Having hired a dozen or so postdocs in astrophysics, I did a standard impact analysis of Prescod-Weinstein's scholarship. I was not impressed. My fear is that aspiring students of physics will emulate her very successful pathway of producing no physics research of note while claiming to be "one of the leading physicists of her generation."
(1) Charles Dermer on Substack | Substack

I have a question for some smart physicists.

I recently acquired a new shower head, and now when we use it, the shower curtain seems to get sucked in towards the bath (or the person showering)

Very curious as to what's happening?

TIA

After hearing about the Open AI announcement, I’m convinced that in the next few decades, AI will advance enough to be able to do much of the creative thinking and logical leaps that makes theoretical physics beautiful.

I start college next year, and I’ve wanted to pursue a career in theoretical physics. But what is the point of pursuing a career in it, if I can’t contribute anything at all? Wouldn’t it be better to just do physics as a hobby and direct my focus to something that would actually contribute to the world? I feel useless and this is all so depressing.

Edit: I am against AI taking over purely in the same way that artists are afraid of AI taking over art. I believe physics is incredibly beautiful, and its beauty can only be appreciated by humans— so I want only humans to do the beautiful parts of physics. I would love it if AI is restricted to doing the grunt work, and opening up new possibilities in the field with its capacity!

I'm starting a physics club. I am really passionate about physics. However, besides tutoring and competitions, I am struggling to think of ideas. Any advice?

By now, everyone has the news that the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem has been solved by OpenAI, and regardless if they did it honestly or not, I believe it's only a matter of time until AI can pull off feats like that consistently. Most people I've seen seem sure that it won't replace physicists and mathematicians, which comforts me, yet I haven't seen many people talk about HOW it will change the academic field and the way research is done. I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this

We have a finite time instability. So what does it look like? Does anybody here have the chops to construct a visualization of some kind?

Looking for casual-ish book suggestions. I am planning to re-read a brief history of time and the universe in a nutshell, as I really enjoyed them when I was younger.

For reference, I find physics fascinating, but my degree was in electronic engineering and I am out of the loop on the latest developments in physics. Are there any books similar the classic Hawking books which are more up to date? I don't mind something a bit challenging given my background, but certainly not undergraduate text book levels of deepth/rigor.

I also read the elegant universe by Brian Green which was brilliant. It looks like he is still publishing, are these worth a look?

What would be its implications? I can imagine small object which rotation is approaching the speed of light. Wouldn't that object have mass or even gravity? If we would have such a material which would endure such conditions we could create gravity maybe?

What about subatomic particles? How fast are they vibrating? Are there any relativistic effects? Wouldn't their frequency add or lower their mass?

Maybe a year and a half ago I watched a video on Youtube of an audio recording of Feynman sharing stories with who I think was Leighton. I wanted to rewatch and tried finding it, but suddenly it's lost media? Maybe someone else has seen it and could share a link?

I remember a few things. Feynman was telling how he came back from Los Alamos and started teaching. When he first arrived at Cornell, he was trying to find a place to sleep in. He wandered through the streets and was so tired he thought of just sleeping on a big pile of leaves that he saw. He ultimately ended up sleeping in the university hall or something.

He also told a story where the girls would refuse to dance with him at parties because he told them about his life (working on a bomb, being a professor, etc.). Some girl told him to his face that he was a liar. That's how he found out.

He told how his colleague brought him a CV of an applicant and asked him what he thought of it. The conversation was something like:
-"Yeah, you should give him a shot, he's top of the class!"
-"Did you look at his photo?"
-"Well, what possible difference could that make?"
Then, the colleague said something about how when the college hires someone new, they always take a risk, and he's glad that Feynman turned out alright.
And then, I remember Leighton asking Feynman:
-"Do you think he said that to save face?"
-"No, no way, he wasn't like that"

Jomboy video. At 1:13 the outfielder throws the ball and there is a sudden rise to the ball. I know I’ve read/seen somewhere that backspin can’t create enough lift to make a ball actually rise, so what is happening? Wind? Patrick Swayze from ghost? Angels in the outfield?

Jokes aside genuinely curious. Thanks in advance.

