Did You Humans Crack This Isht And Then Hide It From Yourselves 70 Years Ago?

airplanesandrockets  |  By far the most potent source of energy is gravity. Using it as power future aircraft will attain the speed of light.

Nuclear-powered aircraft are yet to be built, but there are research projects already under way that will make the super-planes obsolete before they are test-flown. For in the United States and Canada research centers, scientists, designers and engineers are perfecting a way to control gravity - a force infinitely more powerful than the mighty atom. The result of their labors will be anti-gravity engines working without fuel - weightless airliners and space ships able to travel at 170,000 miles per second.

If this seems too fantastic to be true, here is something to consider - the gravity research has been supported by Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Co., Convair, Bell Aircraft, Lear Inc., Sperry Gyroscope and several other American aircraft manufacturers who would not spend milli0ns of dollars on science fiction. Lawrence D. Bell, the famous builder of the rocket research planes, says, "We're already working with nuclear fuels and equipment to cancel out gravity." And William Lear, the autopilot wizard, is already figuring out "gravity control" for the weightless craft to come.

Gravitation - the mutual attraction of all matter, be it grains of sand or planets - has been the most mysterious phenomenon of nature. Isaac Newton and other great physicists discovered and described the gravitational law from which there has been no escape. "What goes up must come down," they said. The bigger the body the stronger the gravity attraction it has for other objects ... the larger the distance between the objects, the lesser the gravity pull. Defining those rigid rules was as far as science could go, but what caused gravity nobody knew, until Albert Einstein published his Theory of Relativity.

In formulating universal laws that would explain everything from molecules to stars, Einstein discovered a strong similarity between gravitation and magnetism. Magnets attract magnetic metals, of course, but they also attract and bend beams of electronic rays. For instance, in your television picture tube or electronic microscope, magnetic fields sway the electrons from their straight path. It was the common belief that gravitation of bodies attracted material objects only - then came Einstein's dramatic proof to the contrary.

The G-plane licks "heat barrier" problem of high speed by creating its own gravity field. Gravity generator attracts surrounding air to form a thick boundary layer which travels with craft and dissipates heat. Electronic rockets provide forward and reverse thrust. Crew and passenger cabins are also within ship's own gravity field, thus making fast acceleration and deceleration safe for occupants.

Pre-Einstein physicists were convinced that light traveled along absolutely straight lines. But on May 29, 1919, during a full eclipse of the sun, Einstein proved that the light rays of distant stars were attracted and bent by the sun's gravitation. With the sun eclipsed, it was possible to observe the stars and measure the exact "bend" of their days as they passed close to the sun on their way to earth.

This discovery gave modem scientists a new hope. We already knew how to make magnets by coiling a wire around an iron core. Electric current running through the coiled wire created a magnetic field and it could be switched on and off at will. Perhaps we could do the same with the gravitation.

Einstein's famous formula E = mc² - the secret of nuclear energy - opened the door to further research in gravitation. Prying into the atom's inner structure, nuclear scientists traced the gravity attraction to the atom's core - the nucleus. First they separated electrons by bombarding the atom with powerful electromagnetic "guns." Then, with even more powerful electromagnetic bombardment, the scientists were able to blast the nucleus. The "split" nucleus yielded a variety of heretofore unknown particles.

In the course of such experiments, Dr. Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt of Princeton Institute of Advanced Study found the gravity culprit - tiny particles responsible for gravitation. Without those G-(gravity) particles, an atom of, say, iron still behaved as any other iron atom except for one thing - it was weightless.

With the secret of gravitation exposed, the scientists now concentrate their efforts on harnessing the G-particles and their gravity pull. They are devising ways of controlling the gravity force just as the vast energy of a nuclear explosion has been put to work in a docile nuclear reactor for motive power and peaceful use. And once we have the control of those G-particles, the rest will be a matter of engineering.

