The article reads like there's a more rigorous proof of some classical renormalization results. I wish it had connected the renormalization results to empirical utility for applications.
Scientific American filled a similar niche but used significantly less rigor. Physorg overly sensationalizes every single article and thus has zero credibility. Physics Magazine is an absolute gem but is limited in scope to physics and thus omits computer science, biology, and mathematics.
So quanta fills a niche for people interested in news from other fields without grossly overstaying results and is willing to go into just a bit more detail than usual. It's a wonderful niche for the curious and the source publications are usually just a click away.
Instead of rhetorically dismissing people that like it, can you explain what you do NOT like about it?
It's talking about ellipticity. Should I be imagining a kind of tightly packed set of ellipses at all scales and shapes (kind of undulating or expanding and collapsing I guess)?
Does anyone have a better gloss-level sense of "the new method"?
llm_nerd•9h ago
https://legends.gordonbennett.aero/1st-coupe-aeronautique-go...
The winner took off from Paris and landed in Yorkshire, GBR.
The longest trip was 3400km in the 2005 outing, going 3400km -
https://legends.gordonbennett.aero/49th-coupe-aeronautique-g...