The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Is Jewish Physics real?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 27th, 2026 8:30 PM Author: The Penis I'm talking not of whether the physics itself is real, but do you think there could potentially actually be a category "Jewish Physics" thats different in nature from other physics? Also white men still appear to be able to make Jewish Physics. For instance Heisenberg was called a White Jew for his involvement in Jewish Physics. Schrodinger also was white and produced Jewish Physics and Dirac too. Lorrentz, a dutchman, escaped the label of Jewish Physics for several reasons. Proponents of the idea of Jewish Physics being a thing said his math was fine and Einstein's Jewish interpretation of lack of an absolute reference frame was the problem. There are also more modern White Men who appear to be practicing Jewish Physics, like Penrose, Witten and Hawking (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49847738) |
Date: April 27th, 2026 8:49 PM Author: cucumbers It's slightly complicated.
Physics is so far removed from everyday experience, common sense, human society, etc. that it's irrelevant who's doing the work in physics. Photons aren't concerned with who's Jewish.
The most popular conception of "Jewish physics" comes from the Nazis when they chased out Jewish physicists from all German schools after calling their work less Aryan for some reason that I don't remember.
The modern reality is that "Jewish physics" still exists through the extreme over-representation of Jews in academic physics and among Nobel prize winners in physics. It's just Jews being tribal Jews, which is nothing new.
Libs might call this racist, but at the same time, libs are retarded and came up with their own racist but more socially-acceptable concept of "white male science." The idea is probably even more racist than what the Nazis dreamed up to the extent that the concept is even coherent. But this is just lib academics jerking each other off into irrelevance. |
 |
Date: April 27th, 2026 8:56 PM Author: The Penis I think the main reason they called something Jewish Physics other than the practitioner being literally Jewish was the level of abstraction. If the math dictated the reality it was Jewish. In Relativity Einstein used the Lorentz transformations to say space and time themselves were flexible. To Nazis, this was talmudic hair-splitting—using math to trick the senses into believing something that wasn't naturally visible. I think the idea that Jews used more abstractions in physics is reasonable, but Nazis went too far with this. Like they crippled their entire nuclear program because they refused to use E = mc^2. I agree with you that libs are retarded and "white male science" and attacks on "reason and logic" being "white" are more retarded and racist. And America probably has a similar problem that Germany did (crippled their sciences by getting rid of Jews, America is probably crippling literally every field even worse by getting rid of white males). And yeah I think "white male science" is even less coherent. Jewish Physics at least has some truth to it even if it relied on a "no true scotsman fallacy" much of the time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49847778) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 9:30 PM Author: cucumbers I'm reading up on this and see the point the Nazis were making: theoretical physics being Jewish vs. more practical/experimental physics being Aryan. Obviously this is highly flawed thinking with too many exceptions, like the ones you mentioned. Just taking Einstein as an example, the Nazi concept falls apart: Einstein's general relativity was called "Jewish physics," but Einstein himself was highly critical of quantum mechanics for being too focused on theory and not a reflection of reality.
Can any of this be applied today? If the Nazis weren't so violent, we'd just call their "Jewish physics" naive, racist, and stupid. The reality is that a lot of modern physics, whether theoretical or experimental, is trash. Take the question of dark matter: tons of varied theoretical explanations with countless experiments finding absolutely nothing. This goes back to my original point: "Jewish physics" only exists as the extreme over-representation of Jews in the field. |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 9:58 PM Author: The Penis Yeah I think its mostly the result of physics becoming increasingly abstract and mathematical throughout the 20th century, and Jews just being overrepresented in the field.
