Selected Comments On Various Subjects

We thank the anonymous collector for bringing these quotations to our attention!


Cited from anonymous masters of the 21st century, unedited, in order of appearance

... genuine, correct, nonperturbative QCD
So, that was my propaganda statement for people that are not here.
... an integral along some appropriately creative path
Light-cone wavefunctions are wonderful things.
It's very difficult for them, and simple for us.
... so I have to attack the data.
Let me tell you everything I know ...
... decorated with a few kinematical factors.
You just trust me!
Some people say the Higgs should not be called the Higgs, but the Anderson.
There are only three additional functions, so it's not so bad
. ... maybe fortunately, maybe unfortunately, but as a matter of fact.
... the Yang-Mills equation, which I happen to solve analytically.
... accurately, but not precisely.
Gluons don't like each other.
There are papers, but no solution.
... which in 2 minutes is really difficult to explain, so I wouldn't even try.
I hope it's important.
This is a genuine contribution from Microsoft.
That's how I'll show you a 4-dimensional instanton on a 2-dimensional transparency.
For a long time it was impossible to have a conversation with experimentalists.
Lattice is revealing hadron structure bit by bit.
... and the lattice just shouted at us.
Boy, I struggled with that.
Some young person should do this.
That's not very elegant, but I think it has the right physics.
Now we come to my favorite process.
The stuff was done in '92 or something.
The lack of factorization theorems beyond leading twist requires a PRAGMATIC POINT OF VIEW.
... if you do it in the clever way.
So it's not quite simple, but in principle it's possible.
We can also include this crazy term.
... field theory: a little bit more than drawing pictures.
Where is the parton, transversely speaking?
The general structure is obvious ...
... could not be measured in any reasonable future.
Perhaps this is the only point where we agree.
How is it possible to miss a diagram?
In the end it works even worse.
It is so small, it's not worth showing.
... a chirally inspired description.
You did some doctoring.
All my quarks are heavy, and I neglect their mass.
With a nucleus, there are lots of problems.
... for the very very very large nucleus.
Most likely it will be too simple.
It might be right.
I have a comment, but we have not time. Unfortunately, hadrons are everywhere.
And what does it mean?
The classical nuclear physics of the two-pion system.
QCD: dangerous interplay of different scales.
Organizing scales is not everything.
Everything is predictable, nothing is interesting.
If you know the equation of state, you just calculate.
In principle you can do all kinds of wonderful things.
Simplified factorization fails in this simplified example.
We cannot go to experimentalists with parton distributions like this.
... a formula 2 km long.
I am basically finishing ...
This is a reasonably tough problem.
Physics is more important than coffee.
It looks very nice, but it's almost not useful.
It's not a trick, it corresponds to good physics.
I am more or less over my time.
When limits do not commute, it's an interesting theoretical situation.
... proving a lot of things.
We wait for theorists to settle all these questions.
When you say 1 you mean 0.938.
I am almost coming to the nice part.
I read your paper, yes.
... hard exclusive physicists ... chiral physicists ...
I have taken the liberty to parameterize the matrix this way.
Honestly, I wouldn't care much.
... in the usual way, where "usual" is not quite correct.
This blob is black.
Of course we want to KNOW it, and not only have it from Mathematica.
They have played some semi-dirty tricks.
I should not jump too quickly.
You have to multiply with the usual factors to be realistic.
With 10^32 it's no fun to do exclusive reactions.
... but you can make it much worse.
There is a lot of time for the future.
Just anything is successful.
Because I don't understand, I will try to classify.
The second scenario has no name.
It looks like a theorem - I cannot prove it but it's my feeling.
Unfortunately, it's not so obvious.
Of course people use different conventions.
OK: this is more formal stuff.
... taking into account what we DIDN'T take into account ...
There are some minor differences in factors.
Data, data, and more data.
The truth is that I don't know what to tell you.
There is only 1 physics in the 2 experiments.
When it has become real, we'll tell you.
We calculated it many many many years ago.
We can always cook up a good reason why perturbative QCD doesn't work.
It's some kind of a model.
I'll flash data privately to you.
Unfortunately, you can invent other approximations.
It's wrong but simple.
... insert it into the formula, and call the result after your name.
... matrices 4 by 4, 8 by 8, infinity by infinity.
No normal person can work with more than 3 objects.
I don't want to torture you with the details of the derivation or the results.
Let me jump a bit.
I will not waste time with the physical interpretation of this.
... sometimes reasonable, mostly incorrect.
This is no a wish, it's possible!