According to the gravity research engineers, the G-engine will replace all other motors. Aircraft, automobiles, submarines, stationary powerplants - all will use the anti-gravity engines that will require little or no fuel and will be a mechanic's dream. A G-engine will have only one moving part - a rotor or a flywheel. One half of the rotor will be subjected to a de-gravitating apparatus, while the other will still be under the earth's gravity pull. With the G-particles neutralized, one half of the rotor will no longer be attracted by the earth's gravitation and will therefore go up as the other half is being pulled down, thus creating a powerful rotary movement.

Another, simpler idea comes from the Gravity. Research Foundation of New Boston, N. H. Instead of de-gravitating one half of the rotor, we would merely shield half of it with a gravity "absorber." The other half would still be pulled down and rotation would result (see sketch).

The anti-gravity engine rotor is partially shielded by the gravity absorber. The gravity force acting only on the exposed half of the rotor which creates a powerful rotary motion. This particular device is suitable for powering ground vehicles.

For an explanation of how the gravity "absorber" would work, lets turn to gravity's twin brother - magnetism. If you own an ordinary watch, you must be forever careful not to get it magnetized. Even holding a telephone receiver can magnetize the delicate balance wheel and throw the watch out of time. Therefore, an anti-magnetic watch is the thing to have. Inner works of such a watch are shielded by a soft iron casing which absorb the magnetic lines of force. Even in the strongest magnetic field, the shielded balance wheel is completely unaffected by the outside magnetic pull. In a similar manner, a gravity "absorber" would prevent the earth's gravity from acting upon the shielded portion of our G-engine.

Applied to engines, a gravity absorber would be a boon, but its true value would be in aircraft construction where the weight control engineers get ulcers trying to save an ounce here, a pound there. Of course, an indiscriminate shielding of an aircraft and the resulting total weightlessness is not what we would want. A de-gravitated aircraft would still be subject to the centrifugal force of our rotating globe. Freed from the gravity pull, a totally weightless aircraft would shoot off into space like sparks flying off a faster spinning, abrasive grinding wheel. So, the weight, or gravity, would have to be reduced gradually for take-off and climb. For level flight and for hovering, the weight would be maintained at some low level while landing would be accomplished by slowly restoring the craft's full weight.

The gravity-defying engineers claim that the problem of this lift control is a cinch. The shield would have an arrangement similar in principle to the venetian blind - open for no lift and closed for decreased weight and increased lift.

No longer dependent on wings or rotors, the G-craft would most likely be an ideal aerodynamic shape - a sort of slimmed-down version of the old-fashioned dirigible balloon. Since weight has a lot to do in limiting the size of today's aircraft, a perfect weight control of the G-craft would remove that barrier and would make possible airliners as big as the great ocean liner the S.S. United States.

A G-airliner would be a real speed demon. The coast-to-coast flight time would be cut to minutes even with the orthodox rocket propulsion. You may wonder about the air friction "heat barrier" of high-speed aircraft, but the gravity experts have an answer for that, too. Canadian scientists headed by Wilbur B. Smith - the director of the "Project Magnet" - visualize an apparatus producing a gravitational field in the G-ship. This gravity field would attract the surrounding air to form a thick "boundary layer" which would move with the ship. Thus, air friction would take place at a distance from the ship's structure and the friction heat would be dissipated before it could warm up the ship's skin (large diagram).

When electric current from battery is switched on the coil will create a magnetic field which repels the aluminum disk and makes it shoot upward. Future sips may be built of diamagnetic metals with specially rearranged atomic structure.

The G-ships own gravity field would perform another useful function. William P. Lear, the chairman of Lear, Inc., makers of autopilots and other electronic controls, points out, "All matter within the ship would be influenced by the ship's gravitation only. This way, no matter how fast you accelerated or changed course, your body would not feel it any more than it now feels the tremendous speed and acceleration of the earth." In other words, no more pilot blackouts or any such acceleration headaches. The G-ship could take off like a cannon shell, come to a stop with equal abruptness and the passengers wouldn't even need seat belts.

