Warning: the video is very long.
This is a good video -- it is by a disgruntled scientist who gives his unvarnished opinion on the state of science, and the world:
https://youtu.be/p_swB_KS8Hw?si=Mjxzl6YbYtZHiMKF
Warning: the video is very long.
This is a good video -- it is by a disgruntled scientist who gives his unvarnished opinion on the state of science, and the world:
33 comments:
He doesn’t strike me as particularly “disgruntled”. Rather he strikes me as someone who clearly sees that the emperor has no clothes (which is common enough), and is unafraid to say so (which is extremely uncommon).
Grifter, no one in science takes this guy seriously. He is disgruntled because he cannot do physics and never could. Sorry physics is not for everyone Eric.
”. Rather he strikes me as someone who clearly sees that the emperor has no clothes (which is common enough), and is unafraid to say so (which is extremely uncommon)."
Ok how is he seeing clearly anything?
(1) He is attacking string theory, string theory is not all of physics and not all of science.
(2) Some of what he says about string theory is correct but he also says a lot of stuff that is just wrong, particularly the stuff about Ed Witten. Witten has also done a lot of work on non-string theory work that is very general.
(3) this is the one that these guys get wrong all the time, is that string theory means no other theories can be considered. This is false lots of other theories have and are considered but the problem is they are even even worse than string theory in terms of predictions, directions and so. If some new approach showed real promise it would rapidly catch on.
(4) His own theory is considered a crackpot theory. It is not some conspiracy that string theory people have killed it, it is just that is mathematics just plain wrong or made up [1]. He refused to debate anyone on it, or put in a form to be critiqued he is not open at all to it being "wrong" and it was fairly straightforward to show it is wrong. In any case even he knows it is wrong.
(5) His critique of string theory is not new or even his, this has been going on for 20 years now by people who give much better reasons for the issues which are if it can be falsified, can it make measurable predictions, can unique solutions be found, and so on. Eric seems to just make Ed Witten is some kind of bad guy. By the way Witten is a very friendly guy from what I know.
He is disgruntled he simply could not to physics, fine enough but the problem is with him not physics.
[1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86WIfRfPDk
Yes, I've seen Witten's papers, there is one on strange matter I believe, it was one of the supposed scenarios where a particle accelerator could destroy the Earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Day
if I recall correctly this was the paper:
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.30.272
The evidence is however, that strange matter does not exist and it could certainly not be created in particle accelerators.
It could certainly be, however, that the existence other hypothetical physics does explain the Fermi paradox.
Crackpot, always has been
https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/159nr7y/eric_weinstein_is_a_physics_crackpot/
There's a pretty good exchange between Sean Caroll and Tim Nguyen along these lines. Sean is too polite to call Weinstein a "crackpot," but he explains why he doesn't pay Eric's work any mind. Peter Woit makes similar remarks about Weinstein in his interview with Lex Fridman, actually, though he's more understated.
In a way I think it's quite impressive, really, how much mind share Eric has managed to absorb in this area despite a total lack of substance (according to other physicists, anyway). I imagine that on some level Woit must have wondered why Lex would even ask him about Weinstein to begin with.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/150ogbu/who_the_hell_thinks_eric_weinstein_is_a_serious/
He is joke.
"Yes, I've seen Witten's papers, there is one on strange matter I believe, it was one of the supposed scenarios where a particle accelerator could destroy the Earth"
Try reading some of his papers that have real impact and get back to us.
Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial
It is shown that 2+1 dimensional quantum Yang-Mills theory, with an action consisting purely of the Chern-Simons term, is exactly soluble and gives a natural framework for understanding the Jones polynomial of knot theory in three dimensional terms. In this version, the Jones polynomial can be generalized fromS 3 to arbitrary three manifolds, giving invariants of three manifolds that are computable from a surgery presentation. These results shed a surprising new light on conformal field theory in 1+1 dimensions.
