Area 51 » Science

141

followers

Announcements

basic level (e.g. "What's a rainbow") ALLOWED – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 7:28

ok, third option: "no question is too basic, but we won't do your homework" – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 8:05

Will LaTeX be supported? This is essential in the success of the site in my opinion. – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 7:45

show 41 more announcements

59 Example Questions (9 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 0 down vote

added by dogbane Jun 24 '10 at 7:36

	Indeed it is, as we all are already travelling in time at constant speed. It's changing speed and/or direction that can get tricky... – Massimo Jun 24 '10 at 10:06
	10 goto Popular Natural Sciences <br> 20 insufficient data! – Tobias Kienzler Jun 25 '10 at 8:33

up vote 0 down vote

added by tags2k Jun 24 '10 at 13:17

up vote 0 down vote

added by Justin L. Jun 25 '10 at 11:02

up vote 0 down vote

added by Jamie Banks Jun 27 '10 at 7:01

up vote -1 down vote

added by therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 18:12

(should be wiki) One very good answer: The Feynman Lectures en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 18:13

subjective with no right answer – Good Person Jun 3 '10 at 16:40

@Good No one right answer but a good wiki topic I think, since some books really do shine out above others (sadly they're not always the recommended texts). – therefromhere Jun 3 '10 at 17:46

one representative book-question should suffice, currently the QFT one has the most votes so I suggest focussing on that – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 7:39

up vote -1 down vote

added by waiwai933 Jun 3 '10 at 2:03

@Kinopiko: You are arguing "off-topic", not "stupid question". And it needn't require such a long answer: assume the questioner has some rough ideas about what relativity is, and explain how "special" differs from "general" in what it tries to do. – Charles Stewart Jun 7 '10 at 12:42

This is yet another question that would be best answered with a link to Wikipedia or lmgtfy.com/?q=special+relativity . As I'm looking through these example questions, I feel that the actual questions on the SE site will be much better than the ones on this proposal page. @Tobias, I strongly disagree on the restriction to only research level material. A beginning physics enthusiast should be able to ask a general, basic question and receive an appropriate answer. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:19

@Vortico I don't want to include anyone, especially beginning enthusiasts should be warmly welcomed. But according to the faq area51.stackexchange.com/faq for the definition phase questions attracting experts (which in this case might be researchers) should be preferred. So actually this question shouldn't be called off-topic but only "not good to attract experts" – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:42

I read the FAQ a few hours after posting the comment, and I see its point. If only beginners are targeted, only beginners will join. If this SE site can attract a few experts, not only will we see an increase of standards and a better "knowledge base", but more beginners will join because they'll see a better potential of the site compared to other bulletin boards, etc. Good point. – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 8:51

up vote -1 down vote

added by KennyTM Jun 3 '10 at 10:54

	Seriously: publish.aps.org/search/…;. How to deal with these "look like not physics but actually researched by physicists" questions? – KennyTM Jun 3 '10 at 10:55
	Theoretical Physic's welcome here, too – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 11:12
	@Tobias: Theoretical physics can be very broad though. There are physics research on financial data, social sites, biological systems, etc. Edited the question to show the actual dilemma. – KennyTM Jun 3 '10 at 21:01

up vote -1 down vote

added by alex Jun 17 '10 at 4:19

up vote -1 down vote

added by Binoj Antony, edited by Tobias Kienzler Jun 23 '10 at 10:18

up vote -2 down vote

added by therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:11

Should this SE try and accommodate everything from high-school Physics homework to post-graduate level questions? (vote yes if you want it restricted, no to make it general) – therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:15

I wonder if it's appropriate to make a meta question. Follow up in meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/52219/…. – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 19:25

@KennyTM I think so - there are similar questions on several other proposals - it seems like a reasonable way to poll community opinion on the focus of a proposal. – therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:27

just in case meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/52168/… will be implemented and the votes deleted and limited, please also "vote" on the proposal comments ("research level ONLY" vs. "basic level ALLOWED") – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 7:30

Update: When voting for questions please keep the faq (area51.stackexchange.com/faq) in mind, the questions for definition phase should be as expert as possible, while "too basic" is not off-topic but rather "not a good example" at this stage, e.g. "What is dark matter" should not be off-topic but "meh". The target audience is everyone, but the proposal's faq should state questions attracting experts and turning anti-scientists (e.g. creationists, you know what I mean) away. – Tobias Kienzler Jun 17 '10 at 8:38

up vote -2 down vote

added by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 18:36

closed as off topic by KennyTM, Philippe Leybaert, David Z, Jherico, freespace Jun 23 '10 at 20:56

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

(Richard Muller: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller) – WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 18:36