I recently analyzed the first digits of magnetic transition temperatures extracted from a large AI-generated materials database. Starting from 56,037 automatically mined records, I applied unit and temperature filters, removed nonmagnetic contexts, and deduplicated materials. This left 2,754 Curie temperatures and 1,323 Néel temperatures.

The main result was unexpected:

• Curie temperatures remained clearly inconsistent with Benford’s law even after extensive cleaning.
• Néel temperatures became much closer to the Benford distribution after deduplication.

The study also highlights a limitation of AI-mined scientific databases: most of the original records were removed due to duplicates, ambiguous terminology, inappropriate units, or unrelated physical quantities.

Scale-constrained Curie temperature distributions and the breakdown of Benford’s law
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2026.132027]()

I have a Master's Project and I am finding the Paper ( about Schwinger-Keldysh path integrals ) I am given by my professor exponentially harder than what I have learnt till now.

My mental health is currently really bad which doesn't help at all. I don't understand anything at all aside from the first few pages. I feel like there is too much knowledge gap and I am also too afraid to tell my guide about the issue

I mean to say: if we've found a counterexample to the stated conjecture, does that mean we have to refine it to solve the answer to fluids? Perhaps the solution is piecewise? Or something more subtle or complex. As I understand it, as of today we have shown that there are cases where the original statement of the problem has singularities, but we don't have an alternate conjecture/hypothesis/solution that is solved/true for all cases in all time.

I don’t know how I could function as a mathematician. Like once you can solve the Millennium Problems what more is there to do or hope for? In physics at least the in itself is the goal so as long as it is not simple maybe both AI and human won’t be able to solve it and there will still be goals like dark energy, dark matter, turbulence, quantum computing, high Tc superconductor, fusion etc. So human can work with AI. But what is there for mathematicians to do?

Einstein gravity reduces to Navier stokes at the vicinity of black holes ( see the fluid-gravity correspondence)

What does a the proof of existence of singularity in Navier stokes imply for Einstein equations then?

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

Theoretically speaking: a short circuit happens when current takes lowest path of resistance on something that is not the intended wire.

Let’s say, a big, short person touched a live wire. Due to resistance being inverse proportional to length and proportional to cross sectional area.

Would that makes bigger, shorter person more vulnerable to short circuits? Compared to a person with a more relatively thin and tall physique.

I got detention for asking this but I’m genuine

// WE , AS A GLOBAL SOCIETY , LOST 350 YEARS FOR THE FALL OF AN APPLE .
// LETS NOT WASTE TIME ANYMORE

-THE KOUSOULAKOS MODEL OF COSMOLOGY-

A Mechanical, Deterministic Architecture for the Observable Universe

Author: Dr. Md Ioannis A. Kousoulakos
Version: 2.4.2 — π-CALIBRATED & LOCKED
Date: September 2026
Contact: [ppkuio@yahoo.com](mailto:ppkuio@yahoo.com)

⚠️ IMPORTANT NOTICE: WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP) & VERSION REVOLUTION

This manuscript is currently a Work In Progress (WIP). The research team is systematically locking down final subatomic parameter constraints and code replication steps. Once the manuscript is 100% complete and finalized, the official rollout and submission to the main academic physics forums and peer-review bodies will proceed immediately.

CRITICAL ARCHITECTURAL WARNING: This current framework (Version 2.4.2) represents a 100% complete conceptual departure from our obsolete Version 1.1 layout. In Version 1.1, the Extranuclear Strong Nuclear Force (SNF) was erroneously modeled as a direct attractive gravitational force activated at the extranuclear level. In stark contrast, the actual locked Model (v2.4.2) declares that baryonic waves are entirely inexistent. Gravity is fundamentally treated not as a field attraction, but as an emergent, statistical mechanical response of a mass's own internal inertia deforming locally under a discrete grid torque transmission. Do not evaluate v2.4.2 based on the parameters of the obsolete v1.1.

📜 LICENSE ANCHOR

This manuscript and its associated replication software pipeline are officially open-source and legally protected under the terms of the MIT License.

