Area 51 » Science

The Theoretical Physics site didn't have enough activity during the beta. It has been closed, and its content has been merged into Physics. You can download the data dump of all questions here, or visit the Theoretical Physics chat.

160

followers

Announcements

Help pick the subdomain for the site: discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/2814/… – Joe Fitzsimons Sep 7 '11 at 6:01

61 Example Questions (7 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 0 down vote

added by lurscher Nov 22 '10 at 22:15

the rationale is that such questions are not always only interesting from the historical point of view, but rather than sometimes evidence is circumstantial and is not clear if a revisit to an old model might be worth or not – lurscher Nov 22 '10 at 22:17

up vote -1 down vote

added by Wikis Nov 13 '10 at 21:12

closed as off topic by Piotr Migdal, Joe Fitzsimons, Marcin Kotowski, Cedric H., Sarah Kavassalis Nov 14 '10 at 19:11

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.

Here's the link: youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc – Wikis Nov 13 '10 at 21:12

To be honest, this is probably off-topic. (I've heard it is not accurate.) I'm just curious to hear what experts think! – Wikis Nov 13 '10 at 21:13

IMHO a question ideal for physics SE – Piotr Migdal Nov 13 '10 at 21:27

I agree with Piotr that this is probably suitable for the physics SE, but definitely doesn't count as research-level. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 13 '10 at 21:48

Thx all - the link for those interested: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/783/… – Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 18:06

up vote -1 down vote

added by John Joseph M. Carrasco, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Nov 16 '10 at 10:49

This made me laugh, at least, and I don't think the subject would be off-topic, although most readers probably wouldn't know what the question refers to. – Matt Reece Nov 16 '10 at 23:59

Is it chetaing to ask what the question refers to ? – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 18 '10 at 17:24

@Frédéric :-) Not cheating at all. Sometimes mild in-joking can help self-select people who care about (and can meaningfully speak to) a question -- so I'd encourage this community to tolerate such games for actual research discussions. That said even in the most technical discussions (which this wouldn't be), people should feel free to ask for references. Look at arxiv.org/abs/1009.4698v1 to get at the story, and the first figure for the green-line reference. – John Joseph M. Carrasco Nov 18 '10 at 19:30

@John Joseph : Thanks for the reference :-) – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 19 '10 at 14:59

up vote -1 down vote

added by Frédéric Grosshans Nov 16 '10 at 10:36

	I have no idea whether it is on topic or not. An example would be a loophole free Bell test, where both theoretical considerations and technological limitations of current experiments are crucial. – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 16 '10 at 10:38
	Is it theoretical physics? I'd say no. – Raskolnikov Nov 16 '10 at 11:15
	Only tangentially theoretical, but research-level. And the main motivation for this proposal is to have a reasearch-level SE. The limitation to theoretical physics is a (still debated) consequence of this goal. – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 17 '10 at 9:38
	Slightly edited the question to be more clear. – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 17 '10 at 9:39

up vote -1 down vote

added by Peadar Coyle Nov 16 '10 at 13:58

	Probably too low-level. – Marek Nov 16 '10 at 21:28
	The way this is worded also makes it difficult to answer. "necessary to understand electrodynamics to do what"? – j.c. Nov 23 '10 at 3:35

up vote -1 down vote

added by Peadar Coyle Nov 16 '10 at 14:01

up vote -1 down vote

added by nicolas Nov 20 '10 at 23:08

Very elementary. Undergraduate stuff goes to physics.SE. – Marek Nov 21 '10 at 22:35

up vote -1 down vote

added by nicolas Nov 20 '10 at 23:09

Very vague question. – Marek Nov 21 '10 at 22:35

up vote -2 down vote

added by Joe Fitzsimons Nov 13 '10 at 22:31

closed as off topic by Matt Reece, Tsuyoshi Ito, Marcin Kotowski, Cedric H., Sarah Kavassalis Nov 14 '10 at 19:10

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.