3:51 -- That sounds like a nice result. I recall reading a related book by John Baez on knots, gauge fields, and gravity. I think the knot groups are also related to topological quantum computing, for example, which could involve braiding of nonabelian anyons. I recall Preskill is interested in that, but I guess it never went anywhere.
Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity (Knots and Everything)
by John C Baez (Author), Javier P Muniain (Author)
This is an introduction to the basic tools of mathematics needed to understand the relation between knot theory and quantum gravity. The book begins with a rapid course on manifolds and differential forms, emphasizing how these provide a proper language for formulating Maxwell's equations on arbitrary spacetimes. The authors then introduce vector bundles, connections and curvature in order to generalize Maxwell theory to the Yang-Mills equations. The relation of gauge theory to the newly discovered knot invariants such as the Jones polynomial is sketched. Riemannian geometry is then introduced in order to describe Einstein's equations of general relativity and show how an attempt to quantize gravity leads to interesting applications of knot theory.
Very interesting. If a lab employee speaks out on any issue that is not in alignment with the public narrative, they are labeled “disgruntled”. If a lab manager willfully inflicts unwarranted stress, high blood pressure, heart attacks, or worse… to his or her subordinates, they are either allowed to continue to do so, or are gracefully shuffled off to another lateral assignment. No wonder there aren’t too many disgruntled lab managers.
By the way I'm not sure your claim that the mathematical physics paper is more interesting or worthwhile, is really true. Strange matter could be related to real astrophysics and cosmology, and it is also, evidently, related to nuclear physics in particular hypernuclei which contain strange baryons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernucleus
The idea of particle physics ending the world of course, is bogus, and I don't think Witten ever made that claim. But of course as an aside relativistic heavy ion collisions could be an application of string theory!
The Baez book is more accessible to most people I think, it would contain some of the predicate material to reading the Witten paper I believe.
Also I am going to reserve judgement on Weinstein's so-called crackpot theory until I have time to look over his paper directly and the talk on his website:
https://geometricunity.org/2013-oxford-lecture/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems
It seems to be some sort of collection of mathematical physics ideas, without any proposed experimental test. He claims there are two generations at odds with experiment, I think (is that true?); as you know for example, the tau particle being a well-studied counterexample, wouldn't that alone refute his theory?
https://pdglive.lbl.gov/Particle.action?node=S035
Also physics is not mathematics,
https://youtu.be/B-eh2SD54fM?si=KPuHo3SCybTkhJ5W
on the other hand
https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf
Witten did evidently win the Fields Medal (sort of a "math Nobel") for work including the paper you described, but he hasn't yet won a physics Nobel, of course he may yet win.
Lab managers could be disgruntled, I think, especially with the overall funding environment, or bureaucracy, or other managers by the way, I can imagine it would be frustrating in fact to supervise people who might be unhappy (in some cases) for reasons out of your individual control. Not being held accountable as you suggest, might go along with other things such as not having enough authority to fix problems, or not getting credit for success, being blamed for problems you cannot fix, and being too busy with managerial tasks to do any science or develop a deep understanding of it.
“Lab managers could be disgruntled, I think, especially with the overall funding environment, or bureaucracy, or other managers by the way, I can imagine it would be frustrating in fact to supervise people who might be unhappy (in some cases) for reasons out of your individual control. Not being held accountable as you suggest, might go along with other things such as not having enough authority to fix problems, or not getting credit for success, being blamed for problems you cannot fix, and being too busy with managerial tasks to do any science or develop a deep understanding of it.”
Good reality points, but sometimes the “unhappy people” (subordinates) are in such a state, because of open loop no consequence LLNS manager conduct. As stated on this blog many times, LLNS managers can NEVER be in the wrong under LLNS management.
In any case, not much relief for the lab employee widow, especially when the LLNS managers conduct continues unabated. Sad because it is so preventable.
Yes it looks like a lot of the details of his theory need patched up (or are wrong) and it seems to be impossible to recover the standard model and general relativity from this, due to details about the 14 dimensional math, which itself raises other issues, so in that sense it is not a real theory -- also it introduces many new spin 3/2 particles which are not observed.
