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 23 down vote

added by therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:05

	I think this should be off-topic on the astronomy SE, belong here ( area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy/… )) – therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:07
	How is this astronomy? – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 19:13
	@KennyTM - exactly :) It was intended to be an example off-topic question for the astronomy site. – therefromhere Jun 2 '10 at 19:47
	@there: Ah OK. Me fails at prepositions :) – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 20:06

up vote 20 down vote

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model – Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:11

up vote 20 down vote

added by VeeArr Jun 4 '10 at 16:33

This is a good type of question with a potentially logical answer. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:49

up vote 19 down vote

added by Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:30

I would expect this type of question to be answered by setting up a model and differential equation (if needed for the answerer's method). Not every algebraic step should be done, but properties and generalizations should be pointed out, so that the asker is able to derive it himself after reading the solutions. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:39

I like this question. I was about to say it should be on Astronomy, but since you want to derive a formula, I'm feeling comfortable here :) – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:51

@Vortico: Well all physics computations boils down to mathematics. But the key steps that are not math is "-∫-G Mm/r^2 dr" and PE = KE. So, I'd say it's on-topic if we target for general audiences. But the current trend seems to restrict to research level only. – KennyTM Jun 10 '10 at 21:08

@Vortica perfect :) AFAIK the questions will be used to determine whether the proposal is ready for the commitment phase meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/53075/… i.e. the only thing the SE staff will care about is whether enough questions have been voted clearly on- or off-topic – Tobias Kienzler Jun 11 '10 at 9:15

@Vortico, @Tobias: I guess that the SX crew see the 20 examples as important at the beta and rollout stages as well: I would expect they want the lists to be improved through the commitment phase as well. – Charles Stewart Jun 11 '10 at 11:04

show 10 more improvement suggestions

up vote 18 down vote

added by KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 16:07

Assuming community wiki. – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 16:08

subjective with no right answer – Good Person Jun 3 '10 at 16:41

Yet still someone might like to get good suggestions from people who have actually read those books. – Massimo Jun 3 '10 at 20:51

"Avoid asking question that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion." Questions like this probably should be allowed but don't think it's a good example. – Grigory M Jun 24 '10 at 6:32

up vote 12 down vote

added by Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 8:18

up vote 5 down vote

added by Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 23:03

up vote 5 down vote

added by Jherico Jun 22 '10 at 19:30

Try posting on area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… if you haven't already. – Vortico Jun 22 '10 at 19:33

up vote 4 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 9:40

This is an example of a good logical question that will produce a logical answer. It may be too simple though, with the shortest answer being "No, there aren't any." – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:05

@vortico actually, the photon is its own anti-particle, see e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/32/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:36

Ah! I didn't know that. :) I can already see a lot of potential in this. – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 8:21

up vote 4 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 16 '10 at 21:35

Most ten year olds (you did say X) that could understand quantum physics would be explaining it to you :) – Tim Post Jun 17 '10 at 13:53

There are "X year old" questions on SO. – Gelatin Jun 18 '10 at 16:33

"The world is a lot stranger than you could expect." – Massimo Jun 19 '10 at 3:40

up vote 4 down vote

added by Justin L. Jun 19 '10 at 8:40

up vote 3 down vote

added by ire_and_curses Jun 15 '10 at 16:17

The classic question you don't want to be asked in your PhD viva. – ire_and_curses Jun 15 '10 at 16:19

Certainly off-topic, but not a bad question for Popular Natural Science. area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… – Vortico Jun 15 '10 at 17:55

I'd not say off-topic, but not "great" on-topic either, indeed it would be great on-topic at area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 16 '10 at 8:16

I don't understand why this is 'popular natural science', or 'off-topic'. Do you know the answer? It's a harder question than many here. In the book I linked to, this question was asked in a PhD viva. The full answer required recourse to every major branch of physics. – ire_and_curses Jun 17 '10 at 16:56

