somewhere in time

今天的阳光很明媚
        今天的我却很晦暗
      影子和我
        在路上行走
      是形只影单
        还是形影相随
      是孤单
        还是美满

这是一个生产数学家和物理学家的部落，有着十几位优秀的科学家都拥有这个令人骄傲的姓氏。John Bernoulli（约翰.贝努利）在1696年把最速降线问题在一个叫做《教师学报》的杂志上面提出，公开挑战主要是针对他的哥哥Jacobi.Bernoulli（加可比.贝努利）, 这两个人在学术让一直相互不忿，据说当年John求悬链线的方程，熬了一夜就搞定了，Jacobi做了一年还认为悬链线应该是抛物线，实在是很没面子。那个杂志好像是Leibniz搞得，很牛，欧洲的牛人们都来做这个东西。到最后，John收的了5份答案，有他自己的，Leibniz的,还有一个L.Hospital（洛比塔）侯爵的（我们比较喜欢的那个L.Hospital法则好像是他雇人做的，是个有钱人）然后是他哥哥Jacobi的，最后一份是盖着英国邮戳的，必然是Newton（牛顿）的，John自己说“我从它的利爪上认出了这头狮子．”据说当年Newton从造币厂回去，看到了Bernoulli的题，感觉浑身不爽，熬夜到凌晨4点，就搞定了。这么多解答当中，John的应该是最漂亮的，类比了Fermat（费马）原理，用光学一下做了出来。但是从影响来说，Jacobi的做法真正体现了变分思想。Bernoulli一家在欧洲享有盛誉，有一个传说，讲的是Daniel Bernoulli（他是John Bernoulli的儿子）有一次正在做穿过欧洲的旅行，他与一个陌生人聊天，他很谦虚的自我介绍：“我是Daniel Bernoullis。“那个人当时就怒了，说：“我是还是Issac Newton呢。”Daniel从此之后在很多的场合深情的回忆起这一次经历，把此当作他曾经听过的最衷心的赞扬。 John 和Jacobi这两个Bernoulli家族的人，都算不出来自然数倒数的平方和这个级数，Euler从他老师John那里知道的，并且给出了π²/6这个正确的答案。Euler（欧拉）是他那个时代最伟大的数学家。 法国有一个很著名的哲学家，叫做Denis Diderot，中文的名字叫做狄德罗，是个无神论者，这个让叶卡捷琳娜女皇不爽，于是他请Euler来教育一下Diderot，其实Euler本来是弄神学的，他老爸就是的，后来是好几个叫Bernoulli的去劝他父亲，才让Euler做数学了。Euler邀请Diderot来了皇宫，他这次的工作是证明上帝的存在性，然后，在众人面前说：“先生，( a + bn ) / n = x, 因此上帝存在；请回答!”Diderot自然不懂代数，于是被羞辱，显然他面对的是欧洲最伟大的数学家，他不得不离开圣彼得堡，回到了巴黎……

女人如花 

多年以前看到的，今天重新贴出来 

女人如花，花色缤纷。一袭白衣是圣洁的百合，一款红裙是火红的玫瑰，蓝裳是宁静的微笑，黄色的丝巾是娇美的妩媚。

每一个女人都是一朵花，有的女人似牡丹，国色天香，气度高雅，举手投足间总不失风雅，天生是花之王。 她聪慧、美丽、高贵，在滚滚红尘中宁可孤独一世也绝不媚俗。在现实生活中，她是脱俗的、孤傲的，她满怀深情地等待未来的花期，为真正懂得她爱她的人美丽一次。牡丹之美，美在霸气，她是只存在于彼岸，永远无法到达。

还有的女人象兰花，每年春天，洁白芬芳。然而玉兰花怕雨，夜间的一场小雨就会使满树盛开的花朵变了颜色，花瓣破碎不堪。玉兰花不像别的花，一茬谢了一茬又开，它骤然开放又骤然凋谢，爱玉兰的人往往要苦等一年。 像兰的女人柔美而深情，矜持而脆弱，她绝不肯轻易付出自己的感情，她的一生只有一次花季，你若错过了一时，也就错过了一生。兰花之美在洁，空谷幽兰，孤芳自赏。

而水仙花是那委娇小柔美，那淡淡的香令人顿觉清新的舒适。像水仙花一样的女人是最适合娶回来放在家里的，她不张扬，也不娇贵；她很安心于小小的环境，并愿意为此开出一片风景。

还有一种女人，也于五彩之中只钟情一种色彩，火焰的颜色，她是一朵火红的玫瑰。玫瑰是美丽的，她的刺和她的美丽一样有名，坚决地抵抗着众多爱慕的亲近。她一心一意等着爱人的到来，那时她便不顾一切地怒放，不惜将鲜血涂上花瓣。玫瑰是固执的，爱上了没有回头路。有幸摘到玫瑰的人是幸福的，但也许是辛苦的。

