Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy) header
Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy) profile picture

Conversations that may change the way you see the universe. https://xitter.cf/t.co/3QEA2vadpX

Delhi/Noida
Joined December 2021
Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)Photo by Ayushphy Cosmological (@ayushphy)
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
One year ago, LLMs couldn't do graduate level physics calculations. now they can. But Suvrat Raju draws a sharp line: being fast at processing information isn't the same as having vision. Breakthroughs in theoretical physics come from compression and conceptual reframing, not from crunching more data. Right now LLMs are great research assistants pulling up a calculation from "some textbook somewhere" in seconds instead of days. Whether they ever get to the conceptual leaps, the actual new ideas, nobody knows yet. could saturate. could not.
2
7
30
1,940
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
The Nobel Prize in physics goes to Francis Halzen for contributions to the IceCube experiment and the discovery of astrophysical neutrinos You can learn more about the IceCube experiment here: @uw_icecube
BREAKING NEWS The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 2026 #NobelPrize in Physics to Francis Halzen “for decisive contributions to the IceCube Neutrino Observatory and the discovery of high-energy neutrinos of astrophysical origin.”
4
33
2
281
11,127
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
I wrote a set of papers with Xi Dong and Don Marolf in recent years, and now that the broad project has concluded, I thought I'd summarize it. (1/9)
1
6
33
5,507
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Being better than humans at searching and writing down the formal proof of a theorem does not equate being "beyond human level at math". This is not all of math, any more than arithmetics, or computing integrals (symbolically or numerically) is all of math. It's one "mechanical" task in the whole activity that happens to be automatable. Mathematicians invent new concepts, new frameworks, new abstractions, new definitions, and formulate conjectures. This requires intuition and creativity that current AI systems do not have (yet).
80
112
24
927
67,604
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
It is interesting to see that the Declaration on Math and AI by 25 Field Medalists seems to make sense to many people with a background in the humanities while many people trained in just science, math and tech seem to dismiss it as a 'protectionist guild' or 'careerism'.
24
78
10
645
22,036
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
My whole TL today.
49
602
51
6,462
94,555
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Fun project: I asked GPT to scan all photos of my bookcases during the last five years and make a list of books. There were about 2000. This is the physics list of about 200 books: 300 Years of Gravitation — Stephen W. Hawking and Werner Israel (editors) A Brief History of Time — Stephen W. Hawking A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down — Robert B. Laughlin A First Course in General Relativity — Bernard Schutz A Many-Colored Glass — Freeman Dyson A Most Incomprehensible Thing — Peter Collier A Student's Guide to Maxwell's Equations — Daniel Fleisch A Treatise on Thermodynamics — Max Planck Advanced Classical Electromagnetism — Robert M. Wald An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics — G. K. Batchelor An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics — Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory — Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder An Old Man's Toy — A. Zee At Home in the Universe — John Archibald Wheeler Atomic Energy in Cosmic and Human Life — George Gamow Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge — Niels Bohr Atomic Spectra and Atomic Structure — Gerhard Herzberg Atoms, Radiation, and Radiation Protection — Bogard, Downing, Coleman, Eckerman, and Turner Big Bang — Simon Singh Birds and Frogs — Freeman Dyson Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy — Kip S. Thorne Black Holes: The Key to Understanding the Universe — Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars — Stuart L. Shapiro; Saul A. Teukolsky Boltzmann's Atom — David Lindley Candid Science IV: Conversations with Famous Physicists — Magdolna Hargittai and István Hargittai Challenges in Plutonium Science, Volumes I-II — Los Alamos National Laboratory Classical Mechanics — Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole Jr., and John L. Safko Concepts of Modern Physics — Arthur Beiser Cosmic Catastrophes — J. Craig Wheeler Cosmological Constants — Jeremy Bernstein and