This ability to accelerate rapidly would be ideal for a space vehicle. Eugene M. Gluhareff, President of Gluhareff Helicopter and Airplane Corporation of Manhattan Beach, California, has already designed several space ships capable of travel at almost the speed of light, or about 600,000,000 miles per hour. At that speed. the round trip to Venus would take just over 30 minutes. Of course, ordinary chemical rockets would be inadequate for such speeds, but Gluhareff already figures on using "atomic rockets."

At least one such "atomic rocket" design has been worked out by Dr. Ernest Stuhlinger, a physicist of the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Stuhlinger's rocket would use ions - atoms with a positive electric charge. To produce those ions, Dr. Stuhlinger takes cesium, a rare metal that liquefies at 71° F. Blown across a platinum coil heated to 1000° F., liquid cesium is ionized, the ions are accelerated by a 10,000 volt electromagnetic "gun" and shot out of a tail pipe at a velocity of 186,324 miles per second.

The power for Dr. Stuhlinger's "ion rocket" would be supplied by an atomic reactor or by solar energy. The weight of the reactor and its size would no longer be a design problem, since the entire apparatus could be de-gravitated - made weightless. Revolutionary as Dr. Stuhlinger's idea may seem, it is already superseded by the Canadian physicists of the "Project Magnet." The Canadians propose to do away with the bulk of the nuclear reactor and use the existing magnetic fields of the earth and other planets for propulsion.

As we well know, two like magnetic poles repel each other, just as under certain conditions, an electromagnet repel the so-called diamagnetic metal, such as aluminum. Take a flat, aluminum ring, slip it over a strong electromagnet and switch on the current. Repelled by the magnetic field, the disk will fly off with quite a speed. (see sketch). Of course, the earth's magnetism is too weak to repel a huge G-ship made of a diamagnetic metal. However, the recent studies of the atomic nucleus and the discovery of G-particles make it possible to rearrange the atomic structure so as to greatly increase the diamagnetic properties of metals. Thus, a G-ship with a magnetic control could be repelled by the earth's magnetic field and it would travel along the magnetic lines of force like the aluminum ring shooting off the electromagnet.

The entire universe is covered by magnetic fields of stars and planets. Those fields intertwine in a complex pattern, but they are always there. By proper selection of those fields, we could navigate our G-ship in space as well as within the earth's magnetic field. And the use of the magnetic repulsion would eliminate the radiation danger of the nuclear reactor and the problem of atomic fuel.

How long will it take to build the weightless craft and G-engines, the gravity experts don't know. George S. Trimble, Vice-President in charge of the G-project at Martin Aircraft Corporation thinks the job "could be done in about the time it took to build the first atom bomb." And another anti-gravity pioneer, Dudley Clarke, President of Clarke Electronics Laboratories of Palm Springs, California, believes it will be a matter of a few yeas to manufacture anti-gravity "power packages."

But no matter how many years we have to wait, the amazing anti-gravity research is a reality. And the best guarantee of its early success is the backing of the U.S. aircraft industry - the engineers and technicians who have always given us tomorrow's craft today.

Daily Dose Of Douche: Weinstein Doesn't Want To Believe

Weinstein Got Drunk On Rogan And Said ALL THE QUIET PART About "The Jews" Out Loud

 

 

To hear Eric Weinstein's entire "shut it down, the goyim know" drunken rant, - in which he repudiates everything he's professed about the DISC as well as placing himself squarely in the Epstein psy-op camp - go to the 3 hour 30 minute mark on the spotify podcast with Rogan.

Bret Weinstein Trying His Hand At Apocalyptic Fiction...,

unherd |  Humans model danger based on their own experiences and those of their ancestors. Solar storms were nothing new, in 2024, but the jeopardy they posed to humanity had increased only very gradually since the last really big storm, in 1859 — the year Darwin had published The Origin of Species. That storm caught the eye of a British astronomer named Richard Christopher Carrington, who noticed unusual solar activity and linked it to the spectacular aurora that had appeared. What became known as the Carrington Event damaged telegraph systems and delivered shocks to a number of operators. Some found they could send messages even with the loss of power, because the storm had induced currents in the wires. Fascinating, but not the stuff of the nightmares, on a planet not heavily dependent on industry. And as our civilisation became overwhelmingly electrical, solar flares never produced enough harm to focus our collective attention — there was no real prelude to the event that precipitated our downfall.