Obviously my intention is that this be way way off topic. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 13 '10 at 22:31

IMO problems with well-established theories should go to physics SE unless it is really research level (or you give the explicit derivation. Now it sound like "I don't understand QM/SR/..., help me with homework please!" ;) – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 9:46

@Piotr: I suggested this as a bad example because it is usually a sign that crackpottery is to follow. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 14 '10 at 11:08

I agree with Joe, although the validity of these sorts of questions can depend on the way they are phrased. Asking for help identifying an error in the proof is legitimate, I would think. – David Z Nov 16 '10 at 2:21

@David Zaslavsky: I hope that asking for help identifying an error in a proof will be off-topic. At least on cstheory.stackexchange.com, a question like “I solved the P vs NP problem and I posted a proof of P≠NP on my website, so point out an error in it if you can” would be off-topic. – Tsuyoshi Ito Nov 20 '10 at 3:22

show 7 more improvement suggestions

up vote -2 down vote

added by Piotr Migdal, edited by WikiSpeedia hang-around Nov 16 '10 at 10:57

closed as off topic by Marcin Kotowski, Joe Fitzsimons, Sarah Kavassalis, rz_, Marek Nov 15 '10 at 1:45

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.

Intended to be a not-example (unless followed by reasoning being over standard textbook explanations). – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 17:31

Even if it does include detailed physical reasoning, I think this would be a question for the current physics.SE, not a research-level site such as this proposal. (Unless the question is about a very technical detail of the math behind blackbody radiation that is overlooked in textbook explanations.) – David Z Nov 21 '10 at 11:15

up vote -2 down vote

added by polariton1993 Nov 14 '10 at 23:00

Should this be off-topic? I know there are some interesting applications of theoretical physics to biophysics, but I suppose, in general, biophysics isn't what this site is aimed at. – Marek Nov 14 '10 at 23:46

IMO it is on topic as it is about bioPHYSICS. However, "write me a review paper on general topic" is not a good question anyway (IMHO). – Piotr Migdal Nov 15 '10 at 16:48

up vote -2 down vote

added by Saeid Nov 15 '10 at 13:49

	Depending on further formulations - either OK or too general/philosophical/vague/basing on false premises. – Piotr Migdal Nov 15 '10 at 16:29
	False premise!! On the contrary it is deeply rooted in mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, mostly in connection with c*-algebra and noncommutative geometry/algebra. – Saeid Nov 16 '10 at 3:10

up vote -2 down vote

added by Tez Nov 21 '10 at 19:06

Too vague for a research-oriented Q&A. – Matthias Rosenkranz Nov 22 '10 at 14:51

up vote -3 down vote

added by Dave Bacon Nov 14 '10 at 20:09

This is a pure math question - while its physical interpretation may be relevant to some theoretical physics problem, I wouldn't consider this a typical or "canonical" problem defining this site. – Marcin Kotowski Nov 14 '10 at 20:12

Intended as a problem question for the boundary between math and physics? Where should this go? For example if I care about the McKay correspondence as it relates to some physics would I ask here elsewhere? – Dave Bacon Nov 14 '10 at 20:27

@Dave: if you already know what mathematical structures you are going for, I suggest you use a math forum. Only in the case that you don't know what structure you are dealing with (so the generic question would be "How is [a physical concept] formulated rigorously?") and/or you think that you might gain more insight from physicists, I'd come here. As for your question: if you really feel physicists can tell you more about it that mathematicians, then by all means ask here. But be sure to include some physics in the question :-) – Marek Nov 14 '10 at 21:32

I would say this on-topic; this is at the intersection of math and physics, and thus where a great deal of research in theoretical physics lies. Anyone who has played enough in particle theory has probably been profoundly concerned with similar questions... Representation theory would have to be allowed on any credible research level physics site. – Sarah Kavassalis Nov 16 '10 at 3:43

up vote -3 down vote

added by Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 21:28

closed as off topic by Sarah Kavassalis, sigoldberg1, Frédéric Grosshans, Piotr Migdal, Matt Reece Nov 21 '10 at 5:51

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.