Gerald Feinberg (editors) Cosmology's Century — P. J. E. Peebles Covariant Physics — Moataz H. Emam Cycles of Time — Roger Penrose Dreams of a Final Theory — Steven Weinberg Dreams of Earth and Sky — Freeman Dyson Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell — A. Zee Einstein on Einstein — Hanoch Gutfreund and Jürgen Renn Einstein’s Legacy — Julian Schwinger Einstein's Unfinished Revolution — Lee Smolin Electricity and Magnetism — Edward M. Purcell; David J. Morin Electrodynamics — V. D. Barger and M. G. Olsson Electromagnetism — David Tong Elementary Nuclear Theory — Hans A. Bethe and Philip Morrison Encounters with Einstein — Werner Heisenberg Exploring Black Holes — Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries — Steven Weinberg Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field — Nancy Forbes and Basil Mahon Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe — Roger Penrose Faust in Copenhagen — Gino Segrè Fearful Symmetry — A. Zee Feynman’s Lost Lecture — David L. Goodstein and Judith R. Goodstein Fly by Night Physics — A. Zee Formation and Evolution of Black Holes in the Galaxy — Hans A. Bethe, Gerald E. Brown, and Chang-Hwan Lee Foundations of Modern Physics — Steven Weinberg From Eros to Gaia — Freeman Dyson From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves — Emilio Segrè From X-Rays to Quarks — Emilio Segrè Fundamentals of Physics I: Mechanics, Relativity, and Thermodynamics — R. Shankar Fundamentals of Physics II: Electromagnetism, Optics, and Quantum Mechanics — R. Shankar Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity — John Baez and Javier P. Muniain General Relativity — Robert M. Wald General Relativity for the Gifted Amateur — Tom Lancaster and Stephen J. Blundell General Relativity: The Essentials — Carlo Rovelli Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics — Bernard F. Schutz Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam — John Archibald Wheeler with Kenneth Ford Gravitation — Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler Gravitation and Cosmology — Steven Weinberg Gravity and Spacetime — Hans C. Ohanian; Remo Ruffini Great Experiments in Physics — Morris H. Shamos Imagined Worlds — Freeman Dyson In Praise of Simple Physics — Paul J. Nahin Infinite in All Directions — Freeman Dyson Intermediate Quantum Mechanics — Hans A. Bethe and Roman Jackiw Introduction to Electrodynamics — David J. Griffiths Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics — A. Das; T. Ferbel Introduction to Quantum Mechanics — David J. Griffiths; Darrell F. Schroeter Introductory Nuclear Physics — Kenneth S. Krane Lake Views — Steven Weinberg Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos — Dennis Overbye Mechanics — L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz Modern Quantum Mechanics — J. J. Sakurai; Jim Napolitano My View of the World — Erwin Schrödinger National Geographic Picture Atlas of Our Universe — Roy A. Gallant New Pathways in Science — Arthur S. Eddington Newton's Principia for the Common Reader — S. Chandrasekhar No-Nonsense Quantum Field Theory — Jakob Schwichtenberg Notes on Quantum Mechanics — Enrico Fermi Nuclear Radiation Physics — Ralph E. Lapp and Howard L. Andrews Pale Blue Dot — Carl Sagan Perspectives in Modern Physics — Robert E. Marshak (editor) Physics and Beyond — Werner Heisenberg Physics and Philosophy — Werner Heisenberg Physics for Students of Science and Engineering — David Halliday and Robert Resnick Physics: Foundations and Frontiers — George Gamow and John M. Cleveland Physics from Symmetry — Jakob Schwichtenberg Physics in the Twentieth Century — Victor F. Weisskopf Principles of Quantum Mechanics — R. Shankar Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis — Donald D. Clayton Proceedings of the Conference in Honour of Murray Gell-Mann's 80th Birthday — Harald Fritzsch and K. K. Phua (editors) Q Is for Quantum — John Gribbin QED and the Men Who Made It — Silvan S. Schweber Quanta and Fields — Sean Carroll Quantum Field Theory, as Simply as Possible — A. Zee Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell — A. Zee Quantum Generations — Helge Kragh Quantum Mechanics — Leonard I. Schiff Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory — L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms — Hans A. Bethe and Edwin E. Salpeter Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles — Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick Quantum Profiles — Jeremy Bernstein Quantum Theory — David Bohm Quantum Theory and Measurement — edited by John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech H. Zurek Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang — Jonathan Allday Readable Relativity — E. M. Durell Relativity — Albert