8 ms·

Tim Nguyen has put an extraordinary effort into finding the truth in this entire long exchange, and it's been mostly thankless. His appearance on Decoding the

Tim Nguyen has put an extraordinary effort into finding the truth in this entire long exchange, and it's been mostly thankless. His appearance on Decoding the Gurus was a highlight of the show's early seasons. https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-interview-with-tim-nguyen-on-geometric-unity https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-epis... Perhaps you would agree with Weinstein and Hossenfelder that physics today is broken. But that does not in itself prove that the people peddling alternatives aren't even worse.

PaulHoule 1y ago
The real root of brokenness in physics is not bad ideas or a lack of good ideas but it is that experiments are nowhere near being able to answer the big questions. Ok, we will probably get some insight into the neutrino mass from KATRIN but we are in the dark when it comes to dark matter, proton decay (predicted by all GUTs including string theory), etc. In the absence of real data there is all sorts of groupthink and nepotism [1] but it is really beside the point. People are fighting for a prize which isn’t there. As an insider-outsider myself I have had a huge amount of contact with (invariably male) paranoid delusional people who think they’ve discovered something great in physics or math [2], it’s really a mental illness. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ is the master scandal of academia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Westley_Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Westley_Newman stole away a really good lab tech from the EE department at my undergrad school
- jurking_hoff 1y ago
  > but was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office on grounds of being a perpetual motion machine The implication that being a “perpetual motion machine” is a specific reason for patent denial is kinda funny.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - burkaman 1y ago
    The patent office specifically calls out perpetual motion machines on their general "how to apply" page, presumably because they've gotten so many applications: > A working model may be requested in applications for alleged perpetual motion devices. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply
  - dr_dshiv 1y ago
    Dutch alchemist Cornelis Drebbel got a patent in 1598 for the design of a perpetual motion machine. It was a clock that was powered by daily changes in barometric pressure. In the early 1900s, he was largely scrubbed from the history books because everyone knows that perpetual motion is impossible. The clock worked, of course. There are still paintings of it — based on those, rolex made a functional replica. But if you've never heard about Drebbel, perpetual motion is the reason. That wasn't his only invention, of course. He also invented: * The first cybernetic system (a thermostat; a self-governing oven for incubating eggs) * The first air conditioning system * The first functional submarine * Magic lanterns, telescopes (including the one used by Galileo), microscopes, camera obscuras, and pump drainage systems (credited for draining cambridge and oxford) He was also a beautiful artist — he made engravings of topless women teaching men science and math (the seven liberal arts). Actually, maybe that's why he was erased? IDK. But he was definitely a free thinker and 100% legit. Look him up.
    - glenstein 1y ago
      >It was a clock that was powered by daily changes in barometric pressure. That sounds awesome, but it also sounds like it's conflating two things: (1) the physically impossible perpetual motion of popular understanding, e.g. machine that operates at 100% energy efficiency in perpetuity from an initial one-time energy input and (2) a machine with automatic passive energy draw from ambient sources, but with the usual inefficiencies familiar to physics and engineering. Sounds like Drebbel did (2). Which, don't get me wrong, absolutely rocks. But I certainly wouldn't want to use (2) to advertise a moral that even laws of thermodynamics were just yet another fiction from untrustworthy institutions, which seems like the upshot you were landing on.
      - dr_dshiv 1y ago