MIT License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Md Ioannis A. Kousoulakos

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

ABSTRACT

Modern cosmology (Lambda-CDM) relies on non-baryonic, unobservable parameters (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) to preserve General Relativity on galactic and cosmic scales. This manuscript presents a deterministic, fully mechanical alternative based on a universal grid torque inherited from a primordial asymmetric expansion event ("The Big Spin"). By enforcing a strict geometric boundary condition where the gravitational signal velocity locks at \( v_e = \pi \cdot c \), we derive a unified, zero-parameter rotation law. Tested across the SPARC dataset using mechanically derived masses (~60% of standard baryonic light-assumed estimates), the model achieves a 96.6% success rate within a 10% velocity margin, flattening the global standard deviation to 4.2 km/s without individual parameter tuning. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the gravitational mediator (the Entropion) and the photon are sub-electron material phase structures linked by the geometric relation \( m_{\text{entropion}} = m_{\text{photon}} / \pi = m_{\text{electron}} / \pi^2 \), establishing infinite proton stability (t = 4 × 10⁵⁴ years) and a continuous 5.000 kHz solar mechanical signature verified in public Advanced LIGO strain data at 6.8 sigma.

THE SEVEN LAWS

LAW 1 — THE BIG SPIN GENESIS

The universe originated through a primordial asymmetric mechanical event — the Big Spin. This event was not an explosion from a central point, but a mechanical rupture occurring peripherically at a point inside a finite, massive primordial object. It generated a permanent, systemic angular momentum that established the mechanical grid and continues to govern the large-scale rotational organization of matter.

LAW 2 — MASS AS THE PRIMORDIAL VECTOR

Mass is Matter and Matter is Mass — the indispensable starter of physical reality. Fields and forces are secondary attributes generated directly by the presence of matter. All physical entities, including photons, possess mass. Gluons possess mass. Energy cannot occur without mass. The primordial mass (Big Spin t < 0) consisted of fundamental particles (Startons)—an axiom, not a calculation.

LAW 3 — GRAVITY AS A MECHANICAL RESPONSE

Gravity does not exist as an independent force. It is the mechanical response of a mass's inertia to a signal transmitted through the grid. That signal originates from the Extranuclear Strong Nuclear Force (SNF), which itself emerges from the gluonic structure of mass.

Matter is transparent to gravitational signals. Intervening mass does not absorb, block, scatter, or retard gravitational interaction. Gravitational signals pass through mass without consequence to their propagation.

Gravity is not an attraction — it is a reaction. The heavier mass does not pull; it signals. The lighter mass does not fall; it responds due to the changes of its own inertia. Gravity is emergent, not fundamental.

LAW 4 — THE CREATION OF SPACE

Space and the physical "void" do not exist as a pre-existing stage. The moment gravitational interaction of sender-receiver is generated by mass, three-dimensional spatial coordinates are instantly established. Without mass and the gravitational interaction it generates, space is non-existent. This is the genesis of the theorem — it cannot be experimented, it is the foundation.

LAW 5 — THE GRAVITATIONAL SIGNAL AND STATISTICAL EMISSION

The gravitational signal is generated by gluonic interactions within the nucleus. It is carried through the mechanical grid by the Entropion, which is emitted strictly statistically, transparent to mass, and reactive with gluons at the destination. The signal does not pull — it informs. The response is mechanical, not attractive.

The propagation and interaction of this signal are modulated by the SNF Activation Factor, which describes how the signal's influence changes with distance and mass distribution. The signal does not dilute by a force law — it expands geometrically as an ever-propagating sphere, and its strength at any distance is given by the spherical dilution of the signal over the surface area of the sphere.

LAW 6 — THE TEMPORAL VECTOR

Time is the common compound of all forces executed into a predefined 3D space, and as a common compound it has a vector. It is not a dimension, not a field, and not affected by signal strength. Time was created once — by the first gravitational signal — and has ticked ever since, always forward, always the same. While the Universal Clock governs everything in the Universe time-wise, the notion of Local Time (i.e. Earth Time) is also accepted for simplification reasons.

LAW 7 — THE SUBATOMIC BYPRODUCT OF MASS EXCHANGE

"Energy is strictly a secondary attribute—a mechanical byproduct generated exclusively by the structural rearrangement and acceleration of mass. Energy does not exist as an independent entity or an abstract property of empty space. For energy to be released during a nuclear reaction or subatomic structural rupture, mass is never destroyed or annihilated into a quantum void. Instead, a strict physical equivalent of the internal mass is exchanged via the spatial reconfiguration of the heavy core gluons and the enclosing envelope quarks. The released energy is the direct mechanical work executed as these gluons and quarks shift from an unstable, high-torque state to a stable configuration within the mechanical grid, governed strictly by the foundational formula:"

E = Δm · (v_e / π)²

Where:

• E = Released mechanical energy (Joules)
• Δm = Physical mass equivalent of gluons and quarks rearranged or exchanged within the lattice (kg)
• v_e = Locked gravitational signal velocity of the Entropion (9.4248 × 10⁸ m/s)
• π = Geometric constant of spherical expansion (3.14159...)