"Also I am going to reserve judgement on Weinstein's so-called crackpot theory until I have time to look over his paper directly and the talk on his website:"
It is crack pot stuff. His math make no sense and is just made up. Everyone thinks it is crack pot theory where he just strings jargon together says some new math functions exists which just made up and mathematically contradictory. No one takes it seriously, it is not published anywhere.
You do not need to refute his theory with the tau particle. His theory is mathematically inconsistent from the start so it is not even a theory.
https://timothynguyen.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/geometric_unity.pdf
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/03/guest-post-problems-with-eric.html
Some this was pointed out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86WIfRfPDk
also https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/oybb5k/eric_weinstein_just_called_out_timothy_nguyen/
Being a classic crackpot Eric will not actually engage any scientists on these critiques.
“…Not being held accountable as you suggest, might go along with other things such as not having enough authority to fix problems, or not getting credit for success, being blamed for problems you cannot fix…”
They are many great managers at the lab. Some lab managers, have created unintended and unwanted negative health or well being consequences toward their subordinates, and genuinely regret it. This is understandable. But if a lab manager doesn’t learn from the event, and doesn’t have a self-imposed or senior leadership imposed course correction, it is unacceptable. Like the commenter said, “allowed to continue to do so”. A little humanity can be beneficial. History has not looked kindly on the “I was only doing my job” excuse.
10:37 -- Well, crackpot is an impolite term. Maybe he needs to try other ideas? Or work on an easier problem? By the way he released this "theory" on April Fool's day, perhaps he is well aware it is worthless, it could be that cynically he decided he could cash in by announcing a worthless theory and being an influencer. It might be a success for its intended purpose, and I am not sure he's harmed the physics community by doing so. His videos might encourage young people to do physics or math, for example, and encourage the government to increase funding.
"10:37 -- Well, crackpot is an impolite term."
Shall we make it a bit more clear? He is a grifter, a psychopath, a liar, a fake, con man and so on If you are one of these, you can go pretty far in life and even make a living off it. He is classic grifter, he lives off telling stories that sound good to fool people for profit. Some are more sinister than others but the way they operate is always the same.
If you have any doubt about these people watch a video of some others of this type...say Ted Bundy....... now watch a video of Eric Weinstein. See if you notice anything slightly similar...anything at all. Both by the way are considered smart, entertaining and yet at the same time something is off...way way off. Listen to there pauses, the inflexed voice, the high opinion, the words used, the speech rate, the self aggrandizing and the stops to take it all in.
8:13 -- it sounds like you're having trouble accepting that he has a better idea for making money than you do, and you are resorting to personal attacks as a defense mechanism. You should be commended for your devotion to science and technology, and our nation's defense, and so on, but this is a capitalist society at least for now, so in that sense it is admirable he is successful in my opinion. After all, taxes on the American people support your salary and the labs, so the more success in society, the better the labs and our national defense will do.
See, if you post my previous comment, and think about you will see that is how free market capitalism works -- there is intellectual property, and you lie about it like in a poker game: the labs are exactly the same in terms of nuclear security, by the way. That means that there is less intellectual freedom, and more false information in the public domain. Overall it means that we have a highly technological society, but scientific truth is now obscured.
There is a book on this by the Nobel Laureate Laughlin, which I highly recommend to you, here is the description from Amazon:
The Crime of Reason: And the Closing of the Scientific Mind
We all agree that the free flow of ideas is essential to creativity. And we like to believe that in our modern, technological world, information is more freely available and flows faster than ever before. But according to Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, acquiring information is becoming a danger or even a crime. Increasingly, the really valuable information is private property or a state secret, with the result that it is now easy for a flash of insight, entirely innocently, to infringe a patent or threaten national security. The public pays little attention because this vital information is "technical" -- but, Laughlin argues, information is often labeled technical so it can be sequestered, not sequestered because it's technical. The increasing restrictions on information in such fields as cryptography, biotechnology, and computer software design are creating a new Dark Age: a time characterized not by light and truth but by disinformation and ignorance. Thus we find ourselves dealing more and more with the Crime of Reason, the antisocial and sometimes outright illegal nature of certain intellectual activities.