        Drebbel patented his device as a "perpetuum mobile." However, the definition of a perpetual motion device as a "machine that operates at 100% energy efficiency in perpetuity from an initial one-time energy input" — well, that idea came hundreds of years later. Obviously, Drebbel was on the scene long before the laws of thermodynamics... so my upshot is definitely not that we should reconsider entropy because of his patent! I suppose my upshot is that scientific establishments absolutely can expel excellent people for the wrong reasons. "Everyone knows" that perpetual motion is impossible... I'm actually a little surprised that you didn't understand my point — but you instead concluded I was a crank trying to attack entropy? Oh well, it happens, it's the internet, I don't blame you. Another historical tidbit: the Royal Society of Hooke, Newton, etc all loved Drebbel's works. No wonder: Drebbel had a staring role in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis which was the model for the Royal Society.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  From your ref [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ > we show that faculty are up to 25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D. That seems high, but I can't contextualize it based only on these results. What would the figures be for doctors, blacksmiths, farmers, computer programmers, etc.? I guess you're likely to find disproportionate numbers of children who followed in their parents' footsteps in any profession. It's likely not something special to academia. In any case, there are plenty of other factors that contribute beyond nepotism: early guidance and encouragement, support and understanding of career choices, parental expectations or pressures, genetics, and so on. > Moreover, this rate nearly doubles at prestigious universities and is stable across the past 50 years. Ok, this is a bit more suggestive, but it's also plausible to me that the factors I mentioned above are amplified for children of parents working at prestigious universities. > Our results suggest that the professoriate is, and has remained, accessible disproportionately to the socioeconomically privileged, which is likely to deeply shape their scholarship and their reproduction. This seemed a bit of a non sequitur to me. The results show that children of academic parents go into academia more than others, not that "socioeconomic privilege" predisposes to going into academia. For example, are the children of billionaires (or millionaires) more likely to go into academia than the children of humble academics at non-prestigious universities? I doubt it. (I only read the abstract so please let me know if these points are addressed in the article)
throwway120385 1y ago
There's always a grain of truth or some shared understanding to every grift. You can see it play out in how people sell you alternative diets or alternative therapies. "Processed foods are bad. Here, eat this thing that's been boiled until it is relieved of all nutrition." "Preservatives are bad, here eat this vegetable that's been heavily salted." Beware of people who seem to be on the same page with you, especially when they're selling you their own idea.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  >especially when they're selling you their own idea. That is the heart of every con, isn't it? Tell people what they want to hear.
themafia 1y ago
> But that does not in itself prove that the people peddling alternatives aren't even worse. I understand this line of thinking but I don't feel that it's particularly relevant. It seems to be born out of a point of view that physics theories are a binary. We either fully support them with everything we have or we completely denigrate them to the point of demonizing anyone who shows any interest in them. Surely this can't be the best approach to discovering new physics? Which is how I view these people. The result of a natural frustration that physics discoveries do not seem to be happening at the rate that they should. I'm not sure they have _the_ answer but I understand _why_ they're acting as they do. Why this outcome bothers anyone is completely beyond me and now makes me genuinely wonder if there is simply too much gatekeeping within the field.
- estearum 1y ago
  But... they're the ones doing the demonizing... of pretty much everyone who disagrees with them? "DISC" is literally just shorthand for "people who disagree with me are conspiring."
- tptacek 1y ago
  You're arguing with an oversimplified model of the complaint about Weinstein. It's not that Weinstein has a theory that's orthogonal to mainstream physics, but rather the means with which he pursues the inquiry. He doesn't write real papers, when he released the GU paper he copyrighted it and claimed it as a "work of entertainment", in effect demanding that the rest of the field not cite and address it. That's not how papers work. The problem, as I understand it, is that Weinstein simply isn't "doing science". He's "doing big thinkies" and then complaining when the world doesn't snap to attention. That problem has not much at all to do with his specific ideas.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    That's essentially my conclusion. Weinstein is playing an ego game using science as the stage set. He's set himself up a win-win situation by creating a crux. If GU is rejected, that supports his narrative. If GU is embraced, he’s vindicated as a suppressed genius. In either case, he wins in his own story. Eric wants to be celebrated by science, but the only way to achieve that (rigorous math, predictions, peer review) would force him to abandon the very posture that sustains his popularity.

