Mr. Epstein was not only a world-class child abuser, he was a big fan of theoretical high-energy physics and of theoretical physicists. Some of my colleagues, unfortunately, got to know him. A number who were famous and/or had John Brockman as a book agent were even invited to a physics conference on Epstein’s private island, well before he was first arrested. This was no secret; as I recall, a lot of us heard about the existence of this conference/trip, but we hadn’t heard Epstein’s name before and didn’t pay much attention (ho hum, just another weird billionaire).
Personally, I feel quite lucky. The Brockman agency rejected the proposal for my recent book without comment (thank you!); and my research is mostly considered unimportant by the Brian Greenes of the world. As a result, I was not invited to Epstein’s island, never made his acquaintance, and blissfully avoided the entire affair. Clearly there are some benefits to being considered ordinary. And so — I’m sorry/not-sorry to say — I can’t tell you much about Epstein at all, or about how certain physicists did and did not interact with him. Regarding my colleagues who did get to know him, I can’t speak for them, since I wasn’t there, and I don’t know to what extent Epstein hid his immoral activities when they were around. It’s up to them to tell their own stories if they feel the need to do so (and I hope a couple of them do, just to clear the air.) Personally I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt — probably some literally didn’t know what was up until Epstein’s arrest in 2008, while perhaps others felt there wasn’t much they could do about Epstein’s actions on his own private island. I imagine they are deeply embarrassed to have been caught in this horrible man’s ugly web.
Fans of physics come in all shapes and sizes, and some have large wallets, large egos, and/or large ambitions. Among the wealthy supporters, we can count Alfred Nobel himself; billionaires sit on important scientific institute and university boards, and the more recent Breakthrough Prizes were funded by deep pockets. The extreme wealthy have outsized influence in our country and in our world, and one could argue that their influence in 2025 was not for the better. Usually, though, the influence in physics and related fields tends to be relatively benign, funding postdoctoral researchers and graduate students who deeply want to do science but also need to eat. That said, sometimes donors fund non-essential fields at the expense of critical ones, or favor theoretical research over the gathering of crucial experimental data, or push money on famous rich organizations when there are poor ones that are equally deserving and far more needy.
When gazillionaires, on their own initiative, come calling on non-profit organizations, whether they be community centers, arts organizations, or universities, they pose a problem. On the one hand, it is the job of anyone in a non-profit organization to help raise money — fail to do that, and your organization will close. When a single person offers to permanently change the future of your program, you would be derelict in your duty if you did not consider that offer. On the other hand, donors who might have ethical or criminal problems could drag the organization’s name through the mud. Worse, they might be able to force the organization itself to do something ethically questionable or even illegal.
There is a clear lesson for young academics and other up-and-coming non-profit actors in the Epstein affair: the more money potentially offered to our organizations, the more carefully we must tread. Money is power; power corrupts; and every pursuit of dollars, even for the best causes, risks infection. We can’t be large-scale non-profit fundraisers without doing serious and thorough background checks of the biggest donors; we have to question motives, and we can’t look the other way when something seems amiss. Those of us with clear hearts and honest pursuits tend to assume the best in other people. But we have to beware of those hoping to bolster their reputations, or clean their consciences, by giving away “generously” what they never deserved to have.
Astronomers have been collecting data for generations, and the sad fact is that not all of it has yet been fully analyzed. There are still discoveries hiding in the dark recesses of data archives strewn throughout the astronomical world. Some of them are harder to access than others, such as actual physical plates containing star positions from more than a hundred years ago. But as more and more of this data is archived, astronomers also keep coming up with ever more impressive tools to analyze it. A recent paper from Cyril Tasse of the Paris Observatory and his co-authors, published recently in Nature Astronomy describes an algorithm that analyzes hundreds of thousands of previously unknown data points in radio telescope archives - and they found some interesting features in it.
NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which will carry the Artemis II crew around the Moon, sits at the launch pad on Jan. 17, 2026, after rollout. It rests atop the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket. Orion can provide living space on missions for four astronauts for up to 21 days without docking to another spacecraft. Advances in technology […]
This is all based on the assumption that galaxies are receding away from us. And I actually cheated a little.
The JWST found a system of at least five interacting galaxies only 800 million years after the Big Bang. The discovery adds weight to the growing understanding that galaxies were interacting and shaping their surroundings far earlier than scientists thought. There's also evidence that the collision was redistributing heavy elements beyond the galaxies themselves.