Intended as off-topic. – WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 18:36

hm, I don't know. I think this kind of question could be silently tolerated if tagged something like [trivia] or [biography] so everyone not interested could filter it out. But on the other hand, I don't want to encourage non-research questions too much – Tobias Kienzler Jun 18 '10 at 6:36

up vote -2 down vote

added by Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 22:57

we already have a similar for QFT – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 7:27

up vote -2 down vote

added by Justin L. Jun 19 '10 at 8:41

closed as off topic by Federico B., Douglas S. Stones, Lucas, Daniel, therefromhere Jun 23 '10 at 20:37

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I last counted 42. – Vortico Jun 19 '10 at 16:50

up vote -2 down vote

added by DonnyD Jun 22 '10 at 14:29

Sounds simple first, my impulse was to ask you to post that question at Popular Natural Sciences. But then I started thinking... That's a really tough question, it does not only involve Physics (the Retina absorption spectrum) but also Neurology and maybe even Psychology. I actually like interdisciplinary questions. I just wonder since it is not restricted to Physics whether this is a great on-topic question. All I'm convinced of is that it's not off-topic. Let's see how the votes develop – Tobias Kienzler Jun 23 '10 at 10:15

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia Its strictly a philosophical debate. While the physics and neurology of sight and vision might be said to play a role, its pretty well accepted that rods and cones work the same way in everyone. – Jherico Jun 23 '10 at 17:01

@Jherico -- this is not really a given, as ~8% of the population has some form of color blindness (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness). Besides the genetic forms, there are also a number of ways to acquire color blindness later in life. – Mike Richardson Jun 23 '10 at 17:42

@DonnyD -- I have recently started to pay attention to the concept of color-blind audience members at my lectures (at least one of my radiology residents has this). I've been using a fascinating tool, Vischeck (vischeck.com/vischeck), which lets one preview one's images and slides to see how they might appear to folks with varieties of color-blindness. – Mike Richardson Jun 24 '10 at 2:14

Although this is not on the topic of original question, you can find similar colorblind simulator tools at michelf.com/projects/sim-daltonism and huetility.com for Mac and iPhone respectively. – Vortico Jun 24 '10 at 3:11

show 3 more improvement suggestions

up vote -3 down vote

added by VeeArr Jun 4 '10 at 16:35

closed as off topic by Tobias Kienzler, Massimo, Jim McKeeth, David Grellscheid, Scott Morrison Jun 19 '10 at 17:49

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

I can't understand why this has got off-topic votes (too basic, or because it's badly phrased?). – therefromhere Jun 6 '10 at 15:55

@therefromhere because it's "subjective and argumentative", there is not one most influential theory/breakthrough, there are many, depending on each another – Tobias Kienzler Jun 7 '10 at 7:29

@tobias. OK, fair enough. – therefromhere Jun 7 '10 at 10:08

subjective should not be the greatest on-topic votes, please read Robert's post – Tobias Kienzler Jun 17 '10 at 8:33

So that I can understand the landscape: what would people think about a variant "What are the major theories/breakthroughs in [Physics Sub-field]?" Also off-topic, or acceptable as CW? – David Z Jun 22 '10 at 3:43

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote -3 down vote

added by Daniel Jun 23 '10 at 20:21

We call it 'interlibrary loan'. (I lurk on the mailing list for physics/astronomy/math librarians, and a few of these requests go by each week) And 'non-gated' is hard to be sure, as some institutions register their netblocks so their researchers get in) – Joe Jun 24 '10 at 17:05

up vote -4 down vote

added by Mana Jun 5 '10 at 14:46

As a very basic example: [some unit here] would be replaced with meters per second, and [some combination of other units here] would be replaced with meters and seconds. – Mana Jun 5 '10 at 14:49

What do you mean by derive? – KennyTM Jun 5 '10 at 16:02

By derive I meant simplify to, my apologies. – Mana Jun 7 '10 at 19:41

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you give an example including an answer? – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 8:15

Is this a m/s to mph question or are you asking to expand something like "F" to "ma"? – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 8:56

up vote -6 down vote

added by Nathan Osman Jun 3 '10 at 2:18

George, once again area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy/… acceleration vs. velocity. if you do this on purpose please state that in a comment because otherwise you suggest really not knowing :-7 – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 7:24

Approximately ...yesterday...at the end of the first minute car number 1's velocity will be Mach 8.8 and car number 2's velocity will be Mach 14.1.....there might be some heating of the body panels....it could damage the paint...might be covered by your warranty...you should check. – Rusty Jun 5 '10 at 16:32

up vote -7 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:44

-1.6e-19 C is not very negative. – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 14:59

that depends on your units. however it's three times the negativity of the down-quark, making it one of the most negative (elementary) particles :-p – Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 15:09

He needed something grumpy to argue with. – Rusty Jun 2 '10 at 15:29

What creator? The FSM? – Good Person Jun 3 '10 at 16:40

(Obligatory XKCD xkcd.com/567 ) – therefromhere Jun 4 '10 at 21:41

show 5 more improvement suggestions