By the way what I said to you about capitalism, and having respect for those who pay the bills, was not an insult: I realize you are upset in some way, and I would be as well, being disgruntled perhaps in my own way. It's just that it would be helpful to examine the overall situation, rather than focusing on individuals as there is a systemic failure that causes frustration among many scientists. Much of the American public is also unhappy with how science and technology are pursued in the United States, at least as they perceive it. This harms the ability to have a healthy Democracy. Laughlin was attacked by the way for raising his concerns despite being a Nobel Laureate.
Also some of the sciences did come about, because people were crackpots. Alchemy for example, did lead to Chemistry, and there were many false claims associated with it, for example the production of gold from other chemical elements, almost certainly could not have been possible with the processes they had at the time. It was also of course, not possible to make a magic substance elixer of immortality, as was sought at the time, but we now have synthesized many useful pharmaceuticals and there is an understanding of biochemistry and the genetic code. Astrology also, involved a variety of superstitious claims about heavenly bodies, which led to modern astronomy and physics, meaning that we have a great compendium of knowledge about the cosmos and basic physical processes, having even stepped on the moon, and sent probes to photograph all the planets, and land on Mars and Venus.
This does not mean that crackpots have anything valuable now, as they did not in the past either, but as I've pointed out it could increase public support and funding. Perhaps, some of the claims about UFO's could be an example now, but we also have science fiction and other popular culture, that allows us to explore technological fantasies in a benign fashion.
I also think you've gotten into a very arcane discussion, for example, focusing on Weinstein's false theory doesn't allow you to generalize that everything he has to say is false. You tried to do the same with me, that if I hadn't been aware of one of Witten's papers, or had a different opinion on their relative importance, I should be silenced was implicit -- but I am more or less aware of his papers and their significance. Or maybe I am a crackpot for looking at the Weinstein work myself rather than taking someone else's opinion, or for dismissing it for a different reason than you.
In fact I can say this for Weinstein: he is brave enough to work on something which he doesn't understand, and can't solve. Many scientists in my observation, really only produce things where they know ahead of time the results will work out. He knew ahead of time that it would almost certainly not work out, and he freely admits it is probably wrong.
In silicon valley, as you know, it is more common for people to be serial failures, and then go on to participate in something worthwhile. People join startups often knowing that they will fail, but may produce something of interest or have some remote chance of success.
"8:13 -- it sounds like you're having trouble accepting that he has a better idea for making money than you do, and you are resorting to personal attacks as a defense mechanism. You should be commended for your devotion to science and technology, and our nation's defense, and so on, but this is a capitalist society at least for now, so in that sense it is admirable he is successful in my opinion. After all, taxes on the American people support your salary and the labs, so the more success in society, the better the labs and our national defense will do.
3/01/2024 10:33 AM"
What money is Eric making off of podcasts? He use to work for Peter Theil but that fell through (wonder why). I think is bitterness about the world my stem from a lack of income. I am pretty sure all these podcasts he goes on are not paying him anything beyond travel expenses which is the standard practice in that form of media.
3/01/2024 10:59 AM
The point that Laughlin is making has no overlap with the point that Eric is making. Laughlin is arguing that "hiding information" for profit is bad the scientific enterprise. Erics problem is with string theory and why people like him are not taken seriously. Of course Eric refuses to play by the rules of logic, rules of science, rules of one seeking truth. The scientific community cannot engage with Eric since we he will not engage with them. This by the way is why I know he is a grifter, he knows his stuff is wrong or made up but right or wrong is not what he is after.
Also, I would say even very good scientists can develop beliefs or research programs that are false and arguably scientific. Linus Pauling's advocacy for Vitamin C was one example, yet he was a double Nobel Laureate, one of history's greatest scientists, and research on vitamins and nutrients as a whole may have benefited by his work.