Probably off-topic. – Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 21:28

@Mark: not sure (there is certainly non-trivial physics implied), but as it stands, I'd say the question would attract mainly laymen interested in scifi and/or crackpots. – Marek Nov 14 '10 at 21:40

If anything, it seems a bit broad. A narrower question like "what are some proposed mechanisms for allowing/prohibiting time travel?" may exclude some of the cranks, while still getting at the interesting physics. – Chris Granade Nov 14 '10 at 21:59

Off topic mainly because of its generality. Redirect to Physics.Stackexchange. If it was much more specific, e.g. referencing specific aspects of ring singularity equations, then presumably Ok. So it fits the rule generalities ->Physics.Stackexchange – sigoldberg1 Nov 15 '10 at 16:40

@sigoldberg1 and others - if that's the case why is this attracting not a good example votes? If it is a physics question but not for this proposal I would have thought that was ideal great off-topic because it helps to define the border. Look at the discussion we're having already! – Wikis Nov 15 '10 at 18:05

show 3 more improvement suggestions

up vote -3 down vote

added by Dave Bacon Nov 14 '10 at 21:43

Perhaps a bit too general? I can imagine both great and horrible questions hiding under XYZ. – Marek Nov 15 '10 at 0:29

This belongs mathoverflow (it worked for me!) – Kaveh_kh Nov 15 '10 at 1:33

@kavic: I would think it should be on topic for this site too. We probably need to come up with a policy for cross posting. CSTheory has one that basically says that it is fine to cross post as long as it is not done simultaneously and add links in both directions. The idea being that you initially post to your prefered site and then if you do not receive a satisfactory answer within a reasonable time frame you can cross post. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 15 '10 at 3:39

I would lean toward putting this kind of question on math.SE, or MO if it's a particularly advanced math problem. But the CST policy on cross-posting as mentioned by Joe seems quite reasonable. – David Z Nov 16 '10 at 23:08

up vote -4 down vote

added by Chris Granade Nov 14 '10 at 19:39

Intended to be an off-topic example. While interesting and perhaps even useful to researching physicists, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should be on an SE for physics research. – Chris Granade Nov 14 '10 at 19:41

IMHO OK (as long as in small % of the total volume of questions), but as a soft-questions (as it is about doing physics, not physics itself). – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 19:44

up vote -4 down vote

added by Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 21:30

Probably off-topic, since it is based on a false premise (that sub atomic particles can only be considered as particles - feel free to mark as not a good example if my assumptions are too off). – Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 21:31

Not really - depends highly on the further part. No, it does not base on a false premise - by 'mass' one may mean 'relativisitic mass' instead of 'rest mass'. – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 22:42

A typical general undergraduate level question, which can of course be quite interesting to debug (the first time). Refer to Physics.Stackexchange sounds right. – sigoldberg1 Nov 15 '10 at 16:44

up vote -4 down vote

added by user23893 Nov 14 '10 at 22:51

	Who do you mean by "writers"? – Marcin Kotowski Nov 14 '10 at 22:54
	@Marcin: I'd interpret it as Hawking-like. Anyway, this is way off-topic. – Marek Nov 15 '10 at 0:30

up vote -4 down vote

added by Tracy Hall Nov 15 '10 at 7:44

up vote -7 down vote

added by Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 17:03

Well, I would like to allow such questions (of course as off-topics). On Mathoverflow there is a tiny percent of soft-questions about carrier choices and I think there are important. – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 18:40

Piotr: Sorry, I voted not a good example, but not because I think such questions should be disallowed, but simply because I didn't think it was a question that should be used to define the site. I think it is on topic, just not a great example. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 14 '10 at 18:48

I understand. Well, in fact I never meant to have this as an canonical question. Just I would like to be more tolerant for research-level general discussions (of course as off-topics) than popular science level questions (like "Why hot things glow?, "Why is the sky blue during the day, red during sunrise and sunset and black during the night?", ... ). Reason - simple physics questions can go to Physics SE, while there is no place to ask researchers in physics soft questions. – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 19:24

My fault, I misinterpreted "great off-topic example" with "not a good example". – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 19:33

I actually like this question a lot and I think soft questions like this should definitely be allowed. – Marek Nov 15 '10 at 0:33

show 2 more improvement suggestions