**CN¥ITP*, CLAUDI, Rocky River**

*It's fun to stay @ the YITP

For this reason, we propose instead to use (hyper)cubes. This also has the huge advantage of favoring Cartesian coordinates over spherical, the latter requiring trigonometry that nobody remembers beyond 2 dimensions. And we can expand in just plane waves, instead of those awful spherical harmonics. Furthermore, no topological complications are introduced by this change.

A familiar, standard example is the cow. (Technically, this is sexist terminology, and "cattle" or "ox" should be used instead. But we will udderly ignore such politics.) Replacing spheres with cubes resolves such problems as the inconsistency of spherical digestive tracts, which is closely related to the nonexistence of spherically symmetric magnetic fields. (I.e., digestive tracts must have both a positive & a negative "pole".)

An example of the use of non-round particles is hedronism: the use of amplituhydra, such as the rhododendron, in hedronic physics. This has become one of the dominant approaches to CFT. Interactions of hedrons is most simply calculated with laptons [💻]. Unfortunately, the IR divergences cannot be regularized without destroying conformal invariance, so it's hard to see the forest for the loops. (Such problems do not yet appear in the Boring approximation.)

As is well known [🤨], the simplest interaction terms in quantum field theory are cubical. (In fact, spherical terms are never considered.) We first analyzed path integrals as ordinary integrals in dimension D = 0. Canonical quantization wasn't applicable, since it's a waste of time, & there is no time in D = 0. Then ∀D we calculated tree-level scattering (including Chuck Taylor amplitudes) all the way up to 12pt, but not higher because the fontsize would be too large. This is sufficient to analyze amplitudes @ NNNNNNNNLOL. For loop amplitudes, we used the following approximations:

asymptotic safety: 2 ≪ 1

As a result, people have resorted to using progressively cruder aprcowimations to produce results. For example,

CFT_{4} → CFT_{3} → CFT_{2} → CFT_{1} → CFT_{0} → CFT_{-1}

superstring → supergravity → metric → scalars

particle physics → nucular physics → condensed metaphysics → cosmology

big fields → small

high energy → low

- [1,2] = 1∙2 – 2∙1 = 0
- 🤨 You know well where to find it.
- 🧊 Ice Cube, AmeriKamioKa’s Most Wanted
- 🇩🇿 R. Cho, Algebras & aldehydes
- 🇱🇮 Philo Sophist, Lie groups, damn Lie groups, & statistical mechanics
- 🏑 A. Einbach, Single Field Theory
- 🌈 R. Rainbow & L. Zweibern, Another loop, another leg
- 💩 Harry Blackhole, Paratelellel gravity
- 💀 Riemann J
_{μ}& Cloudyallday T_{μν}, JT gravity - 🎻 Y
_{0}Namby & George Boson, Olym-p-adic string - 🍿 Corn Popper & Park Choi, The proof of the pudding is in the eating
- 🐴 Houyhnhnm, preprint yymm.nnnnn
- 🍔 War & Siege, Quondam mechanics & the iPadé approximant, Biennale preprint
- 🧶 G. Schwarz & R.N. Schwarz, worldlein einsteinbein
- ☄️ Connecticut energy, Yale preprint
- 🤓 V. Gates, Empty Kangaroo, M. Roachcock, and W.C. Gall, How I spent my summer vacation,
*in*Strings '89, eds. R. Arnowitt, R. Bryan, M.J. Duff, D. Nanopoulos, and C.N. Pope, College Station, TX, March 13-18 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990) 535-549;

Erratum,*in*Strings and Symmetries 1991, eds. N. Berkovits, H. Itoyama, K. Schoutens, A. Sevrin, W. Siegel, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and J. Yamron, Stony Brook, May 20-25 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992) 593-599.