而花中的珍品可能当数莲花了。在泥潭里亭亭绽放，那举世无双的美丽令人感动，要经过怎样的历炼，才得这样一朵洁净的莲哟。如莲的女人总是用一颗雅致恬静的心去面对纷乱复杂的世界，在一切的优美、败坏、清明、污浊之中去寻找智慧。 她不为红尘所困，总能于般烦恼中觅到一种觉悟。这样的女人不是一般男人所能爱的，而一旦爱了，则是生命中的永远。

可是，花中最有傲骨、最坚强的还是腊梅。腊梅开得那么含蓄，颜色也不够娇艳，但是依然是懂花之人的最爱。梅之可贵在于品性，它开的时候，正值天寒地冻，万物萧瑟，这个时节惟有它将真情毫不保留地奉献于人。对男人而言，如梅的女人是千幸万苦中的红颜知己。当风雪袭来时，她的芬芳也随风而至，令你感动，备觉温馨。

各种各样的花儿，各自地开放着，或是还藏在花骨朵里等待着。开放着，为了一个命运；等待着，为了不同的命运。花样的女人，也许特别娇弱，而也许又无比坚韧。美丽的或是平凡的，都在期待着属于她的欣赏。

每一个女人都是一朵花，有的绚丽，有的平凡，但无论怎样都不过花开花落的自然规律。重要的是花落了是否能嬗变为果，只有那些不是为了花开而是为了结果的女人，才能拥有季花开的心情。

女人如花，花的收放就如同女人的内敛和开放。

女人如花，从含苞待放，到花开一两分，花开三四分花开五六分，花开七八分，到花谢了，就是女人的一生。

一个聪明的女人，知道自己何时收，何时放，也知道收多少放多少，一个收放自如的女人，一定是一个有魅力的女人，也一定是一个幸福快乐的女人！

收放自如，于女人就是矜持与热情，掌握其中的度，就是女人一生的修炼！

女人常常嗟叹，我怎么就不早生一千年呢，唐宋的名人才子个个爱花品花，而今世的多数男人为名利所困，已无暇品花，自然也就不懂女人了。这不能说是身为今世女人的悲哀。有朝一日倘若男人能有所醒悟，做一个惜花之人，恐怕滚滚红尘中也就多了一份美丽。

量子场

物质与光
粒子数表象
洛仑兹变换下
此消彼长
波函数成
量子化的场
是谁把这算符写进拉格朗日量
玻色费米
对易反对易
QED的辉煌
自能疯狂
我从远方
所有的方向
路径积分到你身旁

量子场论的伤粒子世界太繁华
Yang-Mills规范场对称性再扩张
重正化微绕项
标准模型剪不断
只留着引力在其外彷徨

画一条线
联接着顶点
清晰的费曼图
场的形象
对称坡却
Higgs质量
统一了电弱衰变结合电磁场
谁的颜色
囚禁着夸克
QCD作用强
GUT在望
无穷的项
Wilson有效场
一次截断
不留惆怅

量子场论的伤粒子世界太繁华
Yang-Mills规范场对称性再扩张
重正化微绕项
标准模型剪不断
只留着引力在其外彷徨

一个人的早餐只是一个鸡蛋,两个人的早餐就是一顿爱;
一个人的拥抱只能抱住风,两个人的拥抱就有真实的心痛;
一个人的快乐多么单薄,两个人的快乐充满了你我;
一个人的痛苦没有尽头,两个人的痛苦却会有人分担;

这篇文章很有意思！

The Cult of Genius    

While some physicists are known for their hearty support of atheism, even they can have some personal dieties. High in the physicist’s pantheon sits Richard Feynman, due not only to his obvious smarts and good work, but also to an outsized personality chonicled in a wealth of popular writings (and even a movie!). I’ve always had mixed feelings about Feynman as a cult figurehead, however. It’s nothing personal against Feynman in particular, but about the hero worship he represents. During high school or college, many aspiring physicists latch onto Feynman or Einstein or Hawking as representing all they hope to become. The problem is, the vast majority of us are just not that smart. Oh sure, we’re plenty clever, and are whizzes at figuring out the tip when the check comes due, but we’re not Feynman-Einstein-Hawking smart. We go through a phase where we hope that we are, and then reality sets in, and we either (1) deal, (2) spend the rest of our career trying to hide the fact that we’re not, or (3) drop out. It’s always bugged the crap out of me that physicists’ worship of genius conveys the simultaneous message that if you’re not F-E-H smart, then what good are you? In physics recommendation land, there is no more damning praise than saying someone is a “hard worker”. 