In the initial weeks after the collapse, the military was tasked with a vital mission. Even dormant nuclear reactors — and their spent fuel pools — need to have cold water circulated through them constantly to prevent reactor meltdowns and devastating fuel-pool fires. Regulations required that each complex have a week’s worth of backup diesel generator fuel on hand. Many had four times that amount, but none had planned for a blackout that would last a year or more, and that is what they were facing in the best-case scenario. It fell to the Army to make sure these backup diesel generators and pumps never failed or ran dry. For six months, they accomplished that mission across all the affected reactors, with one exception.

The Army had quickly found that for most reactors, creating a defensible perimeter around the site and delivering fuel by helicopter was the most reliable approach. In the third week after the collapse, a helicopter clipped a light pole in the fog and crashed at the North Anna reactor in Virginia, spilling its fuel and sparking a devastating fire that engulfed the generators. Retardant dropped from above was sucked into the air intakes, and the combination killed the power, which remained out long enough for the reactor cores to meltdown and slump. The containment breached, forcing the site to be abandoned.

As the fuel pools boiled and ran dry, the heat from radioactive decay caused the cladding on the fuel rods to burst into flame; a plume of highly radioactive smoke rose above the site, contaminating the region and driving essential governmental functions out of Washington D.C., one of few Eastern seaboard cities that had been successfully stabilised. The danger of the radioactive fallout was kept officially quiet, but rumours spread, confirmed by those few citizens with access to battery-powered Geiger counters. This sparked a massive refugee crisis as the region’s population fled their homes, dodging precipitation, every squall now raining radioactive isotopes onto the earth below. Ultimately, the spreading collapse of civilisation would cause every nuclear reactor complex on Earth to be abandoned, guaranteeing that all of its radioactive material would escape into the environment and begin to circulate.

Eric Weinstein Asked Joe Rogan For A Favor And Joe Happily Obliged...,

At ~43:00 Minutes In - Weinstein Explains Chanda Prescod Weinstein's Core Issue

Wolfram's Approach DOES Deserve Better Than The Reception It's Gotten

scientificamerican  |  Most scientists would readily tell you that their discipline is—and always has been—a collaborative, communal process. Nobody can revolutionize a scientific field without first getting the critical appraisal and eventual validation of their peers. Today this requirement is performed through peer review—a process Wolfram’s critics say he has circumvented with his announcement. “Certainly there’s no reason that Wolfram and his colleagues should be able to bypass formal peer review,” Mack says. “And they definitely have a much better chance of getting useful feedback from the physics community if they publish their results in a format we actually have the tools to deal with.”

Mack is not alone in her concerns. “It’s hard to expect physicists to comb through hundreds of pages of a new theory out of the blue, with no buildup in the form of papers, seminars and conference presentations,” says Sean Carroll, a physicist at Caltech. “Personally, I feel it would be more effective to write short papers addressing specific problems with this kind of approach rather than proclaiming a breakthrough without much vetting.”

So why did Wolfram announce his ideas this way? Why not go the traditional route? “I don't really believe in anonymous peer review,” he says. “I think it’s corrupt. It’s all a giant story of somewhat corrupt gaming, I would say. I think it’s sort of inevitable that happens with these very large systems. It’s a pity.”

So what are Wolfram’s goals? He says he wants the attention and feedback of the physics community. But his unconventional approach—soliciting public comments on an exceedingly long paper—almost ensures it shall remain obscure. Wolfram says he wants physicists’ respect. The ones consulted for this story said gaining it would require him to recognize and engage with the prior work of others in the scientific community.