Also I agree Dark matter is complete bullshit. The constraints are derived from what the fluid needs to be to fit the observations, not from any underlying theory of what it is. The term that gets inserted into the stress-energy tensor models CDM as a perfect fluid, zero pressure, zero temperature. There is no evidence something like this could even exist in principle. To me this isn't Jewish Physics, it reminds me more of Caloric theory where it was inferred entirely from the phenomena it was invented to explain. Which was Birdshit folk-physics invented by Lavoisier who was obviously a genius and believed in it, but it was still fake. |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:54 PM Author: oomox You guys talking about Jews in the field reminds me of this JEWISH MATH story from the USSR: https://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012/10/04/the-fifth-problem-math-anti-semitism-in-the-soviet-union-edward-frenkel (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848102) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:04 PM Author: The Penis I was actually about to bring up the idea of Jewish Mathematics. It isn't as famous of a concept, but it absolutely existed. Fields like set theory, abstract algebra, and topology were considered Jewish Math and labeled as overly abstract, logical, and "rootless." Emmy Noether was one of the first to be dismissed for it. Hausdorff was a famous example as well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848124) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:08 PM Author: oomox Cr I remember that being part of Emmy Noether's story. She was 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848140) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:14 PM Author: The Penis My favorite part of her story was when she was working under Hilbert and they didn't want to make her a maths lecturer because she was female and Hilbert said in her defense "This is a University not a BATHHOUSE" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848158) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:21 PM Author: oomox That's 18000000. Do people still find those areas overly abstract? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848173) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:30 PM Author: The Penis Not really as much these days I think, because most of them have a lot of applications. When I think of Jewish Math actually, the first person who comes to mind is Grothendieck who is the king of abstract metaphysical maths and kooky outside the box topology. He's 180 probably the GOAT POTUS of abstract thought in general. Like a Plato with access to modern day maths. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848190) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:33 PM Author: oomox Grothendieck is also a really great name (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848193) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 6:24 PM Author: The Penis Another interesting story about Jewish Math, Kurt Godel was actually accused of performing Jewish Math despite being goy. Part of it was because he was in that tradition of "abstract logic" (they hated his incompleteness theorems), but also they were very angry that he associated with Jewish Philosophy (the Vienna circle specifically) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49849522) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 6:32 PM Author: oomox Godel was 180. Another example of Jewish Math turning out to be way more useful than its critics originally thought. These examples do seem qualitatively different from what you guys are saying ITT about Jewish Physics in terms of the theories being overlapping arbitrary constructs with maaaaybe explanatory or predictive power but no clear Privileged Truth. But maybe it's the same with math, like diff areas are analogs of each other, and I just don't know it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49849549) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 7:34 PM Author: The Penis Yeah I agree that Godel was 180. I think its funny that he was a gentile but still couldn't escape "Jewishness". There are many are many such examples. For instance Carnap (who is also 180) was a German gentile, but still was accused of Jewish Philosophy for being associated with the Vienna circle.
Another crazy story about Jewish Philosophy is Edmund Husserl. Heidegger was actually his student and Husserl was a big mentor of his, but when Husserl was accused of practicing Jewish Philosophy Heidegger, who was a Nazi, actually abandoned him completely. As rector of the University Heidegger had to even reinforce Husserl being stripped of his emeritus status and banned him from using the library. |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 7:47 PM Author: oomox Yeah it's 180. Vienna Circle stuff is my jam, I'm definitely a Jewish Philosopher. I like the super analytic stuff without any Right Answers or important applications. Just fun to think about. Erkenntnis is one of the journals on my list to potentially submit a paper I'm working on to.
re: Heidegger, that's crazy |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 7:56 PM Author: The Penis What's the paper about? I'm actually getting really into philosophy again and am thinking of working on writing something just for fun. Do they actually accept papers written by people outside academia or are the reviewers just automatically hostile? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49849723) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 8:51 PM Author: oomox They do blind review so it shouldn't hurt. Idk how common it is for outsiders to submit or get accepted but I want to at least try. My writing style likely gives me away as outsider or student because it's different from most stuff that gets published nowadays, it's very discursive and not jam-packed with lingo, but hopefully not too outside the norm. I basically sound like I'm trying to be Kripke tbh. I would tighten the prose for Erkenntnis in particular but want to try some others first.
It's about Reference and connects to a broader idea that I was thinking about all throughout school. It's specifically arguing that a singular description (definite description, name, etc.) can have multiple Semantic Referents in the context of an utterance, specifically when the Justification for the utterance is mixed between different targets. It plays off of some of the classic Kripke and Donellan thought experiments like the ones about "Smith's murderer." It started as a seminar paper I wrote in my junior year but earlier this year I came back to it and made it way more technical. Barely had to touch the Positive Proposal as it has stood the test of time imo. Now the bulk of the argumentation is there but I still have to say a bit more about truth value implications, and I need to do a lot more reading to substantively situate my theory among contemporary ones. Then I need to do all the necessary rewriting once ALL of the ideas are on the page. So I've made a lot of progress but still have a long way to go.
What kind of stuff do you want to write about? |
|
Date: April 29th, 2026 12:57 AM Author: The Penis I think I know what you are talking about. You are referring to this paper where Kripke gives a response to Donnellan and says that the speakers reference is pragmatic not semantic?--I think you are basically trying to say epistemic or justificatory nature of the utterance can be split across multiple targets? If so thats an aggressive move and 180.
