今天英超进入魔鬼赛程，看了切尔西3：2险胜富勒姆（我是切尔西的球迷），利物浦和曼联轻松胜各自对手（我是红军和红魔的欣赏者）。应该结束一个愉快的夜晚，洗洗睡了，却在漫游网络的时候不小心看到王云的主页，原来她还是诗人！不仅是诗人，她还是英文诗人，而且还得过奖，立刻心生仰慕，如滔滔江水连绵不绝……：）
这里是她贴出的两个samples:
The Parable of Love
A man traps a bird.
He complains of her sad, listless notes.
She wraps herself in her blue wings.
She appears dead.
He buries her in a glossy white box.
He drives a car at night
with the lights off.
He climbs into the white box
to ask her one more question.
Written in Stars
A great wall stretches
three hundred million lightyears
We are not certain of its existence
The black mirrors are embroidered
They speak to us in waves
As we breathe our thoughts are read
A cold sensation
These faint blossoms emerge
out of darkness
As we gaze they grow brighter
In the celestial ocean of dust
there are lumps that glow
there are lumps that are dark
there are voids that grow
你可以去王云的主页看看。 很简洁的诗，和她的文章的风格类似。在欣赏王云的诗的同时，我还是更希望她将来能告诉我们，暗能量满足的状态方程到底是什么。
我有时也写诗，中文的，还没有胆量拿出去发表。写诗完全是自我陶醉的事，很难找到几个人去分享。即使有一个半个“知音”分享了，分享之余，你会觉得兴味索然。
转发到新浪微博相关阅读:
昨天也看了那场，现在切尔西的打法在英超算是超强的吧，穆里尼奥把切尔西提升了一个档次（他总是能用对人，不服不行）。我倒是很欣赏鼎盛的阿森纳的配合，那种唯美的打法现在不适合在英超生存了，而且没有大投入还总是卖人肯定是不行的。我最喜欢的球队是inter（希望以后有机会去意大利）。
说到暗能量的物态方程，七月份CCAST的会上，北大的范老师讲了到把W对z做展开的方法，并且给了Princeton的Seljak等人的数据。你觉得这个对z展开的方法可靠吗？我一直很怀疑，但又说不出来具体的理由（先假定W是个常数就难以服众）。
没有想到你们还都有欣赏诗的雅兴，PF，PF。
看来你是阿森纳的fan。我觉得阿森纳的所谓唯美只是针对弱队才能打出来，当时打曼联就不行。切尔西按照弗格森的说法是将英超提升了，其他队学切尔西的经验后阿森纳的唯美打法就更加打不出来了。你的口味和我家里的一个人一样，他喜欢的球队是阿森纳，Inter和拜仁。
对z做展开来拟合实验当然不太可信。
对于英超来说，我并非哪个球队的fan，只要踢得好看的都称赞，前些日子，西哈姆联队打的漂亮，我也挺欣赏的。不过不太赞同你说阿森纳对弱队才能打出来的说法，觉得那时候的阿森纳有和打法硬朗的球队抗衡的资本，那时候的中场和后卫都很平衡，而现在已经是千疮百孔了。阿森纳对切尔西那场你看了吗？切尔西进攻和防守的速度都是阿森纳所难以企及的，输球也是在所难免的；没有了强大中场的支援，亨利还不能成为神。
我顺带着看了王云的网页，她做的物态方程方面是用密度rou对z做展开的，并且说这样的方法比用W对z做展开的要好，好像能给出来更强的限制。这个方法的可信度真的就提高了吗？ 再说了，她上面说要用SNe Ia做标准烛光，需要红移大于1，而高红移方面的数据现在的可靠性应该是比较差吧？
另外，今天下午看你的导师方先生和鲁菲尼写的那个科普的最前面几页，讲电子和质子的带电量的例子，好像就用了最朴素的人择原理吧，不知道你注意过没有。^_^
切尔西客场打阿森纳的那场当然看了，切尔西的比赛我每场必看，如果因为某种原因看不了，过后下载看。我看阿森纳较少，觉得今不如夕的原因是走了维埃拉，皮雷等人状态下滑，年轻人还没有上来。不过，即使是当年鼎盛的阿森纳，遇到穆里尼奥大概还是不行。
王云直接用能量密度，大概是因为在红移－亮度关系中状态方程因子w的进入比较间接。
他们的那本书的内容我早忘了：）
祝贺老猫的博客开张。
谢谢老杜！欢迎常来。
老猫新年吉祥、丰收。
还没有机会仔细拜读，
肯定把板凳搬过来是绝对不会吃亏的。
哈哈，您来啦。我正要睡觉呢，我学韩乔生，圣诞节刚过，给您拜个晚年：）
i know her. She’s in class 80 and i am in class 84. Our dorm was Bldg 6. Wow! I admire her very much that after 20 years, she still love and do what she was doing back then. I wonder if she’ve read this poem by Harold Furth 91930-2002), former director of Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.