And when provided with some of the responses from other physicists regarding his work, Wolfram is singularly unenthused. “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re communicating,” he grumbles. “I deserve better.”

Eric Weinstein Is Peter Thiel's Sugar Baby Public Intellectual...,

art-19 |  One of the pillars of the American Dream has been that of seeing your children go to college. And, for the many families that can't afford the cost of soaring university tuitions, a new controversial institution has arisen to address the problem. That institution is Sugar Baby University, a tuition assistance campaign that attempts to allow attractive young women, and a smaller number of handsome young men, find generous older men to date in the quest to complete a new version of the American Dream by graduating debt free in an era which has made it all but impossible to discharge student debt even in personal bankruptcy since 2005.

This year, Sugar Baby University is 'graduating' it's fifth class with thousands of alumni in its network that stretches from coast to coast and includes institutions of higher education from local community colleges to research universities and ivy league colleges. If you know many young graduates, the chances have been increasing that one of them has quietly matriculated in response to the crisis of crushing debt payments. Yet despite widespread awareness of the program on campuses by students and financial aid advisors via word of mouth, the world of Universities and mainstream media news outlets have tacitly given their approval to the campaign by remaining strangely silent as tuitions have continued to climb an unbelievable average of 8-9% per year.

In this episode we do not pass judgement on Sugar Baby University, it's parent company 'Seeking Arrangement' or it's spokesperson Kimberly De La Cruz, who is our guest. Rather, we celebrate their openness to discuss the situation, and question, instead, the universities, politicians, media, and the lending industry, who have quietly created the desperate need for this program which they do not openly discuss and prefer not to address at all. 

Louis Proyect Puts Hands On Matt Taibbi And The Weinstein Bros.

counterpunch |  In the opening moments of their conversation, Taibbi repented for not making a big stink over Weinstein’s ostracism and eventual resignation from Evergreen over student protests. Suing the school for $3.8 million in damage, Weinstein walked away with only a half-million.

One wonders if Taibbi looked into the case against Weinstein made by three Evergreen professors that year on Huffington Post titled “Another Side of The Evergreen State College Story”. One of them was Zoltan Grossman, who has written dozens of articles for CounterPunch over the years. The three make an essential point:

In order for a propaganda campaign to succeed, it needs a Big Lie. At Evergreen, the Big Lie is that Evergreen’s Day of Absence demonstrated “reverse racism” as whites “were forced to leave campus because of the color of their skin.” It is stunning to us how often this “alternative fact” has been repeated until it has become unchallenged truth. The truth is that the Day of Absence has long been an accepted — and voluntary — practice at Evergreen. On the Day of Absence, people of color who chose to do so generally attended an off-campus event, while whites who chose to participate stayed on campus to attend lectures, workshops and discussions about how race and racism shape social structures and everyday life.

Once they got past the Evergreen business, Weinstein and Taibbi settled into a litany of how bad things have gotten in the U.S. because of uppity anti-racist students dragging the country down. They struck me as two middle-aged men ready to write a book titled “The Decline of the U.S.” after the fashion of Oswald Spengler. They probably could make good money writing such a book since there is always a market for screeds against political correctness, identity politics, and that sort of thing. Usually written by conservatives like Allan Bloom (“The Closing of the American Mind”), they also have their liberal counterparts like Todd Gitlin, who wrote “The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars” in 1996.

Gitlin, who signed the Harper’s letter, described himself in the book as sympathetic to blacks but was distressed by their retreat into what he felt were self-absorbed, symbolic politics, according to a N.Y. Times review. He wrote that “few political campaigns are launched against the impoverishment of the cities” and that “The diversity rhetoric of identity politics short-circuits the necessary discussion of what ought to be done about all the dying out there.” He had come to the same conclusions as Adolph Reed Jr., who also got the red-carpet treatment from Taibbi and Halper.