Well, screw that. Yes, you have to be clever, but if you have good taste in problems, an ability to forge intellectual connections, an eye for untapped opportunities, drive, and yes, a willingness to work hard, you can have major impacts on the field. While my guess is that this is broadly understood to be true by those of us clever-but-not-F-E-H-smart folks who’ve survived the weeding of graduate school, postdoctoral positions, and assistant professorhood, we do a lousy job of communicating this fact to our students. I’ve always suspected that we lose talent from the field because people opt for Door #3 (drop out) when they face up to the fact that physics is frequently hard, even for very clever people. The idea that you have to be F-E-H smart to succeed gives little encouragement to continue when the going gets rough. (I have no idea if other fields have this same problem — my guess is that physicists are particularly prone to it, since we are trained early on to think that physicists are simply smarter than chemists or biologists. Those other fields are for the hard workers. We don’t put mathemeticians on this scale, because we secretly believe they’re smarter than us. Note to the biologist lynch mob: tounge is in cheek.) 

Anyways, I’ve been thinking about this again in light of Po Bronson’s excellent article in New York Magazine about Carol Dweck’s research (which I read via Nordette in Blogher is coming out in a popular book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success). The article is focused on how to effectively handle praise for smart kids. The upshot (verified by a number of clever experiments), is that when you praise a kid for being smart in general, rather than for specific accomplishments or efforts, you risk paralyzing the kid with a fear of not looking smart, to the point where they will tend to shun challenges. 

In follow-up interviews, Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatized—it’s public proof that you can’t cut it on your natural gifts. 

Repeating her experiments, Dweck found this effect of praise on performance held true for students of every socioeconomic class. It hit both boys and girls—the very brightest girls especially (they collapsed the most following failure). 

While Dweck is working primarily with preK-12 students, everything covered in the article rings true for what I’ve seen at the higher levels (both for myself, my colleagues, and students). Those of us who are fortunate enough to sail through high school often crumple when the stuff we’re allegedly good at finally becomes hard. Whether you “make it” as a physicist after that has a lot to do with how you respond at that moment. Do you take it as a sign that you’re not cut out for the game? Do you feel like a failure, and stop enjoying physics as a whole? Do you buck up and forge ahead? (Like a neutrino, you’ll probably wind up oscillating among the three mixed states for a while, before collapsing into one of them.) 

I was most struck in Bronson’s article by a description of an experiment by Lisa Blackwell and Dweck on the impact on performance of how one perceives intelligence. In a science magnet school with low acheiving students, Blackwell studied 700 students, all of whom were taught a multi-session unit on study skills. One half of the group, however, also received a “special module on how intelligence is not inate”: 

The teachers—who hadn’t known which students had been assigned to which workshop—could pick out the students who had been taught that intelligence can be developed. They improved their study habits and grades. In a single semester, Blackwell reversed the students’ longtime trend of decreasing math grades. 

The only difference between the control group and the test group were two lessons, a total of 50 minutes spent teaching not math but a single idea: that the brain is a muscle. Giving it a harder workout makes you smarter. That alone improved their math scores. 

These studies have lots of implications for higher ed in the sciences. Physics, with its strong cult of genius, is probably the canary in the coal mine.

为什么是我而不是你们
深陷饥饿，度日如年
这个冬天竟然没有一场落雪
因此我并没有真正度过
这个贫穷的冬天
我的忍耐总有一天要到尽头
惟有一场大雪才像我枕边的圣书
一年之中最困难的日子
翻读几篇，骗住自己
我在等待更高更远的事情发生
上升的生活和上升的言辞
心中玫瑰盛开，眼中流泪
为了看到最后的自己我一活再活
但为什么是我而不是你们
享用纯洁的纸币和肮脏的青春
挥霍来之不易的天意
在命运面前
逆来顺受，自欺欺人
为什么是我而不是你们
（圣徒蔡）

你忘记所有东西的时刻已经临近，
你被所有人忘记的时刻也已临近。
                 ——马克.奥勒留《沉思录》
用优美的文辞表达内心的晦暗
岸是一个内容暧昧但给人以诱惑的单词
此与彼：这个古老的用法，通俗的比喻
因为过于常见，所以并没有谁想到要去深思熟虑

但对于我和我的朋友们，
未老先衰的汉人，即使在夏日午后的闲暇中
它也先占据着我们说出或者深藏的话题
看上去像随便谈及，像平日谈起醇酒、妇人和欢歌

但是我们，也许只有我们，心里都很明白
迟早有一天，我们必定要用一条命去赎自己
眼下只有一堵矮墙遮住视线：我们都想翻过去看个清楚

因为此外生活中已不存在秘密：爱情、青春和革命
我们都已用过去完成时造过狂热的句子
剩下的日子，岸啊：你的那一边，让我们苦心等候
（圣徒蔡）

如果能死在黑洞里，真是万般死法中最快意的一种了！

今天看到的，真正的理想主义者。

罗素说，支撑人活下去的三条必需的精神乃是：对爱情的希冀，对知识的追求，以及对整个人类深重的怜悯。

• But

   还有什么故事让我们热泪盈眶
   还有什么记忆让我们黯然神伤
   还有什么暴行让我们怒发冲冠
   还有什么耻辱让我们无法承担
   还有什么地方让我们觉得温暖
   还有什么人儿让我们感到安详