This can have a very technical answer, such as in the context of a PhD viva. However, in the way this question is asked, the general answer can be somewhat basic. "The atmosphere acts like a prism and filters colors other than blue when the sun is at large angles to the viewpoint's part of the earth. At small angles, the red color is dominant; this is why sunsets are more 'red' than any other part of the day." – Vortico Jun 17 '10 at 17:32

up vote 3 down vote

added by Philippe Leybaert Jun 16 '10 at 10:44

	I used up my votes :( I'd say on-topic but also link to Astronomy or once again Popular Natural Science depending on the degree of detail the question body would ask for – Tobias Kienzler Jun 16 '10 at 11:21
	The response to this question could be a little too complex for "Popular Natural Science". I agree that it would also be a good fit for "Astronomy". – Philippe Leybaert Jun 16 '10 at 11:49
	@Phillipe You're right. It might even make a good off-topic question at pop.sci because of the complexity – Tobias Kienzler Jun 16 '10 at 12:01

up vote 3 down vote

added by Rom, edited by Gelatin Jun 18 '10 at 16:31

	Good question for Chemistry or Popular Natural Science. – Vortico Jun 17 '10 at 19:30
	No it's not (as in, it does absorb some photons). :) – KennyTM Jun 18 '10 at 7:05

up vote 3 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 20 '10 at 22:23

up vote 3 down vote

added by DonnyD Jun 22 '10 at 14:46

up vote 3 down vote

added by Jherico Jun 22 '10 at 19:24

This is sort of the antithesis to 'what evidence exists to support [theory]?'. For example, growing up I wondered why redshift was interpreted as the universe expanding as opposed to the light losing energy somehow. Only much later did I stumble across the 'tired light' hypothesis and discover there is a very good reason to discount this explanation which simply hadn't occurred to me. – Jherico Jun 22 '10 at 19:27

It's hard to tell whether or not this question is on-topic because of the vague wildcards. Consider replacing the words in brackets with actual examples (ie. redshift, energy loss of radiation). – Vortico Jun 22 '10 at 19:36

up vote 3 down vote

added by Grigory M Jun 23 '10 at 8:46

up vote 2 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:13

Should be Astronomy (area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/51/astronomy) IF cross-search is implemented – Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:14

Belongs on both Astronomy and here I think. – therefromhere Jun 7 '10 at 6:42

Many solar physicists don't consider themselves to be Astronomers. There seems to be some sort of geek hierarchy thing going on : brunching.com/geekhierarchy.html (I work with solar and helio physicists) – Joe Jun 24 '10 at 16:58

up vote 2 down vote

added by Casebash, edited by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 11:45

	In this question it seems as if the asker is not a physicist at all, but the answerer must have a basic understanding of radiation and heat. This shouldn't be an on-topic example question IMO, but how would the community react to something like this in the actual site? – Vortico Jun 13 '10 at 4:42
	@Vortico yes you're right, this question should possibly be migrated to Popular Natural Sciences area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… (but I've already used up my 5 questions, so will someone else do so please?) – Tobias Kienzler Jun 13 '10 at 9:56
	@Vortico: I did two years of undergrad physics. Very rusty though, can't remember much of it at all. Why isn't this question good for a physics site? – Casebash Jun 16 '10 at 11:37
	@Casebash, this question would better fit the Popular Natural Science site because it has a somewhat basic answer and the purpose of the question could be the curiosity of an average non-physicist. – Vortico Jun 16 '10 at 16:04

up vote 2 down vote

added by DonnyD Jun 21 '10 at 4:32

	Do you mean time as a complex number? (t = a+bi) Interesting. – Vortico Jun 21 '10 at 4:49
	missleading - you do mean Wick rotation, do you? – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 7:11
	but you could also try this question at [High Energy Physics] area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/6633/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 7:11
	I don't think Wick rotation has anything to do with this question. Rather, I think this is from the general public who heard of a weird concept "imaginary time" and try to associate some unrelated meaning to it. – KennyTM Jun 21 '10 at 8:26
	@KennyTM in that case the question should be migrated to Popular Natural Sciences. But let's wait for @DonnyD's comment – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 8:49

show 2 more improvement suggestions

up vote 2 down vote

added by Rom Jun 21 '10 at 18:55

e.g.: Pioneer's Anomaly; GRBs, etc. – Rom Jun 21 '10 at 18:58

Too similar to area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics/… IMO. – Vortico Jun 21 '10 at 19:06