Weinstein gushed over Taibbi’s long record of courageous journalism as if writing take-downs of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump risked a jail term. Yes, Taibbi is entertaining, but how far can you go stating the obvious, even if scabrously. I’d prefer a little less scabrousness and a lot more economic analysis. That’s one of the reasons I stopped reading Taibbi after the good old “vampire squid” days ended.

Why Exactly Is Eric Weinstein Caping Up For Bari Weiss?

Replacement Negroes And Fundamental Physics Open Thread

What Would An Exploding Heads Day Be Without A Heaping Helping Of Weinstein?

dr.brian.keating |  In part one of our extensive conversation, we cover his Geometric Unity theory and the value of scientific theories in general.

As a mathematician and an economist, Eric is uniquely suited to understanding how ideas have contributed to human civilization — and what we’re losing out on when academia throttles them. His perspective that, “[Professors] need the freedom of a billionaire without the wealth of one,” is a spin on something Ralph Gomory, president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, told him:

“The bargain was always that you weren’t going to get super rich as a professor, but you would have the freedom that came from your job. And that’s how we got great people. When we lost freedom, we stopped being able to compete effectively for the top people.”

Having Eric on the show challenged me to consider my approach to the interview. Though an expert in experimental physics, it is beneficial to be reminded about the contributions of theoretical study. His allegory that the tailor who sews on the last button of a coat shouldn’t get all the credit is powerful. Think of the creative spark, the person who sketches, then finds practical materials, the engineers who bring instruments into the equation, and all the other pieces of the puzzle.

In this interview, Eric says, “The scientific method is actually the radio edit of great science” and that is really striking. It is important to remember that the unedited version exists, even if it doesn’t make it through all the noise very often.

The Covid-19 Economic and Political Restructuring Narrative In The Light Of Preference Falsification

Thanks to Eric Weinstein, this year's curriculum kicked-off with an introduction to the concept of "preference falsification".  The ongoing and encompassing tsunami of current events make it exceedingly germaine for you to revisit this little-known - but nevertheless determinative concept.

voxeu |  We characterise the motivations central to the workings of civil society by a series of other regarding or ethical values including reciprocity, fairness, and sustainability. Also included is the term identity, by which we refer to a bias in favour of those who one calls “us” over “them.” We draw attention to this aspect of the civil society dimension to stress that in insisting on the importance of community in fashioning a response to the pandemic, we recognise the capacity of these community-based solutions to sustain xenophobic, parochial, and other repugnant actions.

Figure 2 illustrates the location in “institution-space” of different responses to the epidemic. At the top left is the government as the insurer of last resort. Neither market nor household risk-sharing can handle an economy-wide contraction of activity required by containment policies; and neither can compel the near-universal participation that makes risk pooling possible.

Closer to the civil society pole are social distancing policies implemented through consent. The triangle opens up space for modern-day analogues of the so-called Dunkirk strategy – small, privately owned boats took up where the British navy lacked the resources to evacuate those trapped on the beaches in 1940.  An example is the public-spirited mobilisation by universities and small private labs of efforts to undertake production and processing of tests and to develop new machines to substitute for scarce ventilators.

These examples underline an important truth about institutional and policy design: the poles of the institution space – at least ideally – are complements not substitutes. Well-designed government policies enhance the workings of markets and enhance the salience of cooperative and other socially valuable preferences.  Well-designed markets both empower governments and make them more accountable without crowding out ethical and other pro-social preferences.

Much of the content that we think is essential to a successful post-COVID-19 economic vernacular is present in two recent advances in the field.

The first is the insight – dating back to Hayek – that information is scarce and local. Neither government officials nor private owners and managers of firms know enough to write incentive-based enforceable contracts or governmental fiats to implement optimal social distancing, surveillance, or deployment of resources to the health sector, including to vaccine development.

The second big change in economics gives us hope that non-governmental and non-market solutions may actually contribute to mitigating problems that are poorly addressed by contract or fiat.  The behavioural economics revolution makes it clear that people – far from the individualistic and amoral representation in conventional economics – are capable of extraordinary levels of cooperation based on ethical values and other regarding preferences.  

