Has Eric Weinstein unified physics and overturned Albert Einstein

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Grand Theory of Everything may have been discovered.

Eric Weinstein may have found the answer to physics' biggest problems A physicist has formulated a mathematical theory that purports to explain why the universe works the way it does – and it feels like 'the answer'

Marcus du Sautoy

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 May 2013 14.27 BST

Two years ago, a mathematician and physicist whom I've known for more than 20 years arranged to meet me in a bar in New York. What he was about to show me, he explained, were ideas that he'd been working on for the past two decades. As he took me through the equations he had been formulating I began to see emerging before my eyes potential answers for many of the major problems in physics. It was an extremely exciting, daring proposal, but also mathematically so natural that one could not but feel that it smelled right.

He has spent the past two years taking me through the ins and outs of his theory and that initial feeling that I was looking at "the answer" has not waned. On Thursday in Oxford he will begin to outline his ideas to the rest of the mathematics and physics community. If he is right, his name will be an easy one to remember: Eric Weinstein...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/23/eric-weinstein-answer-physics-problems

As always follow the link to read the original text in full

Weinstein proposes a geometric unity composed of a 14-dimensional “observerseâ€, that contains our four-dimensional, space-time universe that explains both dark energy and dark matter by adding predicted new particles to the standard model and combines the classical with the quantum descriptions of the universe; a Theory of Everything.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23632-how-to-test-weinsteins-provocative-theory-of-everything.html

Now Cern has new stuff to do.

Kind Regards walker

[johncage 30]

any theory that purports to explain everything, explains nothing.

anyone can add things to an existing model in order to make it compatible with known observations. this guy must have been the 50th person to come up with a "theory for everything".

[instagoat 133]

Red Flag raised immediately when it is revealed that he went to the press instead of the journals first. If you do not have enough trust in your own theory to subject it to the scrutiny of your peers prior to releasing it, something is wrong.

10 trust points deducted, I do not expect this to go anywhere unless this individual is seriously outstanding and just misguided out of inexperience or whatever else condition in deciding to publish to the press first instead of the journals.

Also, the decision of the oxford person is dubious, and I doubt this decision would´ve been felled by Dawkins, who held that place until recently. Not gaining twinky points for that either.

We cannot explain everything, and the big question right now is something rather different, which is that of the higgs boson. Why this is important is an interesting question, and if you don´t know why, I encourage you to look into it.

As for Weinsteins mysterious particles, the LHC project has put massive effort into finding new particles, and if his particles were existent at all, they are either so stupendously rare as to be indetectable, or they would have been detected already. The Higgs Boson aleady is difficult to detect, and we took a -long- time and billions of collisions inside the detectors to find a mere handful of particles that -may- be the higgs boson we are looking for. Contrary to what the press claimed, this particle is not yet proven to be the Higgs Boson (not conclusively). Wether or not the Higgs Field (which is the real reason for us to be looking for the particle indicating its existence) is present, as proposed in Higgs Paper from 1967 (I believe) is a better question to focus on right now, because we have actual indicators that point towards its existence.

With its multiplicity of dimensions, I don´t see how Weinstein's proposal is different from your run of the mill String Theory Idea.

Again, if the Idea has merit, we will find out. But it will not happen by blaring it out through the Guardian, or whatever other propaganda mouthpiece they chose to use.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Nice one walker again,

Here's my opinion : i think that human mankind will never succeed at finding this "Theory of everything" for the simple reason that ,we human beings ,can't study phenomenon that we can't see from outside ...

To find the truth about this universe,you need to be outside of it ^^

[Sealife 22]

42

Dont know why people simply cant accept it

[kernriver 4]

Nice one walker again,

Here's my opinion : i think that human mankind will never succeed at finding this "Theory of everything" for the simple reason that ,we human beings ,can't study phenomenon that we can't see from outside ...

To find the truth about this universe,you need to be outside of it ^^

That's philosophy, not science. Science is not searching for truth, it tries to explain world around us, and for that it uses scientific theories which describe the world with sufficient accuracy.

Scientists test the accuracy of theories by experimentation. No scientific theory is 100% correct, let alone true. ;)

[4 IN 1 0]

Really, walker, you should really start understand what

before posting any more of your "New science discovery".

[On_Sabbatical 11]

That's philosophy, not science. Science is not searching for truth, it tries to explain world around us, and for that it uses scientific theories which describe the world with sufficient accuracy.

Scientists test the accuracy of theories by experimentation. No scientific theory is 100% correct, let alone true. ;)

Philosophy exists to fill science empty spaces :D,otherwise ,it would be filled by speculations and superstitions ... when science fails, philosophy kicks in !

[Rubber Grunt.dk 10]

Philosophy exists to fill science empty spaces :D,otherwise ,it would be filled by speculations and superstitions ... when science fails, philosophy kicks in !

I agree :D as time goes by it will be completely replaced by physics and psychology :]

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Never trust an atom! They make up everything.....

[mrcash2009 0]

Never trust an atom! They make up everything.....

UfOqXFcycB8

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Edited June 24, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[kernriver 4]

From walker's post:

Weinstein proposes a geometric unity composed of a 14-dimensional “observerseâ€, that contains our four-dimensional, space-time universe that explains both dark energy and dark matter by adding predicted new particles to the standard model and combines the classical with the quantum descriptions of the universe; a Theory of Everything.

What part of this sentence (some of) you don't understand? It's yet to be tested. It's a hypothesis.

[reconteam 19]

Eh, philosophy can examine humanity morality and what we should strive to become more than science can.

[instagoat 133]

Eh, philosophy can examine humanity morality and what we should strive to become more than science can.

I would contest that claim. Philosophy cannot be independent of science anymore, while Science will technically be able to sooner or later describe a "perfect" state of society. Evolution by natural selection shows that Life strives towards optimal solutions to filling any given niche.

Science is really just a very refined extension of philosophy. Science is a method, not a "Philosophy" or Ethical/Moral system of thought. But, like Philosophy, it can make statements on wether or not something is beneficial. What is defined as "good" or "beneficial" is probably then the last matter of discussion, but ultimately, you cannot detach Science from its roots in Philosophy, and the fact that it can and needs to be used to extend it.

A lot of philosophy is dumb or meaningless statements (For example the questions of wether or not life in a deterministic Universe is worth living, or the Idea of Solipsism.) which can be often discarded at the gate. A lot of these things are untestable. This is also one thing that is relevant here, because much of what string theory proposes is a multiplicity of theoretically existing but by definition inaccessible dimensions. If you cannot test something your theory depends on, by definition, I don´t see how it is relevant EVEN if it would turn out to be correct.

Philosophy also harkens back to the evolved misconception that the Universe somehow has purpose, which is the root of religious superstition. And the realization that the Universe has no purpose, and only naturally, thoughtlessly and aimlessly evolving systems following the given laws of physics is an intimidating thought. Which is one reason why I believe that the search for "the meaning of life" is still existent at all. Having to deal with the complete freedom and responsibility of a life that has to be given its own purpose by the power of our Ideas, with "nothing" (another ultimately meaningless word, I think.) before and after, with no reward and no direction is difficult.

So, psychologically, you can also understand the impulse in this theory of Weinstein and string theory in general, that the hidden dimensions may also hold a hidden greater good or purpose of some sort. I am making way large presuppositions here, but I think it may have something to it.

my two cents.

[oxmox 73]

Did he already release his formulas or is this still only "a kept secret" ?