0
$\begingroup$

I can usually follow the basic ideas of a theory, but Weinstein's Geometric Unity theory is completely incomprehensible to me. It leads me to suspect that it is high level crackpottery, but he seems to be respected. Does anyone actually understand what he is getting at? And does he have any actual equations that predict something or do something?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Voting to close as PSE only discusses mainstream physics. FWIW: Weinstein has not published the theory anywhere, the only details that are available are in his 2013 Oxford talk. However, recently, an article was published by Timothy Nguyen (a former physics professor at Stony Brook) on their blog which tries to present as many details as can be gathered from Weinstein's talk in a systematic manner -- and it also provides a criticism of the theory. So, this article might be what you are looking for. $\endgroup$
    – user87745
    Mar 9, 2021 at 23:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Remember Elizabeth Holmes who captivated a swarm of silicon valley inverters and enchanted political heavyweights like Henry Kissinger? Both Elizabeth Holmes and Eric Weinstein are genius in their own category. Hollywood worthy material: "Bad Blood" for EH, "Spin Doctor" for EW. $\endgroup$
    – MadMax
    Mar 9, 2021 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ I would actually be rather interested in an evaluation/critique of this theory as well, but I feel obligated to vote to close as it is unambiguously non-mainstream per the community definition. $\endgroup$
    – Rococo
    Mar 10, 2021 at 0:02
  • $\begingroup$ Non-mainstreaminess can deepen mainstreaminess. $\endgroup$
    – Deschele Schilder
    Mar 10, 2021 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ Elizabeth Holmes was portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence in the movie "Bad Blood". I would suggest Joaquin Phoenix to take the leading role in "Spin Doctor" for EW, Joaquin has both the wisdom and the gumption of EW. $\endgroup$
    – MadMax
    Mar 10, 2021 at 0:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

After a year in which the only publicly available description was a video of a 2013 talk from Oxford, a paper is to come out on April 1, so perhaps that will clarify the details of the theory.

The closest I could come to understanding it, is that it's a $U(128)$ gauge theory on $U = X_4 \times R^{10}$, with matter fields in the form of 128-dimensional spinors, and all this will be broken down to some form of $SO(10)$ grand unification... But the $R^{10}$ is actually the space of metrics on $X_4$, so that's a little mysterious (i.e. it refers to the ten degrees of freedom in the metric tensor).

All this is encoded in a differential-geometric equation that I don't understand, and which is philosophically motivated by a particular strategy for unifying Dirac, Yang-Mills, and Einstein equations. Perhaps the paper next month will make everything clearer.

edit: A crucial extra detail: The metric of four-dimensional space-time is a section of U that is coupled to the 14-dimensional gauge field. This is how the 14-dimensional physics reduces to something in four dimensions.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ “a paper is to come out on April 1.” April Fools’ Day, the day for practical jokes and hoaxes! Just a coincidence, I guess. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Mar 11, 2021 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ For what is worth, the paper is here. He sort of apologizes in advance. Notation is all over the place. What's seems to be happening is that there's no consistency. So it all says close to nothing. At least for everyone else. Then he blames it on people not being able to understand. And the show goes on... $\endgroup$
    – leo
    Apr 4, 2021 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ Quote from EW's April fools's day paper: "Spin(7, 7) −→ SO(64, 64) −→ U(64, 64)", which is eq. 3.19. After reading it, I am now more convinced that Joaquin Phoenix is the perfect cast for the leading role in "Spin Doctor" for EW. $\endgroup$
    – MadMax
    Apr 5, 2021 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ Here is how Weinstein describes himself, and his paper, in the paper: “The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast. This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress....” So... are we having fun yet? $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Apr 6, 2021 at 6:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a physical idea there, albeit a weird one - obtaining SO(10)-like generations from spinors on the space of possible metrics. Assessing the work as theoretical physics means looking past these idiosyncrasies of presentation. $\endgroup$
    – Mitchell Porter
    Apr 6, 2021 at 7:36