At least for a good while. I guess life is what happens to you while you make (or execute?) plans.

My spirits are similar to those experienced by fellow physics-grad-school-drop-out turned entrepreneur Andres from octopart when embarking in his new endeavor. Main difference is that I don't see my life as languishing in mediocrity because of being in grad school. In fact, I'm leaving with a heavy heart and a great deal of nostalgia to pursue what is obviously a better path for me for the immediate future.

I'll come back one day.

Startuping has been on my mind a lot as of late and as a result there were over 600 unread items on my google reader. So, I finally sat down and started marking things as read without reading them, un-marking the ones that seemed more interesting, starring, reading the ones that were short enough to be quick, and that sort of a thing. Annoying. Why doesn't the reader do this for me? It should know by now what I like. It is a good friend of mine. I go see it every day. But wait, this is a meta-problem: why doesn't do this? It should know how I use it and organize my data accordingly.

The web 2.0 bubblevolution seems to be about two things: putting applications on the web so that they are accessible from anywhere and put users' data on the web and organize it in some naive way. Continuing with my reader example, this is exactly what it does: keeps me from having to download and install a news reader and it is available anywhere I go. Secondly, it organizes my feeds into categories of my choosing (I have to tell it which feed goes where when I subscribe to it) and it presents my data to me in some naive ways: organized by date and by feed or by date in the "river of news" format. The web 2.0 has been a good thing, but it seems that it is largely done. It is difficult to come up with truly new products that aren't just mashups of variations of existing ones.

Introducing web 2.1. The name of the game is not to figure which applications and data to move to the web, but rather to drastically improve the services that already exist. Come to think of it, that is what gmail did. When gmail launched in 2004 everyone, their mothers and grandmothers were using hotmail, yahoo mail and handful of other web-based email services. M$ had been the owner of hotmail for seven years! And in came gmail and taught everybody how email should be done: search, conversations by subject, lots of space, filters & tags and spam block. Bingo.

In a nutshell, dramatically improving a service means keeping more data about the user and the ways she uses the product, and do intelligent, non-evil things with it. Make smarter things, not new things. Automatic and dynamic customization. Oh yeah, and web 2.1 is never beta.

Most of what is in this post came from a conversation with Walter, but I had already posted in that style. Sorry dude.

I'm not half as cool as to have Greek heroes and turtles, so I'll introduce Steve in their stead. He is a real person. He goes to graduate school with me. But, otherwise he is my diametrically opposite evil twin. We've had almost-heated arguments on things like public health care, US foreign policy, ethics, economics, and we always seem to take opposite sides. Maybe I exaggerate. Whatever.

Steve: May I ask you a philosophical question?

rz: Are you talking to me? Oh dear lord. Only as long as you promise me that I'll be done "answering" before tomorrow morning.

Steve: So I was tutoring this girl for one of her engineering classes, right? CS 111, I think. She was having problems implementing a list in C++ which grew in size if you stored beyond its capacity. And frankly, I wasn't really sure how to do it either because I always just use a vector and be done. Why do they teach stuff like that?

rz: Did that stop you from charging her? Wait. Don't answer that. Well, assuming you are asking me why isn't she learning more about practical, real-world, off the web-shelf, open-source library based programming, it probably has to do with the CS department's need to balance between teaching practical tools and teaching computer science in the "it is as much about computers as astronomy about telescopes" sense. It is a mighty difficult challenge because both tend to be called "computer science" for undergraduates, but both are fields in which you can do research in and they are quite separate from one another. In any event, it is probably good for her to understand how to build such a thing because a) you learn by examples and b) it is good to understand the most common tools to use them properly. By having her do it the teacher accomplishes a) and b) in one fell swoop.

Steve: Whatever. This girl is an industrial engineering major. She'll never have to program again in her life. Why should she have to deal with such mundane stuff as pointers and memory allocation to implement something that is in the standard library?

rz: First off, why is she even in the class if she is sure she won't ever need to program again? If it is required there probably is good reason for it. For example, if you are engineer you'll probably program at some point in your life. Secondly, she should learn in as much detail as possible. That's what we mean by "education". Maybe by doing that she will learn that she likes programming better than industrial engineering. Maybe to learn how to write elementary programs will save her a ton of time later in life. Maybe she should just do it for the joy of learning and broadening horizons. Which I thought was the other reason people came to college, by the way.

Steve: Whatever. I take a more practical approach: figure out what I need to know and move on.

rz: Uh... If you think like that why do you need to know anything? Why do you study physics? You could get by (and probably make a lot more money) without finding this higgs thingie you'll spend the better part of the next five years looking for. Of course, the only real proxy for what to learn in depth and what not is your interest, but for someone who is in the first couple of years of her education it seems important enough to try subjects even without having interest in them just for the sake of finding what she is actually interested in. Heck, exploring is probably good even for people at the stage we are at and even later on. I think a fundamental problem with the education system is that education is treated as if it was a mean to an end rather than a self-exploratory adventure of its own worth.

Steve: Pointers in C++ are not that deep.

rz: Sure, sure. I like practicality as much as the next guy. Well fine, maybe that's not true. Anyways... practicality has its place. I'm not suggesting that she goes to learn about functional programming when she has a multi-part project due in two days for the joy of exploring, but in general learning new things just to know them or just to try them is half the reason to go to college or pursue any type of education. Let me rephrase that. Learning new things for their own sake is one of the things we mean by education. Wait. One more time.

Learning new things for their own sake is one of the things we ought to mean by education.

