🧵 Modern math typesetting is soulless
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:20:09 UTC No. 16450619
The old look with the thicker, more rounded letters is much more refined and pleasant to read. You felt like you were reading a quality academic work that people put effort into producing, not something somebody put together on their computer in a day.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:29:58 UTC No. 16450632
>>16450619
You know you can change fonts in LaTeX, right?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:34:43 UTC No. 16450646
>>16450632
Not the point, pick up any random Springer/AMS textbook released in the last ~10 years and see what it looks like.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 05:09:28 UTC No. 16453212
>so, within a proton all kinds of quarks pop in and out of existence
That's how it's explained to the public but if you go look at the textbooks it's all modeled as correlations of fields that happen to be calculable with this nice diagrammatic method due to Feynman where sometimes the diagrams look like particles popping in and out of existence. But those diagrams don't even really work for modeling a proton. They sort of work to describe how the individual quarks, gluons, and antiquarks (collectively called partons) within a proton collide with sufficiently high energy particles, but even in that case you have to use something called a parton distribution function that you generally have to find experimentally which tells you what sort of partons you're likely to collide with. Some people have apparently had some success calculating parton distribution functions using lattice QCD, which is an entirely different technique from the diagrams and models everything as fields.
The short version is that in QCD it's often very hard to check that the theory really predicts what's been found experimentally, and 50%+ of any article for the public involving quantum physics consists of lies for children.