Dear Magicians,

Has progress in theoretical physics stalled? This question haunted my recent conversation with Eric Weinstein and Avi Loeb, our first recorded dialogue in over two years.

The reunion felt like a reckoning. Eric argues physics has been “soft sunsetted” – not suppressed through inquisition-style persecution, but through something possibly more insidious: the bureaucratic asphyxiation of ideas threatening the status quo.

Looking at the 20th century’s theoretical triumphs – general relativity, quantum mechanics, the Standard Model – against recent decades suggests a troubling deceleration. But why? Have we picked all low-hanging fruit? Reached the limits of human intellectual capacity? Or is there something more sociological at play?

Eric reserves particular criticism for physics “gatekeepers” and prominent science communicators who, he believes, have shaped public perception while offering little substance and incentivizing risk aversion over revolution.

During our conversation, Eric also challenged a troubling narrative gaining traction – the characterization of scientists as “welfare queens in white lab coats.” He finds this trope deeply misguided, yet simultaneously criticizes the scientific community for failing to effectively defend their value. Scientists produce public goods – knowledge, technology, and innovations that benefit society far beyond grant dollars spent – but have struggled to articulate this impact with the precision their craft demands. Eric suggests that while institutions may be flawed, demonizing the scientific enterprise misses the extraordinary returns on our investment.

Avi Loeb takes a different approach. As one of few voices actively pursuing unconventional ideas – like investigating potential extraterrestrial technology – he represents a pragmatic path forward. Where Eric sees institutional rot as potentially fatal, Avi believes science remains capable of dramatic recovery with the right treatment.

What struck me most was the question of credibility. Science once held unassailable authority as the domain of rigorous inquiry and falsifiability. Today, trust has eroded, not only from external political forces but from internal contradictions made explicit during the pandemic. Science became less a process and more a brand – an ideological cudgel wielded with absolute certainty even in the face of uncertainty.

The emergence of voices like Eric, Sabine Hossenfelder, Garrett Lisi, and Stephen Wolfram – positioned as dissenters from orthodoxy – speaks to a tectonic shift in public perception of science.

Is this schism repairable? Eric suggests institutions have become so self-referential and risk-averse that rebuilding might be necessary. Avi sees a path forward through data, public engagement, and curiosity-driven science that doesn’t begin with predetermined answers.

Perhaps the true test isn’t whether we can produce another relativity-scale breakthrough, but whether we even have the will to try.

I remain hopeful, but for the first time in a long while, deeply uncertain.

Until next time, have a M.A.G.I.C. Week,

Brian