PaulHoule 1y ago

The real root of brokenness in physics is not bad ideas or a lack of good ideas but it is that experiments are nowhere near being able to answer the big questions. Ok, we will probably get some insight into the neutrino mass from KATRIN but we are in the dark when it comes to dark matter, proton decay (predicted by all GUTs including string theory), etc. In the absence of real data there is all sorts of groupthink and nepotism [1] but it is really beside the point. People are fighting for a prize which isn’t there. As an insider-outsider myself I have had a huge amount of contact with (invariably male) paranoid delusional people who think they’ve discovered something great in physics or math [2], it’s really a mental illness. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ is the master scandal of academia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Westley_Newman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Westley_Newman stole away a really good lab tech from the EE department at my undergrad school

jurking_hoff 1y ago
> but was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office on grounds of being a perpetual motion machine The implication that being a “perpetual motion machine” is a specific reason for patent denial is kinda funny.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- burkaman 1y ago
  The patent office specifically calls out perpetual motion machines on their general "how to apply" page, presumably because they've gotten so many applications: > A working model may be requested in applications for alleged perpetual motion devices. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  Dutch alchemist Cornelis Drebbel got a patent in 1598 for the design of a perpetual motion machine. It was a clock that was powered by daily changes in barometric pressure. In the early 1900s, he was largely scrubbed from the history books because everyone knows that perpetual motion is impossible. The clock worked, of course. There are still paintings of it — based on those, rolex made a functional replica. But if you've never heard about Drebbel, perpetual motion is the reason. That wasn't his only invention, of course. He also invented: * The first cybernetic system (a thermostat; a self-governing oven for incubating eggs) * The first air conditioning system * The first functional submarine * Magic lanterns, telescopes (including the one used by Galileo), microscopes, camera obscuras, and pump drainage systems (credited for draining cambridge and oxford) He was also a beautiful artist — he made engravings of topless women teaching men science and math (the seven liberal arts). Actually, maybe that's why he was erased? IDK. But he was definitely a free thinker and 100% legit. Look him up.
  - glenstein 1y ago
    >It was a clock that was powered by daily changes in barometric pressure. That sounds awesome, but it also sounds like it's conflating two things: (1) the physically impossible perpetual motion of popular understanding, e.g. machine that operates at 100% energy efficiency in perpetuity from an initial one-time energy input and (2) a machine with automatic passive energy draw from ambient sources, but with the usual inefficiencies familiar to physics and engineering. Sounds like Drebbel did (2). Which, don't get me wrong, absolutely rocks. But I certainly wouldn't want to use (2) to advertise a moral that even laws of thermodynamics were just yet another fiction from untrustworthy institutions, which seems like the upshot you were landing on.
    - dr_dshiv 1y ago
      Drebbel patented his device as a "perpetuum mobile." However, the definition of a perpetual motion device as a "machine that operates at 100% energy efficiency in perpetuity from an initial one-time energy input" — well, that idea came hundreds of years later. Obviously, Drebbel was on the scene long before the laws of thermodynamics... so my upshot is definitely not that we should reconsider entropy because of his patent! I suppose my upshot is that scientific establishments absolutely can expel excellent people for the wrong reasons. "Everyone knows" that perpetual motion is impossible... I'm actually a little surprised that you didn't understand my point — but you instead concluded I was a crank trying to attack entropy? Oh well, it happens, it's the internet, I don't blame you. Another historical tidbit: the Royal Society of Hooke, Newton, etc all loved Drebbel's works. No wonder: Drebbel had a staring role in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis which was the model for the Royal Society.
griffzhowl 1y ago
From your ref [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755046/ > we show that faculty are up to 25 times more likely to have a parent with a Ph.D. That seems high, but I can't contextualize it based only on these results. What would the figures be for doctors, blacksmiths, farmers, computer programmers, etc.? I guess you're likely to find disproportionate numbers of children who followed in their parents' footsteps in any profession. It's likely not something special to academia. In any case, there are plenty of other factors that contribute beyond nepotism: early guidance and encouragement, support and understanding of career choices, parental expectations or pressures, genetics, and so on. > Moreover, this rate nearly doubles at prestigious universities and is stable across the past 50 years. Ok, this is a bit more suggestive, but it's also plausible to me that the factors I mentioned above are amplified for children of parents working at prestigious universities. > Our results suggest that the professoriate is, and has remained, accessible disproportionately to the socioeconomically privileged, which is likely to deeply shape their scholarship and their reproduction. This seemed a bit of a non sequitur to me. The results show that children of academic parents go into academia more than others, not that "socioeconomic privilege" predisposes to going into academia. For example, are the children of billionaires (or millionaires) more likely to go into academia than the children of humble academics at non-prestigious universities? I doubt it. (I only read the abstract so please let me know if these points are addressed in the article)

throwway120385 1y ago

There's always a grain of truth or some shared understanding to every grift. You can see it play out in how people sell you alternative diets or alternative therapies. "Processed foods are bad. Here, eat this thing that's been boiled until it is relieved of all nutrition." "Preservatives are bad, here eat this vegetable that's been heavily salted." Beware of people who seem to be on the same page with you, especially when they're selling you their own idea.

hermitcrab 1y ago
>especially when they're selling you their own idea. That is the heart of every con, isn't it? Tell people what they want to hear.

themafia 1y ago

> But that does not in itself prove that the people peddling alternatives aren't even worse. I understand this line of thinking but I don't feel that it's particularly relevant. It seems to be born out of a point of view that physics theories are a binary. We either fully support them with everything we have or we completely denigrate them to the point of demonizing anyone who shows any interest in them. Surely this can't be the best approach to discovering new physics? Which is how I view these people. The result of a natural frustration that physics discoveries do not seem to be happening at the rate that they should. I'm not sure they have _the_ answer but I understand _why_ they're acting as they do. Why this outcome bothers anyone is completely beyond me and now makes me genuinely wonder if there is simply too much gatekeeping within the field.

estearum 1y ago
But... they're the ones doing the demonizing... of pretty much everyone who disagrees with them? "DISC" is literally just shorthand for "people who disagree with me are conspiring."
tptacek 1y ago
You're arguing with an oversimplified model of the complaint about Weinstein. It's not that Weinstein has a theory that's orthogonal to mainstream physics, but rather the means with which he pursues the inquiry. He doesn't write real papers, when he released the GU paper he copyrighted it and claimed it as a "work of entertainment", in effect demanding that the rest of the field not cite and address it. That's not how papers work. The problem, as I understand it, is that Weinstein simply isn't "doing science". He's "doing big thinkies" and then complaining when the world doesn't snap to attention. That problem has not much at all to do with his specific ideas.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  That's essentially my conclusion. Weinstein is playing an ego game using science as the stage set. He's set himself up a win-win situation by creating a crux. If GU is rejected, that supports his narrative. If GU is embraced, he’s vindicated as a suppressed genius. In either case, he wins in his own story. Eric wants to be celebrated by science, but the only way to achieve that (rigorous math, predictions, peer review) would force him to abandon the very posture that sustains his popularity.