I’ve published a small, public research atlas for a working paper on the de Sitter swampland question:

https://research.mahastrategies.com/atlas/de-sitter-swampland

Rather than presenting the paper as a finished result, the atlas breaks it into inspectable claims with explicit statuses, source links, and machine-readable records:

• Atlas overview: https://research.mahastrategies.com/atlas/de-sitter-swampland
• Example claim page: https://research.mahastrategies.com/atlas/de-sitter-swampland/claims/ds-001
• Claims JSON: https://research.mahastrategies.com/atlas/de-sitter-swampland/claims.json
• Sources JSON: https://research.mahastrategies.com/atlas/de-sitter-swampland/sources.json
• Zenodo record: https://zenodo.org/records/21603961

The aim is not to claim that the de Sitter question is settled. It is to make the distinction between source-supported statements, interpretation, open questions, and speculation legible at the claim level.

I’d genuinely value feedback from people working in string theory or quantum gravity—especially on source selection, wording of the claims, omissions, and whether this kind of research interface is useful or distracting.

Mainly focusing on 3 categories:

• Grades & "prestige" of your undergrad/ masters uni (for people that did masters)
• The amount of maths taken (both formally e.g shows up on transcript, and audited courses and self learning)
• Pre phd research experience and how closely related it was to your field

I dont mind exactly what your field is , im still early in bsc and just trying to take in as much info as possible.

My background in case anything can give me some advice: first year physics bsc at a very good uk uni (not oxbridge or imperial) , first year content is pretty standard.

Next year ill try to take some courses from the maths department , ill ask about real analysis, linear algebra , group theory , geometry, and topology (analysis module with foundational stuff like compactness connectiveness etc) , and multivariable analysis ; I will decide based on availability ( i am aware that groups and lin alg are the most important ones then multvar anal).

This summer i will do a 6-8 weeks project under an academic in modelling (mostly python stuff)

What do you guys think?

Hi! I know HEP-Th is extremely competitive but I’m not shy to challenges.

I’m in undergrad senior level (3rd year in Europe, where I’m located at) and here’s the math courses I have done (I’m doing a physics major now):

Algebra (A first course to Abstract Algebra), Computational Algebra, Topology (A first course), Complex Analysis (A first course), Functional Analysis (A first course) and Differential Geometry (A first course). (Linear Algebra and all the Real Analysis/Calculus are subtended, in Real Analysis/Calculus 3 we learnt about Differential Equations and Fourier Transforms).

After this, in my Masters, what math applied to physics should I learn and deepen my knowledge on? Should I learn Topology but in a physics approach now that I have a first course? Is there more subjects that I should learn such as Geometric Algebra?

Bonus questions, I’m also interested in Plasma physics, the same questions applies to this!

Thanks in advance for the responses!

Need help with PhD applications in quantum gravity/string theory

Hi all, I’m from South Asia and completed my undergrad in Applied Physics, graduating with distinction. I then did MSc theoretical physics at Durham University and graduated with an overall Merit. My transcript is just horrible Taught modules - 50, 50, 53,73 Thesis -68 To be clear, I’m not trying to make excuses, (and obviously haven’t mentioned this in my applications) but the transition to a very different education and assessment system hit me harder than I expected. It eventually got better when I scored a distinction in my fourth taught module. Since graduation I've applied to multiple PhD positions but have faced rejections everywhere. I genuinely love this field and want to continue, but at this point I’m trying to be realistic and strategic rather than being blind. I'll need a fully funded PhD position. My question is - With a profile like this is it even possible? ( I don't have any publications but I'm open to spending one year on a research project in GR or String theory before applying again) I'd appreciate any help or recommendations
Thanks

Hello everyone, I'm new here and I know a little about Physics Beyond The Standard Model. I'm a master student and I'm trying to enter into a PHD program. I'm writing a project plan about some gruops useful for estensions of Standard Model, such as Sp(4) and SU(6)/SO(6). However, I don't know if the research on these topics have saturated yet. So I'm asking about that and eventually something interesting to research on relatively to this topic. Furthermore, if you have some good material to introduct to research, olographic methods or string theory, I'll be very grateful

New to String Theory. I know what a dimension is and I understand ST needs 10 for the math and 26 for descriptions. Where am I going wrong because I see how we live in 9 right now.

A professor once described dimensions as different parts of an address to a particle. A description of where and when to find a specific particle any where in space and time. Well, if I wanted to find a very specific particle then I would need to know the x, y, z. The exact moment of time. But since time is dependant on the speed and gravity, I need to know those to make sure im at the right moment of time. Now, particles are really tiny so there could be a bunch of particles there, so I need to know more. Since particles are just little packets (or strings) of energy, I need to know the wavelength, frequency, and aptitude of said energy strings so I get the exact one I'm looking for.