Einstein Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology — Richard C. Tolman Rutherford and the Nature of the Atom — E. N. da C. Andrade Schrödinger’s Cat — John Gribbin Sears and Zemansky's University Physics — Hugh D. Young; Roger A. Freedman Seeing in the Dark — Timothy Ferris Selected Papers — Chen Ning Yang Selected Papers of Freeman Dyson with Commentary — Freeman Dyson; edited by David Kaiser Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld — Robert S. Cohen and John J. Stachel (editors) Selected Works of Hans A. Bethe with Commentary — Hans A. Bethe Six Impossible Things — John Gribbin Solid State Physics — Neil W. Ashcroft and N. David Mermin Space, Time and Gravitation — Arthur S. Eddington Spacetime and Geometry — Sean M. Carroll Spacetime Physics — Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory: The Theoretical Minimum — Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman Statistical and Thermal Physics — Frederick Reif Statistical Physics — L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz Statistical Thermodynamics — Erwin Schrödinger Symmetry — Hermann Weyl The Accidental Universe — Alan Lightman The Big Picture — Sean Carroll The Biggest Ideas in the Universe, Vol. 1: Space, Time, and Motion — Sean Carroll The Birth and Death of the Sun — George Gamow The Character of Physical Law — Richard P. Feynman The Classical Theory of Fields — L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz The Collapsing Universe — Isaac Asimov The Cosmic Code — Heinz R. Pagels The Creation of the Universe — George Gamow The Dynamical Theory of Gases — James Jeans The Elegant Universe — Brian Greene The End of Time — Julian Barbour The Fabric of the Cosmos — Brian Greene The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volumes I-III — Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands The First Three Minutes — Steven Weinberg The Fly in the Cathedral — Brian Cathcart The Flying Trapeze: Three Crises for Physicists — J. Robert Oppenheimer The Formative Years of Relativity — Hanoch Gutfreund and Jürgen Renn The Geometry of Spacetime — James J. Callahan The Hunt for Vulcan — Thomas Levenson The Internal Constitution of the Stars — Arthur S. Eddington The Kinetic Theory of Gases — James Jeans The Left Hand of the Electron — Isaac Asimov The Magic Furnace — Marcus Chown The Meaning of Quantum Theory — Jim Baggott The Nature of Space and Time — Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of the Physical World — Arthur S. Eddington The New Quantum Universe — Tony Hey and Patrick Walters The One: How an Ancient Idea Holds the Future of Physics — Heinrich Päs The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics — edited by Jed Z. Buchwald and Robert Fox The Oxford Solid State Basics — Steven H. Simon The Physical Review: The First Hundred Years: A Selection of Seminal Papers and Commentaries — H. Henry Stroke (editor) The Principle of Relativity — Albert Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl The Principles of Quantum Mechanics — P. A. M. Dirac The Quantum Theory of Radiation — Walter Heitler The Quark and the Jaguar — Murray Gell-Mann The Road to Reality — Roger Penrose The Road to Relativity — Hanoch Gutfreund and Jürgen Renn The Scientist as Rebel — Freeman Dyson The Second Creation — Robert P. Crease and Charles C. Mann The Second Law — Peter Atkins The Sourcebook on Atomic Energy — Samuel Glasstone The Story of Spin — Sin-Itiro Tomonaga The Theoretical Minimum: Classical Mechanics — Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky The Theoretical Minimum: Quantum Mechanics — Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics — Hermann Weyl The Theory of Relativity — Wolfgang Pauli The Theory of the Relativity of Motion — Richard C. Tolman The Trouble with Physics — Lee Smolin The Universe at Large — Hermann Bondi The Universe in a Box — Andrew Pontzen Theoretical Physics — Georg Joos Thermal Physics — Charles Kittel and Herbert Kroemer Thermodynamics — Enrico Fermi Thermodynamics and the Kinetic Theory of Gases — Wolfgang Pauli Third Thoughts — Steven Weinberg Thirty Years That Shook Physics — George Gamow Too Big for a Single Mind — Tobias Hürter Truth and Beauty — S. Chandrasekhar Uncertainty — David Lindley Understanding Physics: Light, Magnetism, and Electricity — Isaac Asimov Would-Be Worlds — John L. Casti
3
3
1
30
6,463
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Overall, I’m very surprised at how little media coverage there’s been around the OpenAI / Hugging Face attack. It’s clearly one of the most important things to happen this year.
599
915
211
12,257
1,284,674
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Enjoyed this conversation about physics and many other things. Looking forward to doing more science outreach!
