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.

159

followers

Announcements

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

7 Closed Questions (show all)

active newest votes

up vote 1 down vote

added by Dave Bacon Nov 14 '10 at 20:25

closed as off topic by Marcin Kotowski, Anthony Leverrier, Marek, rz_, Daniel Nov 14 '10 at 22:48

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.

As far as I understood (i.e. not much), Lisi's "Exceptionallay simple" theory has been first found interesting by some theoreticians. Then it has been found "too simple". Why flag it off-topic ? – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 17 '10 at 9:32

@Fréderic: I think it is by now a common knowledge in the theoretical community that this is just a crackpot theory. Physics.SE should be fine to answer this sort of questions (e.g. recently they answered something similar about the Heim theory). – Marek Nov 17 '10 at 16:28

@Marek : thanks for the clarification – Frédéric Grosshans Nov 18 '10 at 10:55

up vote 0 down vote

added by Tsuyoshi Ito Nov 13 '10 at 21:46

closed as off topic by Matt Reece, Joe Fitzsimons, Marcin Kotowski, Wikis, Cedric H. Nov 14 '10 at 18:20

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.

Copied from physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17/… to clarify the difference between the two proposals. (That is, this question is intended to be an off-topic example.) – Tsuyoshi Ito Nov 13 '10 at 21:47

Excellent. Thanks Tsuyoshi! – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 13 '10 at 22:22

IMHO it should stay in physics SE (while interesting, it is not research-level, as the answer is widely known). – Piotr Migdal Nov 14 '10 at 18:50

@Piotr: I think most people agree with you, which is why there are 9 votes for it as being a good example of what is off topic. – Joe Fitzsimons Nov 14 '10 at 19:07

up vote 0 down vote

added by Wikis Nov 14 '10 at 21:27

closed as off topic by Piotr Migdal, Jim Harrington, Georg Lind, Steve Flammia, Igor Ivanov Nov 15 '10 at 22:08

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 21:29
	Added here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1203/… – Wikis Nov 22 '10 at 13:57

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 -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 -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