Sandbox

Question

The Maximally Satirical Sandbox Model (MSSM)

The Maximally Satirical Sandbox Model is a model of an ideal sandbox, which can be stated as follows:- continued collaborative perturbations to the "Sandbox functional" results in \(\delta S=0\) where S is satire. This is equivalent through a simple R transformation (where R is reflection), to the Minimally Satirical Sandbox Model. The knowledge of the existence of knowledge of these two models can then be used to prove the PhysicsOverflow concavity theorem.

On the non-perturbative formulation of sock theory and the long standing missing sock problem

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model (MSSM) is a supersymmetric \(\mathcal{N}=1\) matrix model that describes socks and sockinos. Socks are described as spin-2 massless particles while sockinos are described as spin 3/2 particles. Spontaneous supersymmetry breaking causes sockinos to gain mass, which explains the spontaneous disappearance of socks and their decoupling from the sockinos, besides when in a high-energy state, during which both sock disappear spontaneously and couple with their respective shoes and shoeinos (they are prevented from decoupling from their shoe because of Sock exclusion).

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model exhibits S-duality with the Minimally Supersymmetric Shoe Model (MSSM). This means that a strongly-coupled sock is equivalent to a weakly-coupled shoe. This is unsurprising, because a very tight sock is the same as a very loose shoe, but the reverse is much more astonishing: a weakly-coupled sock is equivalent to a strongly-coupled shoe, i.e. a very loose sock is the same as a very tight shoe.

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model also exhibits T-duality with the Minimally Supersymmetric Glove Model. This means that a very small sock is a very large glove, and vice versa.

This is an answer to the unsolved problem posted on Stack Exchange a few years ago, that was unfairly closed as being off-topic, despite the strong correlation observed by Shoesock Gloveson between the percentage of off-topic questions and the overall quality of a site.

april-fools

Comments

@ArnoldNeumaier Fixed : )

---

comment on question

---

comment - original revision.

If you see this comment, it means that there's a pretty annoying bug present in the autosave feature.

---

original revision of the comment.

---

please click again to confirm.

---

,/test

---

much of the text appears twice, which is boring rather than funny.

Answer 1

<!-- <BIG><B> <FONT COLOR = RED> DON'T FEED THE TROLLS !!!</FONT></B></BIG> --->

OK, I dont see why it does not work now with the slashes

<BIG><B> <FONT COLOR = RED> DON'T FEED THE TROLLS !!!</FONT></B></BIG>

<IMG SRC="http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451eb0069e2011570ea5170970c-pi"; WIDTH = 350>

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS !!!

Comments

Use source mode for HTML, like:

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS !!! Also, HTML closing tags are slashes, not backslashes.

---

It doesn't work because you didn't click the "Source" button. I have put what I meant to the bottom of your post.    

---

Huh, I entered the text and clicked the source button afterwards. Does one have to click the source button first and enter the code afterwards?

---

@Dilaton Yes of course. When you switch the the source mode, you can type in HTML, but the text entered in the WYSIWYG isn't suddenly considered to be HTML; instead, it is converted into HTML, like the "<" get's converted into an &#somenumbers; etc.  

By the way, <!---comments---> don't work.  

---

test  

---

Yes thanks, now I see :-)

Answer 2

... is now up and running here: www.physicsoverflow.org

PhysicsOverflow is meant to be some kind of a rebirth of the untimely passed away Theoretical Physics SE and a little physics brother of MathOverflow.

Compared to the former theoretical physics site, we have slightly lowered the bar to ask questions to graduate-level upward and broadened the scope to include experimental physics and phenomenology.

Apart from the high-level Q&A, PhysicsOverflow will offer in the future a Reviews section, dedicated to discuss and peer review (mostly ArXiv but other sources can be considered too) papers publicly and "in real time".

Please join this site and help the community grow by contributing nice physics !

Answer 3

|ψ⟩=∑ici|ϕi⟩

${\bf 3}\oplus \overline{\bf 3} \oplus {\bf 1} \oplus {\bf 1} \oplus {\bf 1}$

Bad

\({\bf 3}\oplus \overline{\bf 3} \oplus {\bf 1} \oplus {\bf 1} \oplus {\bf 1}.\)

OK ...

Comments

Ok, copy-pasting an equation from TRF seems to work, howver I am not sure if this is the best way when converting a TRF review into a PO review, which Lumo kindly allows :-)

---

@Dilaton; Huh, can't you just inspect-element and copy the HTML source?

---

You can inspect element on the first line of the post body, navigate to <div class="post-body">, select it, right-click, and click "Copy Inner HTML". You will then get the entire post body, which makes it much easier. Be sure to paste in source mode.  

Answer 4

Hi, this is testing whether this link works OK

Answer 5

This is another example of a link

Answer 6

Test test

\[x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}\]

\(R_{\mu\nu}=0\)

Answer 7

Testing

Answer 8

Test

https://www.quantcast.com/physicsoverflow.org

www.quora.com

https://www.quantcast.com/physicsoverflow.org,

Answer 9

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

• asasdaddddddddddddddd
• asaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

bbaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Answer 10

test test test

Comments

comment 1

---

comment 2