A fascinating conversation with theoretical physicist Pratik Rath(@PratikRath15 ) on how physicists think about some of the deepest problems in modern physics. We talk about Einstein and Dirac, antimatter, quantum gravity, black holes, holography, string theory, and the question of whether AI can actually contribute to scientific understanding.
1
3
19
1,589
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Introducing XY one, our first open source project. Built as a proof of concept. XY one proved that you don't need lacs of rupees for nanometer resolution instruments. We are open sourcing it, visit f2r.site for more info.
2
5
1
8
1,450
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
ICTP Announces 2026 Dirac Medal Recipients ictp.it/news/2026/8/ictp-ann…
3
33
10
125
43,224
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
Germany's three largest cities are on a circle, weirdly. (Sent to me privately so I don't know who the original author is.)
643
88
62
6,470
3,750,040
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
I want to clarify my thoughts on problem-solving in mathematics, and the potential consequences of AI for the field. For context, I’m quoting here my post in reply to Daniel Litt (who, echoing others, I find very clear, grounded, and insightful in his thinking). The claim The short version is that I think problem-solving is an immense, and pervasive part of modern mathematical research. Consequently, if human problem-solving disappears by virtue of the AIs becoming strictly and substantially better at it, then most of the time currently spent by modern mathematical researchers will have to be spent on an activity that is altogether pretty different. Whether such an activity is viable as a professional endeavour is something I am unsure of, but strongly encourage others to think about and try to envision, so that if/when the time comes, we can steer such a future into being. Allow me to make this somewhat concrete: by problem-solving I mean questions of the form “is T true? If so find a proof. If not, find a disproof.” where T is a precise mathematical statement. I’ll also include “find an example of S, if there is one” where S is some structure (variety/category/property/isomorphism/….). The argument Ok. Now as I said (and some have echoed) I spend ~all of my time problem-solving as my primary goal. This has sub-goals, but my entire main research field disappears if someone solves the Zilber-Pink Conjecture in its more general form. This is a single conjecture (precisely stated!) and lots of mathematicians, postdocs, and graduate students are engaged in picking apart special cases of it, trying strategies, finding analogies to develop intuition, etc.. Of course, lots of motivation and intuition and analogizing and understanding have gone into deciding to make the ZP conjecture a focus! But the fact remains that this is now what is being worked on ~all of the time by this community. This is true of many mathematicians. They have a problem (or ten) and spend most of their time doing it. If someone solves it, they have to find a different problem. This can be a big, disorienting process involving a lot of energy, and is neither trivial nor always fun (though often rewarding in the end). People have written a lot about Theory building vs. Problem-solving, and I want to first of all clarify I have nothing against theory building or theory builders! It is a valuable part of mathematics, and while there are differences in perspective between the “camps” there is way more mutual respect and agreement. However, I gather there is a perception that theory-builders spend most of their time not-problem-solving, and I think this is largely untrue. Now I’m not a theory-builder primarily (though I’ve partaken a LITTLE BIT by necessity) so I am outside of my comfort zone. As such, I apologize for mistakes and welcome corrections! But theory-building constantly runs through problem-solving. Let’s say you want to define the right notion of a cohomology theory. Of course you must make candidate definitions. But then what does it mean for it to be the right one? Well, you start asking if it has natural properties. These are T statements. Does it satisfy a Kunneth formula? Is it functorial in the right way? When you have the wrong one you have to find the properties it’s missing, and when you have the right one you have to prove that it indeed has those properties. Again, I am not saying nor do I believe that this makes problem-solving “real math” and theory-building lesser. I am just trying to draw attention to the way I think research mathematicians operate, and mathematics is practiced. To put all this a different way, imagine you had access to an AI oracle that could resolve statements T, but somehow lacked any creativity to build technology or make definitions (I think this is unlikely, but for the purpose of this thought experiment lets imagine it). How would your mathematics change, if you were a theory builder? Well, you make a definition, and want to know if it’s the right one. You immediately ask your oracle a thousand questions. From “are these basic properties true” to “ooh, so is this deep conjecture true?” and start getting back answers, and amending your definitions. You could invent and resolve entire research directions in days. But the confusion you would have had to push through to flesh out your theory would largely (probably not entirely) be instantly resolved and the whole process sped up tremendously by your oracle. A big part of the process would be gone. This is very very different to modern mathematics. One more thought This post is too long already, but I’ve seen some people say that they only do mathematics to find truth and others valourize that as the only virtuous way to be. I do not do mathematics only to find truth. I do it largely because I enjoy it and I am good at it. I also find it beautiful and am grateful I get to spend my days understanding beautiful things. But I enjoy the challenge, the process, resolving confusions, finding strategies, grappling with problems. I would like to push for this being de-stigmatized. Mathematicians are people who need money, housing, food, love, exercise, and a great deal of other stuff including various forms of meaning. There are many people whose primary enjoyment of math comes through problem solving in one of its incarnations. If that disappears, that is not a trivial issue and many of them might not want to do it anymore (even if there were some way to proceed).