“Perils of Modern Living”
(published in 1956 by the New Yorker magazine. excerpt from ‘Fusion – search for endless energy’ by Robin Herman)
Well up beyond the tropostrata
There is a region stark and stellar
Where, on a treak of anti-matter,
Lived Dr. Edward Anti-Teller.
Remove from Fusion’s origin,
He lived unguessed and unawares
With all his anti-kith and kin,
And kept macassars on his chairs.
One morning, idling by the sea,
He spied a tin of monstrous girth
That bore three letters:A.E.C.
Out stepped a visitor from Earth.
Then, shouting gladly o’er the sands,
Met two who in their alien ways
Were like as lentils. Their right hands
Clasped, and the rest was gamma rays.
很高兴在这里见到王云的师弟（师妹？），谢谢你贴的Harold Furth的诗。
Hello, Li Miao,
Now that my poems have made it to your blog, I am truly famous
I am delighted to find out that you are a fellow poet, in addition to being
a fellow cosmologist. We should chat more next time we meet.
My poetry book “The Book of Jade” contains poems I wrote from the late
I hope that we’ll find out
1980s to 2001 — I don’t write that much poetry. Dark energy is still what
I spend most of my time on, so have no fear
what dark energy really is within the next twenty years.
王云，
欢迎！
应该说你的诗使得我的博客更加有内容，希望看到你的更多的诗。我只写中文诗，而且很少写，将2000年以后写的收集在一起大概也只有十来首。
希望你常来。最近Schaefer关于GRB的结果不知你怎么看？我们在等他的数据出来。
Thanks! I used to write poetry in Chinese, but switched to English a couple of years after I came to the U.S., when I had trouble finding people who would be interested in reading my poems in Chinese. I enjoy sharing my poetry with people — the only way I made friends in college days
I read what Shaefer posted on your blog — what he said sounds perfectly reasonable. The use of GRBs provide a promising new method for probing dark energy, but it will be some time before it matures to the same level as the use of supernovae. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the first results –
Shaefer doesn’t seem to either. An interesting thing about the dark energy data at present is that unexpected results go away when better data or more robust analysis techniques are used. In my paper Wang & Mukherjee (2004), using the Tonry & Barris supernova sample, we found that dark energy density deviates from constant at about 1.5 sigma. Then in my paper with Tegmark later in 2004, using the Riess sample (which contains more z>1 supernovae), we found that dark energy density is consistent with a constant. In both of these papers, we included constraints from CMB and galaxy surveys in a self-consistent manner, which is a practice I highly recommend but not always practiced. Anyway, I think it will take a space mission for dark energy to really tell us what dark energy is. Just like the Hubble constant controversy was settled by the HST Key Project on H_0.
王云：
非常感谢！
作为做理论的人，希望出现不寻常的观测结果，然后大家可以玩些花样。我在理论上是有严重倾向的人，希望能将landscape否定了。
国内缺乏能够同时分析不同实验的人，只能仰仗你们的结果。
Pingback 引用通告： » 诗人物理学家 mushroom’s room