I'm actually really not a big Kripke fan, I get that he was a math genius or whatever and invented an important modal logic. But a lot of his philosophical arguments are insane. I hate Naming and Necessity I think its idiotic. The entire thing was meant to refute descriptivism, but IMO ends up needing a hidden descriptivism at the metaphysical level to even get off the ground. I actually have a strong argument I was building up against it that I was thinking about a couple months ago about levels of description and their incommensurability that I'm not sure fully exists yet but i'd have to do a deep search to make sure I'm not just restating something. Maybe I'll try to write that one actually. The other position I have been trying to develop lately when I'm bored has to do with mathematical platonism. |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 7:55 AM Author: UN peacekeeper Wtf? Paralegal mohamed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848495) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 9:54 PM Author: UN peacekeeper 1. No, lots of jewish physics (yes incl quantum) has enormous predictive power. Obv string theory , dark matter are still theoretical. 2. You havent looked at witten’s’early life’ have you |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:00 PM Author: The Penis Yeah I guess I missed that one:
Witten was born on August 26, 1951, in Baltimore, Maryland, to a Jewish family,[8] as the eldest of four children. His brother Matt Witten became a writer, and his brother Jesse Amnon Witten became a law partner in the firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath.[9] Their sister Celia M. Witten earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from Stanford University[10] and then an M.D. from the University of Miami.[11] Edward Witten is the son of Lorraine (born Wollach) Witten[12] and Louis Witten, a theoretical physicist specializing in gravitation and general relativity.[13] |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:12 PM Author: cucumbers Physics also has enormous predictive problems and problems of interpretation. Quantum entanglement is the obvious example.
String theory isn't "just" theoretical -- it's a fantasy. You need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to actually test the theory. It's not going anywhere and is a distraction beyond whatever accidental, ancillary discoveries that came with it. |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:19 PM Author: The Penis Interpretation problems are the biggest issue imo. The "measurement" problem has at least a dozen philosophical interpretations consistent with the physics each with different ontologies. Then there are multiple interpretations at the formalism level too. Heisenberg matrix mechanics vs. Schrodinger wave vs. Feynman path integrals, vs. von neumann algebras, vs. Wigner phase-space formulations (and many more) all describing the same physical observations in "mathematically equivalent" ways that still expose different ontologies. Then it gets hand-waved away by operationalists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848005) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:21 PM Author: UN peacekeeper thinking that quantum needs an interpretation is itself a distraction at least according to bohr, bousso etc. brian greene & einstein would agree with you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848012) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:25 PM Author: The Penis Bohr was also Jewish and famously accused of Jewish Physics. And I'm wondering if his operationalist handwaving was a symptom of underlying talmudic relativism. "Shut up and calculate goyim", while conveniently ignoring the fact that we have a massive underdetermination of theory by evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848039) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:15 PM Author: ( ''.'') the pyramids were built with jewish physics (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49847996) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:47 PM Author: UhOh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848094) |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 10:58 PM Author: ,.,.,:,,:,..,:::,...,:,.,..:.,:.::,. there really is a strain of 'Jewish physics' that is complete grifting charlatanism and bullshit and mirrors the 'deconstructivist' scam in the social sciences.
Einstein stole most of his ideas from Germans anyway. |
|
Date: April 27th, 2026 11:10 PM Author: The Penis idk, Einstein was a legit genius who did more for 20th physics than anyone. Dirac was probably #2 followed by Bohr/Heisenberg. I get Einstein needed Lorentz and Hilbert to pull off his big theories, but I wouldn't say he "copied" anyone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848145) |
|
Date: April 28th, 2026 7:31 AM Author: The Penis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5861154&forum_id=2/#49848478) |
|
Date: April 29th, 2026 1:44 AM Author: oomox Wanted to talk about everything in your poast in less of a subthread wasteland. Yes you're almost exactly right, but it's not the epistemic/justificatory nature; I'm arguing that the One True Answer is that the reference is semantically split (in very specific cases). I don't actually believe in a One True Answer (even Multiple True Answers) but I'm arguing this because it challenges a long-held assumption and I think it's defensible. And even if they don't buy it, my examples are interesting and allegedly bring up important points, according to my prof when I first wrote about this. But the epistemic/justificatory part, I don't know how to summarize it but it's part of what contributes to the True Referent(s) in addition to facts about the real world. Hard to explain without the illustrations in the paper so dw if that's incoherent. The important part is that it IS an aggressive move.
OK so what you said is crazy because I loved Naming and Necessity, it was the first philosophy I ever read and I was IMMEDIATELY HOOKED, it was sososo interesting and fun to read and think about... but I never agreed with any of it. And from how I'm interpreting "needing a hidden descriptivism at the metaphysical level to even get off the ground," I may have had v similar criticisms. And like I wasn't buying any of the counterfactual/conceivability-based thought experiments he had, honestly they didn't make sense to me because they seemed to rest on some underlying beliefs I didn't share or couldn't quite grasp. Counterfactuals in Metaphysics still confuse me so maybe it's a skill issue.
Tell me MOAR about both "levels of description and their incommensurability" and the mathematical platonism idea. |