Komentator: EyTfDghZvy (27.5.2012 9:58:52)
is abusolutely ture. So his fdrenis were very very proud of him, but one of them was a bit more curious than others, he wanted to know details, when pressed, this guy confessed, actually he won the ping-pang champion in a chess game, and the chess champion in playing ping-pang. What is the moral of this story? don't blame Faddeev, Penrose even they are not the best experts in particle physics when judged by the highest standard, don't blame string theorist even they are not experts in solid state physics. Don't blame Li Bai even his mathematics is not as good as yours. (one reason that I love Prof Li's blog is his taste on Chinesepoems which echoes mine in many ways.)BTW, I have genuine respects to Prof Li Miao since he has shown his true love to physics! As for Hehe xiao peng you, I have nothing to blame you. I agree that information has become overwhelming in China, but this is a new issue, it is very difficult to distinguish a piece of useful information from garbage. I just feel it is not fair to say that Penrose's physics is as low as an undergraduate in physics departments, because Penrose's PhD is in mathematics. Surely you know Witten's first degree is in literature, Wilczek is in mathematics, but they are the finest physicist judged by the highest standard. To be honest, I am a fun of Witten, Coleman, Weinberg, I am not a fun of Penrose. But I know Penrose is a genius, hugely original, one of best âmathematical physicistâ. And if anyone said Hawking's mathematics is better Penrose's, then I guess he(or she) knows little about modern mathematics. But I agree with Prof Li, Hawking's physics is superior to Penrose. That is it, if you are the best one (or one of the best) in one area, it is enough. The worst scenario is, one knows lot of things, and but he or she is not the best in any of them.
Komentator: 1 (11.8.2012 20:09:57)
Komentator: -1' (11.8.2012 20:09:58)