Link to the actual webpage and its pre-print. (Matthew Schwartz is a particle physicist who wrote a quantum field theory textbook.)
From the webpage:
>The content on this page was written by AI under human supervision.
...
>Thirty frontier Feynman integrals computed in closed form. Fifteen of these were already known, at least at the level of the form, and are independently reproduced end-to-end with the BootLoops toolkit. Fifteen are new. Each integral has its own page and code to evaluate the integral to the BootLoops standard.
Basically, when you get past two vertices and beyond in your Feynman diagrams, the integrals become incredibly challenging to evaluate. Schwartz group these integrals into various classes, where these classes of integrals are evaluated with various specialized and sophisticated mathematical techniques.
..........................................................................
inb4 "these posts are so incredibly low effort; they're just regurgitation -- you must have some ulterior motive in making these!!!", I'll just address those concerns here. (This has barely anything to do with the actual post; you don't have to read this if you don't want to! If you have no idea what I'm going on about here since you are unaware of the vitriol that I've recieved in previous posts, then also don't read this.)
1.) When sharing these works, I've put the same amount of effort, if not more, than that r/physics mod (whose posts I've credited as to where I found these works that I then share here). All he does is just drop links to these works, and he barely, if at all, provides any other additional text or commentary. Yet I don't go and make asinine accusations that he's just "using his moderator power of a large subreddit to market Anthropic-funded ventures that have not been peer-reviewed." But there should be nothing wrong at all with just sharing news and other relevant information that concerns the field; just don't go and use this to make unfounded accusations!
2.) About those closing comments I made in previous posts: They were just throwaway asides and a footnote really about how I don't think anyone outside this site views anonymous Reddit comments -- or really, anything made by random anonymous internet strangers -- as any more credible than what they can ask an LLM. This OBVIOUSLY does not mean that unvetted LLM output that hasn't been verified by an actual professional should be treated as an authoritative scientific source! Does that need to be said? Are these viewpoints so unreasonable to warrant such vitriol?
I've strayed off topic for far too long, but I hope that this actually addressed these concerns, so that this comment section only focuses on the true topic of the post. When we discuss the actual pertinent subject matter, let us keep sure to be understanding and empathetic of other people's view, to educate instead of making fun of others' ignorance, and to build a community together that looks up to authoritative scientific content, instead of putting down the uninformed!
This was taken from this post on r/physics, where the original poster is an active moderator of that sub.
Here is the main landing page for the project, and the actual papers themselves.
For the purpose of delivering some necessary context, the original poster also linked to some of their previous r/physics posts on this important topic:
...
...
But can someone explain to non-specialists what BootLoops actually does?
Claude's (edited) response:
...
BootLoops is an open-source harness for exact calculations in quantitative science, built by Harvard theoretical physicist Matthew Schwartz. He released BootLoops 1.0 publicly on October 1, 2026, under the MIT License. Anthropic published a guest post by him the same day, titled "Claude-shaped science."
What it is: Schwartz describes it as a harness for the LLM, much like Claude Code is a harness for Claude. It combines a large body of scientific software with protocols and skills that let an agent drive it. Packages like ACTUARY and NUMKIN fill in gaps. One report mentions 49 tool packages across six repositories.
...
Origin: He built it after Fable 5 ported his scattering-amplitude code in about 20 minutes and then bootstrapped 30 Feynman integrals, 15 of them new. The work began in December 2025 with Opus 4.5.
...
Output so far: 36 manuscripts with 19 coauthors, drawn from about 400 candidate problems. Sources disagree slightly on the field count (18 in some, 22 on the project site).
...
Model-agnostic: It's meant to work with Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT.
...
Collider and mathematical physics
Cosmology
String theory
...
Of course, Claude can make mistakes when generating this overview. Perhaps a much better overview can be made by using this harness.
Claude is often times highly sycophantic to the prompter to the point of misleading them -- there is no denying that. But on the other hand, it at least appears to try to be understanding and empathetic of its users. It does not make unfounded inferences or presumptions on the personality and attitudes of the prompter, that were never there to begin with.
(Post where image was taken from)
Gemini Flash-Lite's response:
...