As was the case with the Great Depression and WWII, we will not be the same after COVID-19. And neither, we also hope, will be the way people talk about the economy.

But there is a critical difference between the post-Great Depression period and today. The pandemic of that era – massive unemployment and economic insecurity – was beaten new rules of the game that delivered immediate benefits. Unemployment insurance, a larger role for government expenditures and, in many countries, trade union engagement in wage-setting and the introduction of new technology reflected both the analytics and the ethics of the new economic vernacular. The result was the decades of performance referred to as the golden age of capitalism, making both the new rules and the new vernacular difficult to dislodge. 

It is possible, but far from certain, that the mounting costs of climate change and recurrent pandemic threats will provide an environment that supports a similar symbiosis between a new economic vernacular and new rules of the game yielding immediate concrete benefits. 

Weinstein's Revenge: The New Geometric Quantum

edge |  The modern theory of the quantum has only recently come to be understood to be even more exquisitely geometric than Einstein's General Relativity. How this realization unfolded over the last 40 years is a fascinating story that has, to the best of my knowledge, never been fully told as it is not particularly popular with some of the very people responsible for this stunning achievement.

To set the stage, recall that fundamental physics can be divided into two sectors with separate but maddeningly incompatible advantages. The gravitational force has, since Einstein's theory of general relativity, been admired for its four dimensional geometric elegance. The quantum, on the other hand encompasses the remaining phenomena, and is lauded instead for its unparalleled precision, and infinite dimensional analytic depth.

The story of the geometric quantum begins at some point around 1973-1974, when our consensus picture of fundamental particle theory stopped advancing. This stasis, known as the 'Standard Model', seemed initially like little more than a temporary resting spot on the relentless path towards progress in fundamental physics, and theorists of the era wasted little time proposing new theories in the expectation that they would be quickly confirmed by experimentalists looking for novel phenomena. But that expected entry into the promised land of new physics turned into a 40-year period of half-mad tribal wandering in an arid desert, all but devoid of new phenomena.

Yet just as particle theory was failing to advance in the mid 1970s, something amazing was quietly happening over lunch at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. There, Nobel physics laureate CN Yang and geometer (and soon to billionaire) Jim Simons had started an informal seminar to understand what, if anything, modern geometry had to do with quantum field theory. The shocking discovery that emerged from these talks was that both geometers and quantum theorists had independently gotten hold of different collections of insights into a common structure that each group had independently discovered for themselves. A Rosetta stone of sorts called the Wu-Yang dictionary was quickly assembled by the physicists, and Isadore Singer of MIT took these results from Stony Brook to his collaborator Michael Atiyah in Oxford where their research with Nigel Hitchin began a geometric renaissance in physics inspired geometry that continues to this day.

While the Stony Brook history may be less discussed by some of today's younger mathematicians and physicists, it is not a point of contention between the various members of the community. The more controversial part of this story, however, is that a hoped for golden era of theoretical physics did not emerge in the aftermath to produce a new consensus theory of elementary particles. Instead the interaction highlighted the strange idea that, just possibly, Quantum theory was actually a natural and elegant self-assembling body of pure geometry that had fallen into an abysmal state of pedagogy putting it beyond mathematical recognition. By this reasoning, the mathematical basket case of quantum field theory was able to cling to life and survive numerous near death experiences in its confrontations with mathematical rigor only because it was being underpinned by a natural infinite dimensional geometry, which is to this day still only partially understood.

In short, most physicists were trying and failing to quantize Einstein's geometric theory of gravity because they were first meant to go in the opposite and less glamorous direction of geometrizing the quantum instead. Unfortunately for Physics, mathematicians had somewhat dropped the ball by not sufficiently developing the geometry of infinite dimensional systems (such as the Standard Model), which would have been analogous to the 4-dimensional Riemannian geometry appropriated from mathematics by Einstein.

