Writing Exercise:
"For today’s exercise, I want you to do your very best to be your most annoying self.
Think for a moment - not too long! - about some of the traits you might have that you’re worried other people might find cringe or irritating. Then, just for the space of this exercise, lean into those traits. Show and tell. Write about either a specific, significant period of your life or a specific, significant skill you’ve learned, and do your very best to emphasize your most annoying qualities.
This one should be between 500 and 800 words, because I want to give you space to really try to piss me off. Dial in on the details; show me your thought process, and show me how other people react to you. If I come away thinking that you’d be an ideal dinner party guest, you have failed this exercise."
~~~~~~~
Listen, little lady.
I know that's what you are because I saw you wearing combat boots and a mini skirt back in the day. You're wrong. No, you are NOT EVEN WRONG about quantum physics.
I know you don't think about quantum physics much. I can tell because when you do, you prove to the world you have no idea what's really going on.
You have repeated the standard line that weak SU(2) is compact, but strong SU(3) is split, i.e. is SL(3,R). I have tried repeatedly to understand why you made this decision, rather than taking strong SU(3) to be compact and weak SU(2) to be split, i.e. SL(2,R). This smacks of a committee decision, in which truth goes out the window, and the loudest voice wins. Either way, changing any compact particle physics group into a split group is a big deal and has to be justified experimentally, not just by the desire for a quiet life.
That's the gist.
Let me educate you. One of the fundamental differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics is that general relativity is expressed in terms of real matrices (which means split real forms of Lie groups and Lie algebras), while quantum mechanics (and particle physics more generally) uses unitary matrices (which means compact real forms).
Mysticism is an extreme form of quantum fundamentalism, in which the answer to a yes/no question can be a quantum superposition of yes and no. I can’t be dealing with mysticism. On the other hand, it is impossible for an agnostic to argue with ecumenicists – the goal posts keep moving around in circles, and no one knows which way is right and which way is left.
And you, little lady, are smack dab in the middle of the quantum fundamentalism camp. Unable to see, much less imagine, that the precise real form is irrelevant because one can always multiply by the square root of -1 to get from one to the other. At the level of representation spaces, where the particles live.
You see, the main question about particle physics is “Why 2+3?”, or in technical terms, why is the gauge group of the nuclear forces SU(2) x SU(3)? There is a related question about the charge on the up quark: “Why ⅔?” There is no mention of 4+1 anywhere in particle physics. But it was only once I started to consider the question “How ⅔?” that I started to make progress in understanding what is really going on behind the scenes.
I am sure I have gone over your pretty little head, with all this talk about gauge groups and Lie algebras. Please don't you try to defend your position. I know that somewhere down deep in your ecumenical heart, you know I'm right.
What I am suggesting is that you go back and study. Actually think for yourself instead of just repeating what the professors tell you.
Now when I was taught Maxwell’s equations, back in the dark ages (1970s), I was taught that E is antisymmetric, not symmetric. This is wrong because if E is antisymmetric, then spacetime is Euclidean, not Lorentzian. Of course, I didn’t know that at the time, but I do now.
As you know, the biggest obstacle to answering any question is asking the wrong question. And if you are fixated on answering 4+1, when the correct question is 2+3, you will just go round and round in circles, bashing your head against a brick wall.
I will leave it with that.
You're Wrong. Still asking the wrong questions. And I fear you might not come to the understanding that you are feeding the world a crock of shit.
Sincerely yours.
"For today’s exercise, I want you to do your very best to be your most annoying self.
Think for a moment - not too long! - about some of the traits you might have that you’re worried other people might find cringe or irritating. Then, just for the space of this exercise, lean into those traits. Show and tell. Write about either a specific, significant period of your life or a specific, significant skill you’ve learned, and do your very best to emphasize your most annoying qualities.
This one should be between 500 and 800 words, because I want to give you space to really try to piss me off. Dial in on the details; show me your thought process, and show me how other people react to you. If I come away thinking that you’d be an ideal dinner party guest, you have failed this exercise."
~~~~~~~
Listen, little lady.
I know that's what you are because I saw you wearing combat boots and a mini skirt back in the day. You're wrong. No, you are NOT EVEN WRONG about quantum physics.
I know you don't think about quantum physics much. I can tell because when you do, you prove to the world you have no idea what's really going on.
You have repeated the standard line that weak SU(2) is compact, but strong SU(3) is split, i.e. is SL(3,R). I have tried repeatedly to understand why you made this decision, rather than taking strong SU(3) to be compact and weak SU(2) to be split, i.e. SL(2,R). This smacks of a committee decision, in which truth goes out the window, and the loudest voice wins. Either way, changing any compact particle physics group into a split group is a big deal and has to be justified experimentally, not just by the desire for a quiet life.
That's the gist.
Let me educate you. One of the fundamental differences between general relativity and quantum mechanics is that general relativity is expressed in terms of real matrices (which means split real forms of Lie groups and Lie algebras), while quantum mechanics (and particle physics more generally) uses unitary matrices (which means compact real forms).
Mysticism is an extreme form of quantum fundamentalism, in which the answer to a yes/no question can be a quantum superposition of yes and no. I can’t be dealing with mysticism. On the other hand, it is impossible for an agnostic to argue with ecumenicists – the goal posts keep moving around in circles, and no one knows which way is right and which way is left.
And you, little lady, are smack dab in the middle of the quantum fundamentalism camp. Unable to see, much less imagine, that the precise real form is irrelevant because one can always multiply by the square root of -1 to get from one to the other. At the level of representation spaces, where the particles live.
You see, the main question about particle physics is “Why 2+3?”, or in technical terms, why is the gauge group of the nuclear forces SU(2) x SU(3)? There is a related question about the charge on the up quark: “Why ⅔?” There is no mention of 4+1 anywhere in particle physics. But it was only once I started to consider the question “How ⅔?” that I started to make progress in understanding what is really going on behind the scenes.
I am sure I have gone over your pretty little head, with all this talk about gauge groups and Lie algebras. Please don't you try to defend your position. I know that somewhere down deep in your ecumenical heart, you know I'm right.
What I am suggesting is that you go back and study. Actually think for yourself instead of just repeating what the professors tell you.
Now when I was taught Maxwell’s equations, back in the dark ages (1970s), I was taught that E is antisymmetric, not symmetric. This is wrong because if E is antisymmetric, then spacetime is Euclidean, not Lorentzian. Of course, I didn’t know that at the time, but I do now.
As you know, the biggest obstacle to answering any question is asking the wrong question. And if you are fixated on answering 4+1, when the correct question is 2+3, you will just go round and round in circles, bashing your head against a brick wall.
I will leave it with that.
You're Wrong. Still asking the wrong questions. And I fear you might not come to the understanding that you are feeding the world a crock of shit.
Sincerely yours.