5 ms·
> The most glaring deficiency in Weinstein’s presentation is that it does not incorporate any quantum theory. Establishing a consistent quantum theory of gravit
by afro88 6y ago
> The most glaring deficiency in Weinstein’s presentation is that it does not incorporate any quantum theory. Establishing a consistent quantum theory of gravity alone has defied the efforts of nearly a century’s worth of vigorous research and is part of what makes formulating a Theory of Everything an enormous challenge. For GU to overlook this obstacle means that it has no possible claim on being a Theory of Everything.
From what I gather, Weinstein regards quantum theory as an intellectual distraction, and not a useful theory in a practical sense. So if you disagree with that, then that's his whole theory out the window.
- n4r9 6y agoWhether or not you think quantum theory is intellectually substantial, you have to be able to predict and explain phenomena such as the double-slit experiment or violations of Bell's theorem. Does his proposal do that?
- afro88 6y agoI have no idea. But I'm interested to see how his theory plays out now that it's getting more eyes on it.
- ryan93 6y agoThere is zero chance his theory has any merit. Why are some people so susceptible to this stuff?
- Randor 6y ago>There is zero chance his theory has any merit. That seems a bit harsh. There is a certain beauty in the geometry equations Weinstein presented. I find it interesting that EFE, Yang-Mills and Dirac emerge from that. He certainly hasn't shown a complete theory of everything but I wouldn't say that it doesn't have any merit. If I had one criticism of Weinstein it would be that he's never put anything down on paper for anyone to deeply review.
- gameswithgo 6y agoWeinstein is a grifter, he doesn’t want to or can’t actually do hard work so he does podcasts and tweets and whines about how badly he has been treated. People find this compelling I guess.
- mgamache 6y agoCalling someone a 'grifter' is an intellectually lazy derogatory epithet. How is he grifting?
- n4r9 6y agoHe appears to have been trying for many years to convince people that he's discovered a unified theory of physics, without producing a single technical paper on the topic. I think that suffices.
- mgamache 6y agogrifting implies he's doing it for financial gain. I think there's more lucrative ways for him to make money than publishing physics papers.
- DemocracyFTW 6y agoI'd say benefit generally instead of gain that must be precisely in monetary terms. Grifting is lying plus purpose, and that purpose may be any kind of advantage obtained by smoke-and-mirror tactics. It may be reputation, or satisfaction from being talked about, appearing in talk radio, that kind of stuff.
- ryan93 6y agoIt seems like a certain percentage of people are susceptible to Weinstein type claims. Like people with anti vaccine stuff or natural remedies.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
- mgamache 6y agoZero chance? Would you bet the future of humanity on that? The cost is some brain cycles of a few other people.
- Robotbeat 6y agoIf he was just a random researcher (and was actually putting it down in a falsifiable form), fine, but he’s a public figure. Half a million followers, many of which now think they have THE unified theory and are going to waste the time of actual physicists. And Don’t forget Brandolini’s Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- ummonk 6y agoThe problem is that laymen don’t have the requisite physics understanding to be able to tell the difference between actual rigorous theory and crank theory that sounds fancy. (In this particular case I don’t know the requisite theory myself but having experienced crank theories in areas of physics that I understand, it’s obvious this is the same.)
- bopbeepboop 6y agoCan someone with more physics background check my understanding? My understanding is that a GUT must have one of two forms: - An extension of quantum theory to include gravity which has relativity as a “normal” case the way relativity has Newtonian mechanics as a “normal” case. This is “quantum gravity” and the popular approach. - An extension of relativity which features QM as some kind of wave mechanics, in the style of geons. This is considered unpopular since the exploration of geons encountered serious problems in the math. Is that right? This quote seems to suggest only #1 is an option.