Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's exactly what I meant.

You're right that theories (whether they're "ultimate" or just effective theories) don't have to be simple. In fact, as a physics student I spent many semesters studying QFTs, QED, SM and QCD (our current proven and accepted theories) at University, and believe me, they're not simple or beautiful or whatever. (At least not in the sense that a programmer would call something simple or beautiful.)

Whoever tells you that they are is trying to sell you a pop.sci. book or article.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When I studied quantum physics, I definitely thought it was beautiful, in the same way that I find some algorithms astonishingly elegant.

Simple though? No. They are not simple.


To your point of the beholder: I find/found the ideas of quantum mechanics beautiful, but I find the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics much more beautiful. I see QM as sort of messy...

...until second quantization (and some Dirac-notation formulations of perturbation theory). Those I enjoyed.


"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."


What are you trying to say by quoting this famouse line? That it can't be made simpler? How do you know that?

"Never rise to speak till you have something to say."


The fact that it looks complicated should not be a reason to reject it. It may just be as simple as it can possibly/reasonably be.

This applies to software as well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: