The Harvard Swampland Initiative

The past few years I’ve been noticing more and more claims like this one, supposedly finding a way to “connect string theory to experiment”. When you look into such claims you don’t find anything at all like a conventional experiment/theory connection of the usual scientific method, giving testable predictions and a way to move science forward. As for what you do find, for many years I tried writing about this in detail (see here and here), but that’s clearly a waste of time.

One thing that mystifies me about such claims is that I find it very hard to believe that most theorists take them seriously, always assumed that the great majority was with Nima Arkani-Hamed, who recently characterized the track record of this kind of thing as “really garbage”. But if most theorists think this is garbage, why am I seeing more and more of it? A hint of an answer comes from the paper with the supposed connection, which describes the Harvard Swampland Initiative as the place the work initiated.

I hadn’t been aware there was a Harvard Swampland Initiative, but it it is a Research Center at Harvard, running an “immersive program” in which “participants collectively navigate the Swampland”. More importantly, it has no less than ten associated postdoc positions. On the scale of different ways of having influence on a field, being able to hand out ten postdoc positions at Harvard is right up there. This goes a long way towards explaining to me what I’ve been seeing in recent years. It also makes me quite depressed: when I started my career in that department in the late seventies, the idea that fifty years later this is what it would come to is something beyond any one’s worst nightmare at the time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Few Items

A few items, all involving Peter Scholze in one way or another:

  • A seminar in Bonn on Scholze’s geometrization of real local Langlands is finishing up next week. This is working out details of ideas that Scholze presented at the IAS Emmy Noether lectures back in March. Until recently video of those lectures was all that was available (see here, here and here), but since April there’s also this overview of the Bonn Seminar, and now Scholze has made available a draft version of a paper on the subject.
  • In three weeks there will be a conference in Bonn in honor of Faltings’ 70th birthday. Scholze’s planned talk is entitled “Are the real numbers perfectoid?”, with abstract

    Rodriguez Camargo’s analytic de Rham stacks play a key role in the geometrization of “locally analytic” local Langlands both over the real and p-adic numbers. In both settings, one also uses a notion of perfectoid algebras, with the critical property being that “perfectoidization is adjoint to passing to analytic de Rham stacks”. This suggests a “global” definition of perfectoid rings. We will explain this definition, and present some partial results on the relation to the established p-adic notion. Two natural open questions are whether tilting works in this setting; and what perfectoid algebras over the real numbers look like.

  • On the abc conjecture front, Kirti Joshi has a new document explaining his view of The status of the Scholze-Stix Report and an analysis of the Mochizuki-Scholze-Stix Controversy. To some extent what’s at issue is what was discussed by Scholze and others on my blog back in April 2020 (see here). Joshi is trying to make an argument that there is a way around the problem being discussed there, but I don’t think he has so far managed to convince others of his argument (Mochizuki refuses to even discuss with him). He ends with the following:

    Meanwhile, Scholze and I are having a respectful and professional conversation (on going) as I work to clarify his questions; while I continue to wait for Mochizuki’s response to my emails.

    He also clarifies that he has not yet finished a water-tight proof of abc along Mochizuki’s lines:

    My position on whether or not Mochizuki has proved the abc-conjecture is still open (as my preprint [Joshi, 2024a] still remains under consideration). In other words, I’m currently neutral on the matter of the abc-conjecture. However, I continue to work on [Joshi, 2024b,a] to tie up all the loose ends.

Update: In the comments someone points to this conference at MIT next week, which will start off with a talk by Faltings on Mordell past and present. That conference will be followed by this one the following week.

Posted in abc Conjecture, Langlands | 7 Comments

Physical Intuition vs. “Math”

A common theme in discussions online of the problems of fundamental theoretical physics is that the subject has gotten “lost in math”, losing touch with “physical intuition”. In such discussions, when people refer to “math” it’s hard to figure out what they mean by this. In the case of Sabine Hossenfelder’s “Lost in Math” you can read her book and get some idea of what specifically she is referring to, but usually the references to “math” don’t come with any way of finding out what the person using the term means by it. Here I’ll mostly leave “math” in quotation marks, since the interesting issue of what this means is not being addressed.

