> what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine
Why would you imagine that?
> The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact.
Your random encounters with information are not a good guide here. The generatation issue is often described as one of the main open problems in particle physics.
Physicists want to forbid people from exploring ‘philosophies of sciences’ in public? You can only discuss official ideas codified by peer review?
And of course it’s one of the main open problems. Obviously people in the community discuss it and it’s widely known. I meant in general, all the people talking sports, politics, business, finance, technology and reality TV, you know 99% of human communication, never ever discuss any ideas interesting in physics. Maybe because the authoritarians motivate normal people to avoid it thus only charlatans and a few science popularizers drive public awareness.
And I meant some of the math and physics he’s describing are true. I’m not saying his theories are true but not all his perspectives on them are unfounded. He’s had highly intellectual conversations with physicists on his podcast. Including Penrose. And Lisi, whom he strongly criticized.
My point is, he doesn’t need a license to talk and the criticism towards new ideas is wrong. Plus we need more cool ideas in the public sphere, right or wrong.
Why would you imagine that?
> The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact.
Your random encounters with information are not a good guide here. The generatation issue is often described as one of the main open problems in particle physics.
Here are some links about particle generations:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2015/the-mys...
https://particleadventure.org/three_gen.html https://particleadventure.org/beyond_start.html
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generation+of+fundamental+part...
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-why-are-ther...
I could go on.
The reason Weinstein focuses on it is because he's a crank, and cranks are attracted to notorious problems.
> Some of what he’s saying is undoubtedly true.
Such as? I'm reminded of the quote, "What is new is not true; and what is true is not new."