In the Soviet Union Lysenko of course, pushed pseudoscience to the great detriment of progress there. Yet there is a modern field of epigenetics which relates in a very general way to some of the original claims.
By the way I read Laughlin's book last night -- if I recall correctly he said something about the labs, in particular that the complaints against "cowboy scientists" and so on, were really some sort of criticism of an emphasis on science and independent thinking. That in particular, now that nuclear weapons were a mature science it is better to purge science from the labs so they are run by corporations, etc : i.e. to build them up as technology centers with less science or intellectual freedom, since they shouldn't play the role of universities.
Perhaps the same is happening he said, in other areas such as biotechnology (I think the book was written before COVID), although the particular things he was worried about such as cloning have not happened, some people are concerned about various things that have transpired, and there are ongoing concerns about regulations and transparency.
2:37 -- Yes, his critique of string theory is questionable, and we don't know what will ultimately come out of that field of study in the future.
Much of the Weinstein talk did seem to be about the philosophy and sociology of science, and how to obtain more innovation in both science and technology. These are real questions worth considering, the Laughlin book has some bearing on that believe, or I would not have brought it up.
The answer could be it seems, there is a desire for technology without encouraging scientific freedom or a scientific ethos in some areas. Technologies need to be regulated, of course, as in the nuclear or chemical industries, biotech, and so on, and there are related treaties and laws in each case to restrict weaponization.
Merton's in 1942 laid out some tenets or norms of the scientific enterprise, but of course there are also counter-norms, i.e. how these work in practice much of the time, this is worth appreciating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms
The four Mertonian norms (often abbreviated as the CUDO-norms) can be summarised as:
communism: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm.[3]
universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants.[4]
disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for specific outcomes[5] or the resulting personal gain of individuals within them.
organized skepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.[6]
Ian Mitroff,[10] in a study of the Apollo moon scientists, provided evidence for the influence of what he called "counternorms". These counter norms are a one to one opposition of Mertonian norms.
Communality (originally called communism) is countered by "Secrecy": "Scientists protect their newest findings to ensure priority in publishing, patenting, or applications."[10]
Universalism is countered by "Particularism": "Scientists assess new knowledge and its applications based on the reputation and past productivity of the individual or research group."[10]
Disinterestedness is countered by "Self-interestedness": "Scientists compete with others in the same field for funding and recognition of their achievements."[10]
Organized skepticism is countered by "Organized dogmatism": "Scientists invest their careers in promoting their own most important findings, theories, or innovations."[10]
It certainly can be an issue that normative behavior in that sense, is held as an ideal, whereas there are strong incentives to deviate from norms, as you may have observed firsthand;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton
Merton and his colleagues spent much time studying "how the social system of science works in accordance with, and often also in contradiction to, the ethos of science."[7] This newer focus on the social organization of science led Merton to study the reward system in science, priority disputes between scientists, and the way in which famous scientists often receive disproportionate credit for their contributions, while less-known scientists receive less credit than their contributions merit.[7] Merton called this phenomenon the "Matthew effect". (See also Stigler's law of eponymy.) As a result of the Matilda effect, Harriet Zuckerman is credited by Merton as co-author of the Matthew effect.[30]
With his study of the Matthew effect, Merton showed how the social system of science sometimes deviated structurally from the ethos of science, in this case by violating the norm of universalism:[7] a few top scientists enjoying large chunks of awards, grants and jobs, and the spread and distribution of resources and recognition among scientists being highly skewed.[31]
Laughlin visited LANL, not too long after the Nanos fiasco. He talked about the ASC program or the simulation program and said something every good scientists knows that simulation alone will simply not work without experiment or new ideas. He also said that even old science has shown time and time again to have surprises. His background is in condensed matter and brought up example of things people thought they understood but did not, systems that did stuff no could have imagined under the right conditions, complex systems with unpredictable behavior and so on. In other words he was big defender of fundamental and basic science at labs. He was particularly concerned about making LANL corporate.
