechanics”. The goal of fundamental physics is to progress our Actions, Equations, or the Lagrangians.
[[Claims|CLAIM]]: [[String Theory]] has at no point in its modern history Since 1984, been the unambiguous leading candidate for going beyond the [[Standard Model]] and/or [[General Relativity]].
|timestamp=6:56 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
|timestamp=7:15 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990199923141472515
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Perhaps folks got tired of entire fields of researchers that insult the reputations of absolutely everyone else, and then lie about their own abject multi-decade failure, claiming that the rest of us are just too stupid & unwashed  to understand their “success”.
Just a thought.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=PhysInHistory-profile-oPMz8-kf.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/PhysInHistory/status/1990031650336714794
|name=Physics In History
|usernameurl=https://x.com/PhysInHistory
|username=PhysInHistory
|content=What happened to string theory? ✍️
|timestamp=12:18 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
}}
|timestamp=11:26 PM ¡ Nov 16, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1990199923141472515-G56cSGTbEAAYswt.jpg
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/25878"