“Physical intuition” is also a term whose meaning is not so clear. Sometimes I see it used in an obviously naive way, referring to our understanding of the physical world that comes from our everyday interaction with it and the feeling this gives us for how classical mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics work. Some people are quite devoted to the idea that this is the way to understand fundamental physics, sometimes taking this as far as skepticism about subjects like quantum mechanics.

Usually though, the term is not being used in this naive sense, but as meaning something more like “the sort of understanding of physical phenomena someone has who has spent a great deal of time working out many examples of how to apply physics theory, so can use this to see patterns and guess how some new example will work out”. This is contrasted to the person lacking such intuition, who will have to fall back on “math”, in this situation meaning writing down the general textbook equations and mathematically manipulating them to produce an answer appropriate for the given example, without any intuitive understanding of the result of the calculation. This is what we expect to see in students who are just learning a new subject, haven’t yet worked out enough examples to have the right intuition.

If the question though is not how to apply well understood fundamental theory to a new example, but how to come up with a better fundamental theory, I’d like to make the provocative claim that “physical intuition” is not going to be that helpful. New breakthroughs in fundamental theory have the characteristic of being unexpectedly different than earlier theory. The best way to come up with such breakthroughs is from new experimental results that conflict with the standard theory and point to a better one. But, what if you don’t have such results? It seems to me that in that case your best hope is “math”.

Here’s a list of the great breakthroughs of fundamental physics in the 20th century, with some comments on the role of “physical intuition” and “math”.

  • Special relativity: According to physical intuition, if I’m emitting a light ray and speed up in its direction, so will the the speed of the light ray. The crucial input was from experiment (Michelson-Morley), which showed that light always travels at the same speed. Finding a sensible theory of mechanics with this property was largely “math”.
  • General relativity: There’s a long argument about the role of “math” here, but I think the only way to develop “physical intuition” about curved spacetime is to start by learning Riemannian geometry (which Einstein did).
  • Quantum mechanics: Here again, a crucial role was played by experimental results, those on atomic spectra. A large part of the development of the subject was applying “math” to the mysterious spectra for which there was zero “physical intuition”. Later on, a better understanding of the theory and better calculational methods involved bringing in a large amount of new “math” to physics, especially the theory of unitary representations of groups.
  • Yang-Mills theory: This was pretty much pure “math”: replacing a U(1) gauge theory by an SU(2) gauge theory.
  • Gell-Mann’s eight-fold way: Pure “math”.
  • The Anderson-Higgs mechanism: The funny thing here is that Anderson did get this out of “physical intuition”, based on what he knew from superconductivity. Particle theorists ignored him (especially when it came time for a Nobel Prize), and their papers about this were often mainly “math”, more specifically argumentation about how the mathematics of gauge symmetry could give a loophole to a theorem (the Goldstone theorem).
  • The unified electroweak theory: Looks to me more like “math” than “physical intuition”.
  • QCD and asymptotic freedom: David Gross famously had the “physical intuition” that the effective coupling grows in the ultraviolet for all QFTs, based on experience with a wide range of examples. He set a mathematical problem for his student (Frank Wilczek), and when the “mathematics” was finally sorted out, they realized the usual physical intuition for QFTs had to be replaced by something completely different.

Making a list instead of the great disasters of 20th century theoretical physics, there’s

  • Supersymmetry: OK, this one is “math”. I suspect though that the problem here is that the “math” is not quite right, but missing some other needed new ideas.
  • String theory: As we’re told in countless books and TV programs, this starts with a new “physical intuition”: instead of taking point particles as primitive objects, take the vibrational modes of a vibrating string. Developing the implications of this certainly involves a lot of “math”, but the new fundamental idea is a physical one (and it’s wrong, but that’s a different story…).
Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments

Latest Breakthrough From String Theory

PRL has just published this paper (preprint here), with associated press release here. The press release explains that the authors have discovered how to use string theory to provide “an easier way to extract pi from calculations involved in deciphering processes like the quantum scattering of high-energy particles.”

The press release has led to stories here, here and here, as well as commentary from Sabine Hossenfelder.

As for applications of this, the press release refers to Positron Emission Tomography, while one of the stories linked above gives the more modest explanation of what this is good for:

The series found by IISc researchers combines specific parameters in such a way that scientists can rapidly arrive at the value of pi, which can then be incorporated in calculations, like those involved in deciphering scattering of high-energy particles, the release said.

Update: This just gets more and more idiotic as the press stories multiply. India Today now has Indian physicists untangle new pi series that could change maths forever. It would be helpful if the people who issued this press release had some sense of shame and had it withdrawn.

Posted in This Week's Hype | 18 Comments

The Mystery of Spin

The following makes no claims to originality or any physical significance on its own. For a better explanation of some of the math and the physical significance of the use of quaternions here, see this lecture by John Baez.

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about spinors and vectors in four dimensions, where I do think there is some important physical significance to the kind of issue discussed here. See chapter 10 here for something about four dimensions. A project for the rest of the semester is to write a lot more about this four-dimensional story.

Until recently I was very fond of the following argument: in three dimensions the relation between spinors and vectors is very simple, with spinors the more fundamental objects. If one uses the double cover $SU(2)=Spin(3)$ of the rotation group $SO(3)$, the spinor (S) and vector (V) representations satisfy
$$ S\otimes S = \mathbf 1 \oplus V$$
which is just the fact well-known to physicists that if you take the tensor product of two spinor representations, you get a scalar and a vector. The spinors are more fundamental, since you can construct $V$ using $S$, but not the other way around.

I still think spinor geometry is more fundamental than geometry based on vectors. But it’s become increasingly clear to me that there is something quite subtle going on here. The spinor representation is on $S=\mathbf C^2$, but one wants the vector representation to be on $V_{\mathbf R}=\mathbf R^3$, not on its complexification $V=\mathbf C^3$, which is what one gets by taking the tensor product of spinors.

To get a $V_{\mathbf R}$ from $V$, one needs an extra piece of structure: a real conjugation on $V$. This is a map
$$\sigma:V\rightarrow V$$
which

  • commutes with the $SU(2)$ action
  • is antilinear
    $$ \sigma(\lambda v)=\overline{\lambda}\sigma(v)$$
  • satisfies $\sigma^2=\mathbf 1$

$V_{\mathbf R}$ is then the conjugation-invariant subset of $V$.

If we were interested not in usual 3d Euclidean geometry and $Spin(3)$, but in the geometry of $\mathbf R^3$ with an inner product of $(2,1)$ signature, then the rotation group would be the time-orientation preserving subgroup $SO^+(2,1)\subset SO(2,1)$, with double cover $SL(2,\mathbf R)$. In this case the usual complex conjugations on $\mathbf C^2$ and $\mathbf C^3$ provide real conjugation maps that pick out real spinor ($S_{\mathbf R}=\mathbf R^2\subset S$) and vector
$(V_{\mathbf R}=\mathbf R^3\subset V=S\otimes S)$ representations.

For the case of Euclidean geometry and $Spin(3)$, there is no possible real conjugation map $\sigma$ on $S$, and while there is a real conjugation map on $V$, it is not complex conjugation. To better understand what is going on, one can introduce the quaternions $\mathbf H$, and understand the spin representation in terms of them. The spin group $Spin(3)=SU(2)$ is the group $Sp(1)$ of unit-length quaternions and the spin representation on $S=\mathbf H$ is just the action on $s\in S$ of a unit quaternion $q$ by left multiplication
$$s\rightarrow qs$$
(we could instead define things using right multiplication).

There is an action of $\mathbf H$ on $S$ commuting with the spin representation, the right action on $S$ by elements $x\in \mathbf H$ according to
$$s\rightarrow s\overline{q}$$
(this is a right action since $\overline {q_1q_2}=\overline q_2\ \overline q_1$).

This quaternionic version of the spin representation is a complex representation of the spin group, since the right action by the quaternion $\mathbf i$ provides a complex structure on $S=\mathbf H$. While there are no real conjugation maps $\sigma$ on the spin representation $S$, there is instead a quaternionic conjugation map, meaning an anti-linear map $\tau$ commuting with the spin representation and satisfying $\tau^2=-\mathbf 1$. An example is given by right multiplication by $\mathbf j$
$$\tau (q)=q\mathbf j$$
Note that in the above we could have replaced $\mathbf i$ by any unit-length purely imaginary quaternion and $\mathbf j$ by any other unit-length purely imaginary quaternion anticommuting with the first.

In general, a representation of a group $G$ on a complex vector space $V$ is called

  • A real representation if there is a real conjugation $\sigma$. In this case the group acts on the $\sigma$-invariant subspace $V_\mathbf R\subset V$ and $V$ is the complexification of $V_\mathbf R$.
  • A quaternionic representation if there is a quaternionic conjugation $\tau$. In this case $\tau$ makes $V$ a quaternionic vector space, in a way that commutes with the group action.

Returning to our original situation of the relation $S\otimes S= 1 \oplus V$ between complex representations, $S$ is a quaternionic representation, with a quaternionic conjugation $\tau$. Applying $\tau$ to both terms of the tensor product the minus signs cancel and one gets a real conjugation $\sigma$ on $V$.

What’s a bit mysterious is not the above, but the fact that when we do quantum mechanics, we have to work with complex numbers, not quaternions. We then have to find a consistent way to replace quaternions by complex two by two matrices when they are rotations and and complex column vectors when they are spinors (so $S=\mathbf C^2$ rather than $\mathbf H$).

In my book on QM and representation theory I use a standard sort of choice that identifies $\mathbf i,\mathbf j,\mathbf k$ with corresponding Pauli matrices (up to a factor of $i$):
$$1\leftrightarrow \mathbf 1=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix},\ \ \mathbf i\leftrightarrow -i\sigma_1=\begin{pmatrix}0&-i\\ -i&0\end{pmatrix},\ \ \mathbf j\leftrightarrow -i\sigma_2=\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix}$$
$$\mathbf k\leftrightarrow -i\sigma_3=\begin{pmatrix}-i&0\\ 0&i\end{pmatrix}$$
or equivalently identifies
$$q=q_0 +q_1\mathbf i +q_2\mathbf j + q_3\mathbf k \leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}q_0-iq_3&-q_2-iq_1\\q_2-iq_1 &q_0 +iq_3\end{pmatrix}$$

Note that this particular choice incorporates the physicist’s traditional convention distinguishing the $3$-direction as the one for which the spin matrix is diagonalized.

The subtle problem here is the same one discussed above. Just as the vector representation is complex with a non-obvious real conjugation, here complex matrices give not $\mathbf H$ but its complexification
$$M(2,\mathbf C)=\mathbf H\otimes_{\mathbf R}\mathbf C$$
Note added: complexified quaternions are often called “biquaternions”
The real conjugation is not complex conjugation, but the non-obvious map
$$\sigma (\begin{pmatrix}\alpha&\beta \\ \gamma & \delta\end{pmatrix})= \begin{pmatrix}\overline\delta &-\overline\gamma \\ -\overline\beta & \overline\alpha \end{pmatrix}$$

Among mathematicians (see for example Keith Conrad’s Quaternion Algebras), a standard way to consistently identify $\mathbf H$ with a subset of complex matrices as well as with $\mathbf C^2$, (giving the spinor representation) is the following:

  • Identify $\mathbf C\subset \mathbf H$ as
    $$z=x+iy\in \mathbf C \leftrightarrow x+\mathbf i y \in \mathbf H$$
  • Identify $\mathbf H$ as a complex vector space with $\mathbf C^2$ by
    $$q=z +\mathbf j w \leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}z\\ w\end{pmatrix}$$
    Note that one needs to be careful about the order of multiplication when writing quaternions this way (where multiplication by a complex number is on the right), since
    $$z+w\mathbf j= z+\mathbf j\overline w$$
  • Identify $\mathbf H$ as a subset of $M(2,\mathbf C)$ by
    $$q=z +\mathbf jw \leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}z&-\overline{w}\\ w& \overline z\end{pmatrix}$$
  • This is determined by requiring that multiplication of quaternions in the spinor story correspond correctly to multiplication of an element of $\mathbf C^2$ by a matrix.

    With this identification
    $$\mathbf i\leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}i&0\\ 0&-i\end{pmatrix},\ \ \mathbf j\leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix},\ \ \mathbf k\leftrightarrow \begin{pmatrix} 0&-i\\ -i&0\end{pmatrix}$$

    This is a bit different than the Pauli matrix version above, but shares the same real conjugation map identifying $\mathbf H$ as a subset of $M(2,\mathbf C)$.