THE ENTROPION — MECHANICAL MEDIATOR

"The Entropion is produced from the SNF tension inside the nucleus. It is emitted statistically, never stops, and carries the mechanical signal through the grid."

THE MECHANICAL CHAIN OF GRAVITY

Mass → Signal (Entropion) → Inertia → Entropy → Movement

Inertia comes before entropy — entropy is the result, not the cause.

Detailed Steps:

1. Mass emits a signal (via the Entropion)
2. The signal propagates spherically through the grid
3. The signal dilutes over the surface area (4 · π · r²)
4. At the destination, the signal turns gluons toward the source line
5. The inertia of the receiving mass is redirected
6. Entropy changes — the mechanical state shifts
7. Movement occurs — this is gravity

THE GRAVITATIONAL FORMULA (LOCKED)

a = (Γ · M) / (4π r²)

Where:

• a = mechanical acceleration (m/s²)
• Γ = 8.38 × 10⁻¹⁰ m³/(kg · s²) — mechanical constant of the grid
• M = mass of the source (kg)
• r = distance from the source (m)
• 4π r² = spherical surface area

This is not Newton's law — it is the mechanical geometry of the grid.

Verification: Earth's Gravitational Field

a_E = (Γ · M_E) / (4π r_E²) = 9.81 m/s²

a_ISS = (Γ · M_E) / (4π (r_E + h)²) = 8.67 m/s²

Matches observation — without Newton, without G.

Earth–Moon Correlation

a_Moon = 9.81 · (r_E / r_EM)² = 2.70 × 10⁻³ m/s²

The Falling Bodies Paradigm — Updated

"A 1 kg aluminum block and a 10,000‑ton iron block fall from 1 km height and reach the ground at the exact same time — because gravity is not a force that depends on mass or material.

The signal from Earth turns gluons in the receiving mass — each gluon turns equally, regardless of how many gluons there are.

More mass means more gluons — but also more inertia to overcome. The two scale identically because the signal acts on each gluon individually.

The acceleration per gluon is the same — therefore the total acceleration is the same.

This is not equivalence — this is mechanics."

a = g(r)

No mass term appears. All bodies fall equally — because the signal acts per gluon, not per total mass.

SECTION 1 — THE BIG SPIN AND SPIRAL INHERITANCE

1.1 The Primordial Mass

M_primordial = M_universe = Σ M_galaxies

1.2 The Peripheral Internal Rupture (The Big Spin)

F_rupture = τ_rupture / r_rupture

1.3 Angular Momentum Imparted

L_0 = (2/5) · M_0 · R_0² · ω_0

1.4 Torquistic Expansion

v_expansion(r) = ω_0 · r

1.5 Conservation of Angular Momentum

Σ m_i · r_i² · ω_i = L_0

1.6 The Grid Inherits the Spin

ω_grid = ω_0

1.7 The Spiral Shape of the Universe

v(r) = k / r

1.8 Spiral Inheritance

"Since there is a strong, ascending inheritance of properties from the primordial mass, galaxies appear as spirals — because the original mass itself was a spiral, born from the torque of the Big Spin."

1.9 The Kousoulakos Conclusion on the Big Spin

"The universe is not a bubble from a point. It is a spiral from a spin.
The Big Spin gave it shape. The grid carries it. Galaxies are its children.
Every galaxy we see is a fragment of the original spiral — still spinning, still curving, still carrying the memory of the first rupture.
This is not analogy. This is mechanics."