It is that time of year when google starts taking applications for GSoC. The Google Summer of Code is a neat idea, really: pay a bunch of students enough to live on for the summer in exchange for them contributing to open source software. While the aim is very different, GSoC remindes me of how REUs work. This got me thinking...

Consider how science and technology work. Some talented person(s) is passionate enough about his science to pursue it at great costs. I'd even venture that most of us would do it "for free" as long as we had some way to get by. Secondly, companies realize that advances in science can turn into profits and so they fund research. Finally, the government also appreciates -- well maybe not as much as it should -- the value that science holds for the general public and for the government itself and thus funds research through agencies. The role of the agencies is to determine what is the overall direction that science should be taking and to administer the funds. Researches write proposals and get grants. People go to work.

Open source software isn't much different. Some talented hacker(s) is passionate enough about her hacking to pursue it at great costs and in her spare time. I'd venture most hackers would do it "for free" as long as they had some way to get by. Companies realize the value of this and they fund open source development (GSoC, IBM and eclipse, MySQL, etc). Finally, the government -- oh no, wait, the government is largely missing from the picture.

If google finds it worthwhile to fund REUs, why is it that the government does not find it worthwhile to fund open source at a larger scale? The general public -- whether they realize it or not -- benefits from the existence of open source projects. The internet exists because of open source. Secondly, the government itself will sooner or later wake up and adopt open source technologies for its own needs like those of Germany, The Netherlands, and Brazil which have already begun doing this. The potential agency should work much the same way the NSF does: determine overall direction and administer funds. Hackers write proposals and get grants. People go to work. The agency does not even need to be separate from the NSF. It just seems that there needs to be a way to make a proposal to build something and get the government to finance your efforts so long they are for "the greater good". Just like science. Only that hackers, unlike most scientists, don't need any expensive equipment other than a laptop.

Materials

These are the learning materials I have and will be using. Since I've been studying this stuff for a little bit I know a little about them. In no particular order:

Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics

For some reason I was intimidated by the title, but this is an excellent book to get your feet wet with. Focuses on the conceptual parts more than the math and therefore it often leaves you hanging as far as believing what you are writing. I'd say start any topic here and don't get hang up on anything that is not clear or not mathematically solid. You'll then be in a good position to understand the more rigorous texts. Aitchison also mantains solutions and errata on his site.

Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles

If only everyone would write like Griffiths! This is a bit superficial, but it is also a good way to get your feet wet. Since it is an undergrad book it is a good place if you don't want to deal with some of the math.

Peskin and Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory

The industry standard. The canonical. Not too friendly, but friendlier than others. You have to read this.

Srednicki, Quantum Field Theory a draft available online

Excellent book. I think this will become the canonical and industry standard. Very friendly and in full depth.

Maggiore, A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory

Also excellent. Not too friendly and very economical. This one reads slow but whenever you find lack of rigor somewhere come here. Its approach is first all the prereqs then the qft. As opposed to most of the others which try to bring in the classical field theory and group theory as needed along the way. Has all the solutions to the problems. This is my favorite so far.

Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell

It has been recommended to me by many. I briefly tried to read it during the summer and didn't get very far. It seems like an excellent book, but don't let the friendly tone lead you to think that it is an easy one.

Polchinski's course at UCSB, he follows Srednicki. Fall (no winter!) Srping.

Plan (canal? panama? am I man enough?)

As for the plan, it goes as follows.

Before you open any of the above (except the first two) make sure:

• You know special relativity inside and out. I read and these more or less from cover to cover, did most of the problems and can vouch for them: Rindler, Introduction to Special Relativity and Woodhouse, Special Relativity. If you are feeling more remedial, read the relevant appendix in Aitchison & Hey and the chapter in Griffiths.
• You are comfortable with complex functions and know contour integration. I read most of the first 7 chapters of Brown, Complex Variables and Applications. Also made sure to do a few problems along the way. It is now one of my favorite math books.
• You understand Green's Functions. I was remedial about this and only read the appendix in Aitchison and Hey combined with whatever I know from other places (which is not much).
• You are familiar with the very basics of groups and representations. Probably Cornwell 1,2 and 4 would be good, but I just picked this stuff up by osmosis during my math major days.

After the prereqs the first part of the roadmap is more or less as follows:

1. Griffiths Cp 2,3,6,(7). You can probably do this in one or two sittings. Pay attention to chapter 6 to make sure you can at least evaluate Feynman diagrams when thrown at you. Speaking of that, peak into chapter 7, at least the first few sections of it.
2. Srednicki 1 and 2 doing all the problems.
3. Aitchison and Hey 1 - 7 doing most of the problems in parallel with Zee I1-I7. Chapter 9 of Maggiore may come in handy here, too.
4. Peskin 2 doing all the problems
5. Maggiore (1), 2, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 doing all the relevant problems
6. Zee I8-I11
7. Peskin 3
8. Maggiore 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4 doing all problems
9. Peskin 4 doing all problems
10. Maggiore 5 and 6 doing all problems
11. Zee II

The hope is that this will prepare one to study QED in gory detail and full rigor.

I know I want to also incorporate Srednicki and Polchiski's class. I think I will do this in parallel with all of the above.

I anticipate that all of the above will be a solid 2 to 3 months of more than half-time studying. I mean 20 to 30 hours a week for 8 to 10 weeks.

At the time of writing I've only executed the prerequisites 1,2 and less than half of 3 above. Most likely this plan will get revised, I will post something more polished in retrospect at some point.