The meme neatly highlights how mechanical flight and biological flight achieve the same physical outcome through entirely different evolutionary and engineering paradigms. Aerodynamic Differences
...
Now it's time for the always superior human responses to this deeply profound and contentious question!
If so, then would each of the pure states that constitute this mixed state be different branching multiverses, like different trees with their own branches?
Is it possible to have an impure state for the entirety of a completely isolated system, with known initial conditions?
For example, a quantum superposition of 10 photons with 11 photons, and so on.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05044
>We show that a finite number of time-frequency shifts of a Schwartz function can be linearly dependent. This disproves the so-called HRT conjecture of Heil, Ramanathan, and Topiwala. In particular, we provide an example consisting of 12 time-frequency shifts.
I like Terence Tao's exposition on this topic, so I screenshoted those portions that caught my eye and chose to show those here:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/a-partial-digestion-of-the-hrt-counterexample/
For the awesome science behind this, checkout this webpage:
https://www.cmetracker.ai/science#validation
>Everything the tracker shows — every wedge, arrival time, and storm estimate — comes out of a small set of published physics and classical astronomy, seeded entirely by real measurements. This page walks through all of it, equations included.
...
You can even replay historical solar storms such as the Carrington Event!
(Once again, I did not make this; I originally found it from this post. The actual developer is oldschoolscreenname -- thank them for making this awesome sun ejaculation simulation!)
The first thing I'd push back on is the premise: Gen Z doesn't uniformly hate AI. They're actually the generation with some of the highest rates of AI use—for homework, coding, writing, image generation, and search. What they often hate is what AI is doing to the internet and to creative work.
If I had to summarize the biggest reasons:
AI has flooded the internet with low-effort content. Gen Z grew up online. They can tell when Google results, TikTok videos, Pinterest pins, or blog posts are padded out by generic AI text. "AI slop" has become a real complaint because it makes finding authentic content harder.
It threatens creative careers. Artists, musicians, writers, voice actors, and designers are disproportionately young. Many see companies using AI to replace entry-level creative jobs while training models on existing creative works without permission.
Distrust of big tech. Gen Z is generally less enthusiastic about large technology companies than Millennials were in the 2010s. AI is often seen as another product rolled out by corporations promising to "change the world" while primarily cutting costs.
They worry about employment. Previous automation mostly threatened manufacturing. AI directly targets white-collar and creative work—the kinds of careers many Gen Z members are trying to enter. That makes the technology feel personal.
School has become an arms race. Students deal with AI-generated assignments, AI detectors that sometimes falsely accuse honest work, and teachers struggling to adapt. AI has complicated education in ways many students find frustrating.
Social media amplified the backlash. Ironically, algorithms reward outrage. Posts mocking obvious AI mistakes, bizarre AI-generated videos, or "look what AI ruined today" spread faster than mundane examples where AI quietly helps someone code or summarize a document.
That said, there is an interesting contradiction.
Many Gen Z users use AI every day while simultaneously saying they dislike "AI." Often what they really mean is:
they dislike AI replacing humans,
they dislike AI-generated spam,
they dislike companies forcing AI into every product,
but they do like AI as a personal productivity tool.
So the dislike is often directed less at the underlying technology and more at how it's being deployed.
One final observation: online discussion can make the backlash seem larger than it is. People who use AI to summarize notes or debug code usually don't post about it. People who encounter a terrible AI-generated ad or lose work to automation are much more likely to speak up. That creates a strong negative impression on social media even while AI adoption continues to grow.
From the article:
>The idea behind this construction was suggested by an LLM (OpenAI’s GPT- 5.6 Sol). The authors have verified the mathematical details and have written the argument in their own words. Computer algebra software (Mathematica, Maple) was used to verify computations and produce visualisations.
Its abstact which explains the conjecture, while briefly describing their counterexample:
>We exhibit a configuration of five point charges in Euclidean space whose electrostatic potential admits at least 24 critical points all of which are non-degenerate. Maxwell’s conjecture that the field of n point charges has at most (n − 1)^(2) critical points which are all non-degenerate is therefore false.
Edit: Just saw this was posted in the main sub as well: https://reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1vbrzbe/the_maxwell_conjecture_is_false/