Now 22 years latter, LANL is no longer the same lab, the lab fellows have talked about dropping publications, the declining quality of new hires, the disregard for scientific input into programs, and directions. We are seeing more and more bizarre discussions like making "LANL the AI lab" because as Mason put it, no could have foreseen the rise of CHatGPT? The lab has more people now but seems to be doing far less per dollar. We not a science lab, nor a technology center, so what is LANL at this point? Laughlin was right.
@ Anonymous 3/01/2024 2:46 PM
RE "even very good scientists can develop beliefs or research programs that are false and arguably scientific. Linus Pauling's advocacy for Vitamin C was one example"
Linus Pauling was right with his vitamin C work. However, everyone should keep the following overarching reality in mind, especially now since the Planned Covid Scamdemic going on:
... there are many bogus voices around who strive to distract the public from the value of vitamin C therapy and the fact that Pauling's VALID work with vitamin C supplementation has been "falsified" by data distortions and lies, and he as a person (a double Nobel laureate) has been slandered for decades (and it continues today) as some deluded idiot by the criminal medical establishment and its countless quackwatch shills, lackeys, ignoramuses, and trolls, and
... that the same corrupt criminal people (and their uninformed followers) are behind the organized suppression, lies, and half-truths spread about the value of vitamin C therapy against covid-19 --- see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” at www.CovidTruthBeKnown.com (or https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html)
But you can't discredit the facts with lies. That only exposes and discredits the liars (see link above).
"The goal is justice, the method is transparency." --- Julian Assange, whistleblower, political prisoner, and founder of Wikileaks
8:25 : I didn't mean there were no benefits from Vitamin C, or other vitamins, or that it wasn't worth investigating, just that some of Pauling's research program and claims were not successful. It is not a panacea for overall health, or prevention of infectious disease in my opinion. The benefits of taking some outweigh the risks in my opinion, although this is not medical advice, for general health and one might assume COVID as well. Vitamin D and Zinc were other nutrients where there was perhaps stronger evidence, part of this being for example, the obvious observation that vitamin D is synthesized in the body from sunlight and COVID is a seasonal virus. Certainly sunlight does also cause skin cancer of course, but exercise generally benefits health, and darkness can be related to depression, as in seasonal affective disorder.
You can find some of the related literature here:
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C/Pauling-recommendation
This is a nice video on some of the bad aspects of scientific thinking,
https://youtu.be/VPDK7cO-JPs?si=6dl0rjHOzlS08GkV
This is a nice video on some of the bad aspects of scientific thinking,
https://youtu.be/VPDK7cO-JPs?si=6dl0rjHOzlS08GkV
3/02/2024 7:58 PM
WTF did I just watch!!?? I do not want to get on the case of the poster, I am glad he put a link to that but...dam that was just some random crap with no connection to science, history or even the world...none. It kind of reminded me of a crazy 2nd uncle of mine, he would get stoned out of his mind and just ramble. He was not dumb but kind of crazy and would say just random stuff going on about Jesus, UFOs, Kennedy and how science cannot work, one needs to be a mystic. But he would say it with such confidence. He would go on about how the Japanese where in charge of Hitler doing WW2 but in fact it was controlled by the native Americans who where the lost sea people before the rise of the Jews and that is why U-boats where so good. One should never go on cruise ship by the way because there are still some U-boats out there with the captions still fighting for Hitler or the Japanese Emperor just waiting for a big enough cruise ship. As a kid I was connived he was a rambling idiot. Too bad he never lived long enough to make a youtube channel I am sure the 7.58 pm poster would have loved him.
I'll try to keep this short. There is another so-called theory from a highly intelligent, but "uneducated" college dropout:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
https://youtu.be/LeDm633T-_U?si=ghfB_mzfGaXMZCDS
The wikipedia article mentions that he is a far right conspiracy theorist, who resents institutional authority which he feels is an obstacle to progress.
Post a Comment