Update: There’s a very new video here, where Keith Conrad discusses quaternions, especially the case of quaternion algebras over $\mathbf Q$ and their relation to quadratic reciprocity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Strings 2024

There’s been very little blogging here the past month or so. For part of the time I was on vacation, but another reason is that there just hasn’t been very much to write about. Today I thought I’d start looking at the talks from this week’s Strings 2024 conference.

The weird thing about this version of Strings 20XX is that it’s a complete reversal of the trend of recent years to have few if any talks about strings at the Strings conference. I started off looking at the first talk, which was about something never talked about at these conferences in recent years: how to compactify string theory and get real world physics. It starts off with some amusing self-awareness, noting that this subject was several years old (and not going anywhere…) before the speaker was even born. It rapidly though becomes unfunny and depressing, with slides and slides full of endless complicated constructions, with no mention of the fact that these don’t look anything like the real world, recalling Nima Arkani Hamed’s recent quote:

“String theory is spectacular. Many string theorists are wonderful. But the track record for qualitatively correct statements about the universe is really garbage”

The next day started off with Maldacena on the BFSS conjecture. This was a perfectly nice talk about an idea from 25-30 years ago about what M-theory might be that never worked out as hoped.

Coming up tomorrow is Jared Kaplan explaining:

why it’s plausible that AI systems will be better than humans at theoretical physics research by the end of the decade.

I’m generally of the opinion that AI won’t be able to do really creative work in a subject like this, but have to agree that likely it will soon be able to do the kind of thing the Strings 2024 speakers are talking about better than they can.

The conference will end on Friday with Strominger and Ooguri on The Future of String Theory. As at all string theory conferences, they surely will explain how string theorists deserve an A+++, great progress is being made, the future is bright, etc. They have put together a list of 100 open questions. Number 83 asks what will happen now that the founders of string theory are retiring and dying off, suggesting that AI is the answer:

train an LLM with the very best papers written by the founding members, so that it can continue to set the trend of the community.

That’s all I can stand of this kind of thing for now without getting hopelessly depressed about the future. I’ll try in coming weeks to write more about very different topics, and stop wasting time on the sad state of affairs of a field that long ago entered intellectual collapse.

Update: The slides for the AI talk are here. The speaker is Jared Kaplan, a Johns Hopkins theorist who is a co-founder of Anthropic and on leave working as its Chief Science Officer. His talk has a lot of generalities about AI and its very fast progress, little specifically about AI doing theoretical physics.

Posted in Strings 2XXX | 31 Comments

Wormholes, Part Deux

I had thought that the universally negative reaction to the fall 2022 wormhole publicity stunt meant that we’d never hear more about this, with even the editors of Quanta magazine having understood that they’d been had. While away on vacation though, I learned from Dulwich Quantum Computing that all the authors of the original stunt are back, now claiming not just wormhole teleportation, but Long-range wormhole teleportation.

I’d also thought that no one at this point could possibly think it was a good idea to help these authors go to the public with their claims about creating wormholes in a lab. It seems though that this coming weekend if you’re here in NYC you can buy tickets to listen to some of them explain in person

the mind-bending speculation that we may be able to create wormholes—tunnels through spacetime—in the laboratory.

Posted in Wormhole Publicity Stunts | 4 Comments

Various and Sundry

The semester here is coming to a close. I’m way behind writing up notes for the lectures I’ve been giving, which are ending with covering the details of the Standard Model. This summer I’ll try to finish the notes and will be working on writing out explicitly the details of how the Standard Model works in the “right-handed” picture of the spinor geometry of spacetime that I outlined here.

At this point I need a vacation, heading soon to France for a couple weeks, then will return here and get back to work. There may be little to no blogging here for a while.

On the Langland’s front, Laurent Fargues is turning his Eilenberg lectures here last fall into a book, available here. In Bonn, Peter Scholze is running a seminar on Real local Langlands as geometric Langlands on the twistor-P1

Update: One more item. Videos of talks from a conference on arithmetic geometry in honor of Helene Esnault at the IHES last week are now available. Dustin Clausen’s talk covers one of my favorite topics (the Cartan model for equivariant cohomology), making use of the new formalism for handling he has developed with Scholze for handling C-infinity manifolds in a more algebraic way.