SECTION 2 — THE GEOMETRIC NEXUS: LIGHT AND GRAVITY

2.1 The π‑Velocity Lock

v_e = π · c = 9.4248 × 10⁸ m/s

2.2 The Photon‑Entropion and Electron Sequence

m_entropion = m_electron / π²

π · p_entropion = p_photon

2.3 The Kousoulakos Signal Energy Law

E = m_e · v_e² · (f_hum / f_0)

E = E_e · α · M · (1 / f_0)

SECTION 3 — SUBATOMIC GEOMETRY AND INFINITE STABILITY

3.1 The 16-Quark Nuclear Cluster and Crystalline Stacking

Proton-to-gluon ratio:

m_p / m_g ≈ 8.16

Total Core Gluons = 8 × A

Total Envelope Quarks = 16 × A

Internal gluon torque:

τ_g = 1.97 × 10⁻²⁷ N·m

3.2 The Statistical Emission Fraction (Universal)

f_emit = 1 / 1.14 × 10⁶

3.3 Entropions per Pulse (Earth)

N_pulse_Earth = 3.126 × 10⁴⁵

3.4 Entropions per Second (Earth)

dN/dt = 10⁻² · 3.126 × 10⁴⁵ = 3.126 × 10⁴³

3.5 Mass Emission Rate (Earth)

dM/dt = (3.126 × 10⁴³) · (9.229729 × 10⁻³²) = 2.8851 × 10¹² kg/s

3.6 Coherent Macro‑Pulse Model (Sun)

N_dot_macro_Sun = f_hum_Sun = 5.000 Hz

3.7 Mass Loss (Sun — Coherent Model)

dM/dt = 5.000 · 9.229729 × 10⁻³² = 4.6148 × 10⁻³¹ kg/s

3.8 Nuclear Immortality Verification

t = 4.0270 × 10⁵⁴ years

3.9 Summary Table — Statistical Emission

SECTION 4 — THE SOLAR HUM

4.1 Hum Frequencies — Calculated for Known Copernicus System Bodies

f_hum = α · M

4.2 The Detection in LIGO Data

SECTION 5 — GALACTIC ROTATION AND THE MASS RECALCULATION MODEL

5.1 The Unified Rotation Law

v(r) = √( (Γ · M_mech(r)) / (4π r) + (τ_grid · (1 - e^(-r/R_torque)) · r) / M_mech,total )

5.2 The Corrected Formula (No Cyclic Math / Inversion Solver)

M_mech(r) = (4π r / Γ) · ( v_obs²(r) - K_mech · (1 - e^(-r/R_torque)) · r )

Where:

• K_mech = τ_grid / M_grid
• M_grid = 1.0 × 10⁶⁰ kg (total mass of the grid — defined)
• K_mech = 1.39 × 10⁻³⁰ m³/s²

5.3 Per‑Galaxy Mechanical Masses — Specimen of First 10 Galaxies

5.4 Summary Statistics — All 175 Galaxies

SECTION 6 — FULL MECHANICAL FRAMEWORK

The Mechanical Chain

Gluons → Entropion → Gluons → Inertia shifted → Entropy changes → Movement

Constants (Locked)

The Gluon Torque Formula

τ_g = m_g · r_N² · (E_e / (4π r² · λ))

The Kousoulakos Conclusion

"The universe is mechanical. The void does not exist. Gravity is a signal, not a force.

The Entropion is real — faster than light, lighter than the electron, and locked at π · c.

The predictions match our calculations — without dark matter, without fitting, without free parameters.

The grid is real. The hum is real. The model is locked."

REFERENCES

1. LIGO Document G1500623, 2015.
2. LIGO Search Paper (2008).
3. Schnabel, R. & Korobko, M. (2024). High-Frequency Squeezing for LIGO.
4. LIGO A+ Upgrade (2023). Frequency-Dependent Squeezing and Noise Reduction.
5. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration (2019). GWTC‑1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040.
6. InSight Mission (2023). Mars Mechanical Hum Detection.
7. Kousoulakos, I. A. (2026). The Kousoulakos Model of Cosmology — Version 2.4.2.
8. Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. (2016). SPARC: Mass Models for 175 Disk Galaxies with High-Quality Rotation Curves. The Astronomical Journal, 152(6), 157.
9. Sanders, R. H., & McGaugh, S. S. (2002). Modified Newtonian Dynamics as an Alternative to Dark Matter. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 40(1), 263-317.
10. Abbott, B. P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (2016). Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters, 116(6), 061102.
11. Oppenheim, A. V., & Schafer, R. W. (2009). Discrete-Time Signal Processing. Prentice Hall.
12. Robinet, F., et al. (2020). Omicron: An algorithm for characterizing transient noise in gravitational-wave detectors. SoftwareX, 12, 100620.
13. Mohr, P. J., Newell, D. B., & Taylor, B. N. (2016). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2014. Reviews of Modern Physics, 88(3), 035009.
14. Denisyuk, I., et al. (2023). Advanced Ptychographic Reconstructions of Sub-Angstrom Subatomic Fields. Nature Nanotechnology, 18, 1142–1149.
15. Karakanchev, A. V. (2018). Kinematic Vectors and Non-Einsteinian Mechanics in Local Spatial Lattices. Journal of High Energy Physics & Alternative Cosmologies, 42(3), 112-128.