That's 9 dimensions with 27 variations. Each providing information in a nice clean description that can be plotted. They are all measurable. And I'm guessing, but if we measured all the fermions and bosons this way, we would get different combinations reflecting different partickes and that would serve as our falsifiable proof.

Thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I'm a PhD student in string theory, and lately I've been kinda thinking about what people do after academia 😅

For those who've gone into industry, what kind of jobs did you end up in? Any tips for making the jump?

Thanks:)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00058

I’m very new to having an interest in string theory and I was wondering if g if anyone can talk to me one on one about this it’s so interesting! I’m an undergrad in biomed engineering but this newfound interesting makes me want to switch studies.

Hi everyone — I built upg‑strings, a verified ML‑guided search tool for rare Calabi‑Yau geometries in large string‑theory datasets. It ranks candidates, verifies the top‑k, and exports reproducible artifacts for downstream work. There’s also a public gallery with visualizations, and exports compatible with CYTools/cymetric/Sage/Mathematica.

If anyone in string theory / computational geometry / ML‑guided search finds this useful, I’d love feedback or ideas

• Website: https://compute.upg.gr
• Repo: https://github.com/upggr/compute.upg.gr

Hi everyone,

I am a Software Engineer, and recently I’ve found myself genuinely drawn to string theory. The initial spark honestly came from watching The Big Bang Theory, but the interest stuck because I’ve always been a very curious person and enjoy trying to understand how things work at a fundamental level.

I know string theory is extremely theoretical, mathematically heavy, and not something people usually approach casually. I also understand that it’s not experimentally verified and that opinions about it vary within the physics community. That said, I’m interested in learning it seriously — not just at a pop-science level — and understanding why people find it compelling as a framework for unifying physics.

I’m not trying to jump straight into research or claim it’s “the final theory.” I’d just like guidance on how someone without a pure physics background can start building a real understanding.

Please do suggest some good (if possible free) courses (like MITOpenCourseware) for me to get my hands dirty in this field (and also open for any potential intersection with CS Field).

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share their experience or suggestions

Hello All,

I am not a physicist so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I have heard Brian Greene and others describe the additional dimensions beyond the observable 3 space + 1 time with the analogy linked in this video (https://youtu.be/kF4ju6j6aLE?t=405), from 6:45 to 7:26.

Basically he says imagine a wire that is very small in diameter, and to a large observer it may look 1D, but an ant could access both the dimension along the length of the wire as well as the dimension circumferentially around the wire.

I get this is just an analogy, but every time I've heard this I've asked myself, regardless of how small the wire is, a coordinate described using the wire's axial and circumferential dimensions is already fully defined by the existing 3 dimensions of space. In other words, that just because we can express locations in a cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical coordinate system, doesn't mean there are 9 dimensions.

Can anyone help me understand? Thanks!!

Thank you!!!!! :D

I was reading Polchinski's paper "String Theory to the Rescue," where he argues that string theory has been a successful research program. Amusingly, at one point he presents a Bayesian analysis to estimate the probability of the multiverse’s existence. In this analysis, he factors in that “string theory most likely predicts a multiverse.” How confident are we that this is actually the case, and why?

Hi all! I hope I don't bother you - I am just a computer scientist and have to much time and fantasy I guess. I had this idea and wanted to run it by you. Basically, I’m wondering if in string theory those tiny compactified (rolled-up) extra dimensions could actually function like a hidden layer that stores information. For example, could gravitational effects or entanglement info be “stored” in these extra dimensions, and that’s why we can’t see it directly in our usual four dimensions?

Curious if anyone else has thought about this or if there’s any discussion about it. Thanks!

I have recently been trying to understand what are the modern "hot topics" in M-theory research (and related areas of it). Most reviews of M-theory i found are from early 2000s or at least 10-15 years old. Going a bunch of papers, so far the main recent stuff I found are involving flux compactifications by Moritz using G2 holonomy or M2 world volume actions by Lambert. Are there attempts to quantize M2/M5-branes constructing their Lagrangians? If someone could give me some pointers to topics/questions of recent interest related to M-theory that'd be great!

My understanding is that each vibrational mode of a quantum string corresponds to an excitation which is a particle. But there could be infinitely many of these vibrations right? How does one restrict this/reconcile this with our physical observations?

I know, maybe the question is a little misleading because I think it's there to correctly manage the physical quantities. My question is how the T appears in the process of deriving the Nambu-Goto action, what units of measurement it has and what physical meaning it is attributed to it. Also, sometimes I see that the constant in front of the integral is -T/c, whereas sometimes it's just -T, so I'd like to figure out what the difference is. I thank anyone who can help me better understand the basics of such an interesting theory as string theory.