Replying to @littmath @willdepue
Hey @littmath , I've seen you post this sentiment a lot, and want to push back a bit (in my formal twitter-posting debut!). So my math career has almost entirely been "solve this problem". Now, of course there is an enormous amount of other activities such as formulating toy problems, identifying which ones are worthwhile, theory building, and selection and formulation of the original problems. But typically for 80%+ of my time, I know what problem I'm trying to solve and am just trying to solve it. I've seen the view expressed a lot that this is sort of not-the-main-point, and is just a part of figuring out the appropriate mathematical structure and phenomena. It's not that this is untenable, but I feel this is a somewhat overstated perspective. For one thing, talks (almost) always start/end with "here is the theorem I have proven". Its not that the view you have of math isn't coherent, but I could equally formulate the point of math as 1. Find a fun phenomenon 2. Make a problem capturing it as nicely as possible 3. Solve it, possibly by building theories and formulating sub-problems. so that problem-solving become the central point of math, and theory building as a side-effect. Indeed, mathematicians offer measure the value of a theory by the problems it can solve. This is at least an important part of a theory. I actually feel you and I are not far apart in our mathematical taste, so I'm curious how much we actually disagree here (I suspect the answer is "some"). Sorry for the overly long post! I am very much a twitter-newbie and will have to adjust.
38
188
38
1,133
368,716
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
College and university administrations have really forgotten their institutions' role in public discourse.
IIT Rorkee’s gag order warning students from using social media for participating or discussing current student protests. IIT Roorkee calls students not to say or do anything which is capable of embarrassing relation between Central govt and IIT.
1
12
1,007
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
The bigger problem is that just like the nuclear race, it’s not one that either side can really “win”. So instead of pointlessly burning through cash, people and goodwill in an AI arms race and fear mongering, it will be much smarter to negotiate and reduce the common danger like we did with the Soviet Union.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the U.S.-China AI race. Which is not to say I think it's unimportant; I just don't have the technical knowledge to judge what the possible outcomes are.
3
2
1
8
1,625
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Dear @DrJitendraSingh @GoenkaPk , last time Skyroot launched (successfully) at the post launch we saw both of you in what looked liked an attempt to take credit and putting founders behind i know the justification is you'll wanted them in frame, the intention was good, but the optics of the same were horrible, We all have grown up hearing stories how Satish Dhawan took all of the criticism and shielded Dr Kalam from media criticism , what we saw at sky pc is complete opposite, this is not ISRO culture If they succeed move away, let them have their limeliight, if they fail, shield them , take the credit, sit in the middle or whatever, i know both of youll have done a lot to make this happen, but then its your job, its why you're appointed/elected. a lot of young ones are looking at this, dont set a bad example
Press meet on #Prarambh mission success happening now. Shri. @DrJitendraSingh, Union Minister of State for Space, Dr. @s_ssnath, Chairman @isro, @GoenkaPk, Chairman @INSPACeIND on dias, along with Skyroot Founders. #Prarambh #OpeningSpaceForAll
28
220
12
1,683
91,783
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
I found recordings of Strings 2026 on YouTube, and the sound quality is good. I'll probably repost Strings 2026 again. Here are the event playlists. youtube.com/playlist?list=PL…
1
8
31
2,633
Ayushphy Cosmological retweeted
Replying to @Kaju_Nut
The generation that got the most out of these schemes is now sitting as full professors. Maybe they never had to think about affordability once they got in. Maybe calling out DST funding decisions is just not worth the career risk. Either way, the silence says a lot. Institutions don't collapse because they run out of money. They collapse when the people who should've spoken up... don't.
2
16
548