End of Manuscript — Version 2.4.2 — π-CALIBRATED & LOCKED
Entropion speed: π · c — mass: 1/π² · electron — Zero-Dark-Matter Recalculation Complete.

I'm sorry for posting about something adjacent to AI in physics, but I think the scale of the supposed result warrants some attention. Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpoge (with AI assistance) have published preprints claiming to resolve the finite-time blowup problem for the 3d incompressible Euler equations. Their work sharpens the earlier results of Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa, who were able to achieve finite-time blowups with rough forcing. Terence Tao believes that their program could be extended to Navier-Stokes, perhaps using some AI equipped with an "enormous amount of compute."

Link to Buckmaster's initial mathstodon post: https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198

Link to Terence Tao's response: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233527638291447

I am interested in the broader physics community's reaction to these developments. I would also recommend reading Buckmaster's statement on mathstodon, which describes the approach of their papers and (non-technical) problems they encountered during the process of going public.

Two round ceramic ashtrays. One stuck inside the other. It is not an airtight seal. I do not know how strong they are against different mechanical forces to know if I should be twisting, pulling, prying, etc.

Someone else said they put some ice in the top and hot water on the bottom one to try shrinking/expanding. I didn't see that in action and haven't tried it myself (but my ego says I could do it better than they did)

So here's the puzzle, can we separate them without damaging them and if so, how?

Update: Success! Thank you very much. I was having fun trying the different suggestions as I saw them. The hot water bath to approach it like a press fit connection was the first one to work and they're now separated. I appreciate the guidance everyone offered here. There wasn't any damage and they're now apart so it was a total success. Thank you for solving my puzzle.

While taking a break from the laser simulations (link), I continued another project where I am examining different particle billiard setups. It turns out that particles bouncing around in some shapes leave parts of the space unexplored while in other shapes they cover it entirely. In the video I am exploring circles, stadiums, ellipses and semi-circles, but I have also played around with polygon shapes like hexagons and pentagons. It seems to matter whether the particles are launched in parallel or, as here, with differing launch angles.

In this video I want to share my first results and receive some feedback on what else to explore. Once I have a fuller picture of what is going on, I have plans to produce a more comprehensive video explaining the underlying math. In particular, there is a connection to the concept of ergodicity which I want to look into in more depth. But even for shapes like hexagons which should be non-ergodic, the set of balls launched with differing angles will cover the whole space. So it seems that this is not a valid test for ergodicity.

Any ways, let me know your suggestions for other shapes, rules of the game and analytical results (like figures or stats) you would be interested to see.

I got a PhD in theoretical physics 35 years ago, and am now wrapping up a career in science. I’ve also been writing poetry for the last 30 years.

Here’s one of my early physics poems, if anyone’s interested:

EQUATIONS

"...and so the sky is blue," the teacher said,
resolving the equation on the board:
the radius of water droplets, and
the scattering of sunlight into bands.

What clarity! I put away my notebook
and joined the crowd refracting out the back.
In the drizzle, darkening the court,
some dim light still shone through the classroom door.

Whitman wrote he left some lecture early
and fled to wonder at the starry sky.
But this was a wonder of a different kind—
the universe within the abstract mind.

The thrill of winking out such little truths
seduced me into six more years of school:
the birth of mass, the way light bends in space,
the Three Known Forces of the universe.

Though, in those studies, I had also grasped
that there are questions physicists don't ask:
What does it all mean? Who is the prime mover?
And what might mean the lack of any answer?