This reversal could well be thought of as Einstein's revenge upon the excesses of quantum triumphalism, served ice cold decades after his death: the more researchers dreamed of becoming the Nobel winning physicists to quantize gravity, the more they were rewarded only as mathematicians for what some saw as the relatively remedial task of geometrizing the quantum. The more they claimed that the 'power and glory' of string theory (a failed piece of 1970s sub-atomic physics which has mysteriously lingered into the 21^st century) was the 'only game in town', the more it suggested that it was the string theory-based unification claims that, in the absence of testable predictions, were themselves sinking with a glug to the bottom of the sea.

What we learned from this episode was profound. Increasingly, the structure of Quantum Field Theory appears to be a purely mathematical input-output machine where our physical world is but one of many natural inputs that the machine is able to unpack from initial data. In much the way that a simple one-celled human embryo self-assembles into a trillion celled infant of inconceivable elegance, the humble act of putting a function (called an 'action' by physicists) on a space of geometric waves appears to trigger a self-assembling mathematical Rube-Goldberg process which recovers the seemingly intricate features of the formidable quantum as it inexorably unfolds. It also appears that the more geometric the input given to the machine, the more the unpacking process conspires to steer clear of the pathologies which famously afflict less grounded quantum theories. It is even conceivable that sufficiently natural geometric input could ultimately reveal the recent emphasis on 'quantizing gravity' as an extravagant mathematical misadventure distracting from Einstein's dream of a unified physical field. Like genius itself, with the right natural physical input, the new geometric quantum now appears to many mathematicians and physicists to be the proverbial fire that lights itself.

Yet, if the physicists of this era failed to advance the standard model, it was only in their own terms that they went down to defeat. Just as in an earlier era in which physicists retooled to become the first generation of molecular biologists, their viewpoints came to dominate much of modern geometry in the last four decades, scoring numerous mathematical successes that will stand the tests of time.

Likewise their quest to quantize gravity may well have backfired, but only in the most romantic and elegant way possible by instead geometrizing the venerable quantum as a positive externality.

But the most important lesson is that, at a minimum, Einstein's minor dream of a world of pure geometry has largely been realized as the result of a large group effort. All known physical phenomena can now be recognized as fashioned from the pure, if still heterogeneous, marble of geometry through the efforts of a new pantheon of giants. Their achievements, while still incomplete, explain in advance of unification that the source code of the universe is overwhelmingly likely to determine a purely geometric operating system written in a uniform programming language. While that leaves Einstein's greater quest for the unifying physics unfinished, and the marble something of a disappointing patchwork of motley colors, it suggests that the leaders during the years of the Standard Model stasis have put this period to good use for the benefit of those who hope to follow.

Weinstein Discussion Resources

reddit | Discord Server for discussion of The Portal

Fan-made Content

https://discord.gg/h6TXEu4

I've created a Discord server for anyone who would like to discuss The Portal in real time.  And with Eric's recent discussions of community building, I thought this may also have the possibility of becoming a useful place.

ericweinstein.org | 

Big Papi Weinstein Fitna Buss Some GUT...,

Dr. Heather Heying And Bandit Bret Saying A Bunch More Words About Controlavirus...,

Dr. Heather Heying and Bandit Bret Weinstein Hold Forth On The Coronavirus Situation

nakedcapitalism |   We can make a highly suggestive correlation between globalizers and COVID-19 if we look at two simple maps. First, as is well known, one of the main distinctions between the places that are “optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward” (i.e., globalizers) and the dull provincials in flyover is the possession of passports. (A passport is a likely marker for the sort of person who asks “Why don’t they just leave?”; “front-row kids,” in Chris Arnade’s parlance, as distinguished from, say, grocery workers, who he calls “back-row” kids.) Here is a map of passport ownership by state: 

The correlation is rather neat, don’t you think? It makes sense that the first case was in a globalist, passport-owning city like Seattle on the West Coast; and it makes sense that the world capital of globalization, passport-owning New York City, now has a major outbreak.

Oh, and the ability to travel by air correlates to income (a proxy for class)