The Polymath Review

The Polymath Review

Posts by Topic:

In Reverse Chronological Order

1. Graph Theory for Quantum Field Theory, Renormalization, Space Navigation, and Prisoner Rehabilitation
2. 20 Years of Big Ideas, Compressed
3. Isomorphism: An Underutilized Concept
4. Writing My Artist Statement
5. Renormalization 11: Quantum Field Theory: Perturbation Series
6. Renormalization 10: Quantum Field Theory: Particle Collisions
7. Renormalization 9: Background: The Lagrangian Method, a Worked Example
8. Renormalization 8: Background: Quantum Theory of Electromagnetism: Hamiltonian Dynamics
9. On Leadership and Power
10. Renormalization 7: Background: Quantum Theory of Electromagnetism: Lagrangian Dynamics
11. Renormalization 6: The Foundations of Renormalization in Theoretical Physics, Part III: Quantum Theory of Electromagnetism
12. Renormalization 5: The Foundations of Renormalization in Theoretical Physics, Part II: Electrical Circuits and Fields
13. Renormalization 4: The Foundations of Renormalization in Theoretical Physics: Part I, Fields
14. Renormalization 3: Scaling of Electrical Phenomena and Renormalization
15. Renormalization 2: Approaching the River and the Tunnel: More on Electrical Circuits and Renormalization
16. Renormalization 1: A Boat, a River, and a Tunnel: Applying Renormalization Groups to Electrical Circuits
17. A Quotidian Approach to Serving Others
18. On Becoming One’s Own Master
19. On Science, Engineering, and Feeling
20. Engineering Desire: The Problem of What to Want
21. Physicality and the Female Body
22. I Am a Craftsman, and So Can You!
23. How I Get Things Done
24. Committing to Creating Positive Racial Change
25. A Personal Reflection on Race
26. Renormalization-Group Theory: Motivating Phenomena
27. Personal Power and Its Sources
28. Technical Disciplines as Ethical Disciplines
29. Physics-Humanity Analogy Interlude: How Reference Frames Made Me a Better Person

About This Blog

Started in December, 2019, this blog is a nexus for my interests and those of people whose work I admire or enjoy. This means that I work to write intelligently about a wide-ranging set of topics. If this blog were to be a social event, I imagine it as a development of the salon for the internet age, in the French sense. You know, art and bookshelves on the walls, people chatting casually or passionately about physics or politics in the velvet armchairs,…

Originally, I called this blog The Philomath Salon, where ‘philomath’ is my own neologism for a ‘seeker of knowledge’. I thought it had an okay ring to it but decided recently that it’s simply too dorky. In particular, the borrowed-French word salon is too obscure in English to not instantly evoke images of hair cutting…ah well.

Importantly, this blog is participatory, in that you are welcome to leave a comment or shoot me an email requesting a post on a particular subject or drawing my attention to some intriguing human or project. This person/project could be you/yours! I would love to promote your work if I find it compelling.

A note on spelling: I strive to be consistent within individual posts in a choice of Canadian/U.S. spelling, but not between posts. This is deliberate. I write for people in both countries and so give each group its due.

Comments: I will approve all comments that are intelligible, even if I think they’re written by bots. Even if I feel offended or otherwise turned off by them. Even if I would guess that another reader would feel similarly. This is in contrast to how I originally decided to treat comments; see below for details.

Here is a little simulation to demo how I will handle comments.

THE CAST

ME: an imp, a seeker of knowledge
COMMENTER 1: a constant ally of effective discourse
COMMENTER 2: an otherwise reasonable person who is temporarily acting like a degenerate

COMMENTER 1: So Julia, I thought that your last post on X was a good start, but you could have taken Y idea a bit further or considered Z. Can you write a follow up filling in some of the holes? You might take a look at Omega‘s article at abc.com.

ME: Thanks for reading and for your thoughts, Commenter 1! I thought I did a decent job talking about X, but you’re definitely right that it could be improved. This topic is important enough to revisit, and I’ll respond to Omega‘s work directly in the next post.

_____________________

COMMENTER 2: Hate. Hate hate hate hate hate. Hate Hate. _HATE_. You are such a *hate word*. You should go die in a *hateful place*. I hope *hateful thing* happens to you.

ME: Wow, Commenter 2, I’m sorry that you had such a negative experience reading my post about X, but you haven’t presented me with any options for helping you feel better. Would you like to try telling me again what you didn’t like? Let’s keep the focus on solutions, rather than problems, this time.

_____________________

(Commenter 2 now has a choice about how the play will end and what sort of character they will be. This is the sad ending.)

_____________________

COMMENTER 2: I’m not going to negotiate with you, you *hateful thing*. You, and everyone like you, is subhuman devil-spawn…hate, hate hate, H A T E…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ME: Hey, Commenter 2, I gave you a second chance to handle free speech responsibly, but I didn’t see any improvement in your last comment. Sadly, I’m going to remove you as a commenter in this specific discussion in order to keep it going constructively.

_____________________

(But what if it weren’t too late?! Maybe Commenter 2 could go a different way…and not just in some other universe;-). )

_____________________

COMMENTER 2: Julia, thanks for letting me know that my comment wasn’t helpful and for giving me a second chance. You’re right, it was really unpleasant reading your post on X. I guess those feelings just got the better of me in the moment, when I wasn’t thinking about how posting on the internet is an action that affects other people. I’ll do my best to keep that in mind, from now on, even though I think we disagree pretty deeply on some important topics.

ME: Commenter 2, I really appreciate how you took my response to heart and have met me halfway in turning things around. I’m glad that you’ll still be part of the conversation; I think you have a lot to contribute with your different perspective, especially because we don’t agree about some key points.

Thus an inclusive and pluralistic dialogue proceeded. And there was much rejoicing.