@Rom But it might be worth to post the question at Popular Natural Sciences, too – Tobias Kienzler Jun 22 '10 at 11:36

up vote 1 down vote

added by KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 15:45

This question is about mathematics rather than physics, but these constructs appear a lot in physics. – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 15:46

I actually think this is a good, physics-related question. This appears so often in physics, it would be convenient to have on the (hopefully) upcoming SE site. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:22

I agree with Vortico, but as mentioned on area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics/… we should for now restrict ourselves to expert-attracting questions – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:48

Good point again. I finally have the right idea about who this is targeting. I've changed my vote. – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 18:33

up vote 1 down vote

added by Simon Nickerson Jun 3 '10 at 19:10

closed as off topic by KennyTM, Massimo, Vortico, Jim McKeeth, Federico B. Jun 19 '10 at 17:16

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.

There is a separate proposed LaTeX community: guessing this is off-topic? – Simon Nickerson Jun 3 '10 at 19:21

Off-Topic...But extra points for trying to typeset a Feynman diagram....but -1 one for mis-spelling his name. – Rusty Jun 5 '10 at 16:22

@Kin: You sound like no one in area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2148/… knows how Feynman diagrams look. – KennyTM Jun 6 '10 at 6:15

As Vortico suggested, it might be a good idea not to exclude LaTeX. However the question won't attract experts, so I won't vote on-topic – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 8:12

the question won't attract experts - I think this isn't true: I guess that the people most likely to respond to such a question are PhD students who have solved this problem writing up their dissertation. On MO, though, Latex questions are not loved, I think maybe because they are seen as encouraging non-expert participation, and so are distracting for the site as a whole. – Charles Stewart Jun 10 '10 at 9:53

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 1 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 16 '10 at 21:36

I think this would be a great on-topic question at Popular Natural Sciences – Tobias Kienzler Jun 17 '10 at 7:17

up vote 1 down vote

added by Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 22:54

In academic journals is one thing, but in a form accessible to people who do not have access through their university would be preferable. Also in English translation. Book format? – Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 22:55

up vote 1 down vote

added by Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 23:02

up vote 0 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:13

closed as off topic by Charles Stewart, Jessie, David Grellscheid, Federico B., Brendan Long Jun 22 '10 at 18:36

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.

Maybe not a pseudo-science, but certainly a flame bait. – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 2 '10 at 15:43

Could be somebody that heard this on a "real" news channel and decided to check with people that might know....I might be stretching it. – Rusty Jun 2 '10 at 16:27

Another one I'd prefer at Popular Natural Sciences area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4955/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:34

I agree with @Tobias, and I think we should agree that the of-professional-scientific-interest vs. of-principally-popular-scientific-interest marks a boundary for this group. And so this works as an excellent candidate for our off topic list. – Charles Stewart Jun 10 '10 at 8:13

@Massimo no worries, it won't (a tiny one for some 10e-15s might happen though). Anyway, if I'm wrong you won't be able to complain :-p – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 8:19

show 5 more improvement suggestions

up vote 0 down vote

added by Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:16

closed as off topic by Ward, Charles Stewart, Vortico, Scott Morrison, user4093 Jun 20 '10 at 16:39

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.

Homework, so off-topic – Tobias Kienzler Jun 2 '10 at 8:17

I think that most questions of the form "I have 5 apples and lose 3. How many do I have?" should be revised to something similar to "I have X apples and the function F is applied. How does this affect my apples?" This way, the user starting the thread actually learns something. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:28

@Vortico I like that generalisation, it's a great idea for how to proceed with homework questions instead of closing them. Should become part of the faq IMHO – Tobias Kienzler Jun 10 '10 at 7:50

@Vortico: These questions represent the questions that may really be asked. Off topic questions are valuable in this phase as they define a boundary to this site. There's no need to make everything on-topic in this stage. – KennyTM Jun 10 '10 at 10:23

@Tobias: Yes, but don't modify the user's question this way. Have someone ask the generalized problem, and close the homework question as duplicate, I'd suggest. – KennyTM Jun 10 '10 at 10:24

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 0 down vote

added by Adam Davis Jun 2 '10 at 19:20

closed as off topic by therefromhere, Massimo, Amichai, Scott Morrison, David Z Jun 22 '10 at 3:50

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.