Update: Now back from vacation. While I was away, Quanta made up for its nonsense like this with a very nice article about “Weil’s Rosetta Stone” and what it has to do with geometric Langlands. In the comments people have pointed to the proof of geometric Langlands that has finally been finished, and New Scientist has an article (or see Edward Frenkel on Twitter here).

Posted in Euclidean Twistor Unification, Langlands | 14 Comments

This Week’s Hype

Until about a year and a half ago, the way to get funding in physics was to somehow associate yourself to the hot trend of quantum computing and quantum information theory. Large parts of the string theory and quantum gravity communities did what they could to take advantage of this. On November 30, 2022, this all of a sudden changed as two things happened on the same day:

  • Quanta magazine, Nature and various other places were taken in by a publicity stunt, putting out that day videos and articles about how “Physicists Create a Wormhole Using a Quantum Computer”. The IAS director compared the event to “Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observations providing the evidence for general relativity.” Within a few days though, people looking at the actual calculation realized that these claims were absurd. The subject had jumped the shark and started becoming a joke among serious theorists. That quantum computers more generally were not living up to their hype didn’t help.
  • OpenAI released ChatGPT, very quickly overwhelming everyone with evidence of how advanced machine learning-based AI had become.

If you’re a theorist interested in getting funding, obviously the thing to do was to pivot quickly from quantum computing to machine learning and AI, and get to work on the people at Quanta to provide suitable PR. Today Quanta features an article explaining how “Using machine learning, string theorists are finally showing how microscopic configurations of extra dimensions translate into sets of elementary particles.”

Looking at these new neural network calculations, what’s remarkable is that they’re essentially a return to a failed project of nearly 40 years ago. In 1985 the exciting new idea was that maybe compactifying a 10d superstring on a Calabi-Yau would give the Standard Model. It quickly became clear that this wasn’t going to work. A minor problem was that there were quite a few classes of Calabi-Yaus, but the really big problem was that the Calabi-Yaus in each class were parametrized by a large dimensional moduli space. One needed some method of “moduli stabilization” that would pick out specific moduli parameters. Without that, the moduli parameters became massless fields, introducing a huge host of unobserved new long-range interactions. The state of the art 20 years later is that endless arguments rage over whether Rube Goldberg-like constructions such as KKLT can consistently stabilize moduli (if they do, you get the “landscape” and can’t calculate anything anyway, since these constructions give exponentially large numbers of possibilities).

If you pay attention to these arguments, you soon realize that the underlying problem is that no one knows what the non-perturbative theory governing moduli stabilization might be. This is the “What Is String Theory?” problem that a consensus of theorists agrees is neither solved nor on its way to solution.

The new neural network twist on the old story is to be able to possibly compute some details of explicit Calabi-Yau metrics, allowing you to compute some numbers that it was clear back in the late 1980s weren’t really relevant to anything since they were meaningless unless you had solved the moduli stabilization program. Quanta advertises this new paper and this one (which “opens the door to precision string phenomenology”) as well a different sort of calculation which used genetic algorithms to show that “the size of the string landscape is no longer a major impediment in the way of constructing realistic string models of Particle Physics.”

I’ll end with a quote from the article, in which Nima Arkani-Hamed calls this work “garbage” in the nicest possible way:

“String theory is spectacular. Many string theorists are wonderful. But the track record for qualitatively correct statements about the universe is really garbage,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

A question for Quanta: why are you covering “garbage”?

Update: String theorist Marcos Mariño on twitter:

In my view, using today’s AI to calculate the details of string compactifications is such a waste of time that I fear that a future Terminator will come to our present to take revenge for the merciless, useless exploitation of its grandparents.

Update: More string theory AI hype here.

Posted in This Week's Hype | 23 Comments

Science Outreach News

A few items on the science outreach front:

  • The Oscars of Science were held Saturday night in Hollywood, with a long list of A-listers in attendance, led by Kim Kardashian. More here, here and here.

    You’ll be able to watch the whole thing on Youtube starting April 21.

  • The World Science Festival will have some live programs here in New York May 30 – June 2. One of the programs will feature the physicists responsible for the Wormhole Publicity Stunt explaining how

    we may be able to create wormholes—tunnels through spacetime—in the laboratory.

  • Stringking42069 is back on Twitter with his outreach efforts for the string theory community.
Posted in Uncategorized, Wormhole Publicity Stunts | 27 Comments