This is also a homework problem in the same manner as area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics/…. – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 19:28

@Kin: Why? Using Imperial units doesn't change the physics. – KennyTM Jun 7 '10 at 8:38

@kennyTM but in physics SI-units are the mostly accepted standard. though I like c=\hbar=1, too... but imperial is a reason for lots of research $ going nowhere edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric – Tobias Kienzler Jun 7 '10 at 10:07

@adam you shouldn't mention numbers :-p no, seriously, anything that appears like a question that just requires a lookup in a formulary is considered homework. Of course this should only be judged that way if the question body does not clarify why it can't. On the other hand, questions like "where can I lookup the formulae to calculate this?" may be accepted, but shouldn't be considered as "great on-topic example". although... it might turn out challenging enough if one provides enough background information – Tobias Kienzler Jun 8 '10 at 18:37

FWIW I envision this as a site for relatively general questions about physical principles, and the two-axis servo joint and the dimensions/composition of the tube are pretty specific details that are mostly irrelevant to the physics involved. So I would wonder, why did the questioner think those details were important enough to include in the title? It suggests that maybe the calculation of torque isn't really the problem here. Although this could just be a good question with a bad title - I don't think I can judge without seeing the question body. – David Z Jun 15 '10 at 3:56

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 0 down vote

added by KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 19:35

closed as off topic by waiwai933, Massimo, David Z, Jim McKeeth, Rom Jun 17 '10 at 17:57

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'd say it's off-topic. Although many computational algorithms are used in physics community, these kinds of questions are more about programming (implementation) than physics (how the algorithm works). – KennyTM Jun 2 '10 at 19:38

maybe at area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1907/… – Tobias Kienzler Jun 3 '10 at 7:21

@Tobias: Agreed. – KennyTM Jun 3 '10 at 7:38

Belongs on StackOverflow. – Massimo Jun 8 '10 at 12:48

To turn this into an on-topic question, one could ask "What are the formulas for the computation of the Variational Monte Carlo method?" Then you could turn to StackOverflow and continue the discussion in a more detailed, Java-based manner. – Vortico Jun 9 '10 at 22:10

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 0 down vote

added by Mana Jun 2 '10 at 22:04

	Subjunctive, but on-topic. Similar to area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/1908/physics/… – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 18:56
	@Vortico You mean 'subjective', right? Subjunctive is a verb mood. /grammarnazi – waiwai933 Jun 10 '10 at 20:20
	Haha! Yes, that's what I mean. I've done that more than once. :) – Vortico Jun 10 '10 at 20:40

up vote 0 down vote

added by WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 19:13

	(C4 plants: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation. Includes: "C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures and nitrogen or CO2 limitation.") – WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 19:14
	Borderline. It is about plants, but the culprit is the Sun's gradually increasing energy output – WikiSpeedia hang-around Jun 17 '10 at 19:15

up vote 0 down vote

added by Beska Jun 18 '10 at 17:13

Trying to boost the "off-topic" score with questions that are realistic and answerable, but genuinely off topic. – Beska Jun 18 '10 at 17:14

up vote 0 down vote

added by Doug Treadwell Jun 18 '10 at 22:59

I'd say Popular Natural Sciences – Tobias Kienzler Jun 21 '10 at 7:59

up vote 0 down vote

added by DonnyD Jun 22 '10 at 13:34

closed as off topic by Eldila, nickoneill, user489, andreypopp, tags2k Jun 24 '10 at 13:25

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.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Binoj Antony Jun 23 '10 at 8:34

I'd gently redirect this one to Popular Natural Sciences. – Tobias Kienzler Jun 23 '10 at 10:17

up vote 0 down vote

added by Daniel Jun 23 '10 at 20:26

up vote 0 down vote

added by Daniel Jun 23 '10 at 20:28

up vote 0 down vote

added by Vortico Jun 24 '10 at 4:37

I thought this topic should be brought up. It may seem absurd, but you may be surprised by the number of people who actually think this way. If a category called "Questions for Immediate Deletion/Closure" ever exists, this would be first on the list. – Vortico Jun 24 '10 at 4:48