The h Bar

« first day (544 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4547 days later) »

Mark S. Everitt

1:42 AM

Late to the discussion (Tokyo time), but I read through it so far. I'm a little concerned about migrating questions to CS theory. Many migrations could be appropriate, but some really do straddle the boundary between CS and physics. Take for example the one question I managed to ask:

http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/505/master-equations-and-operator-sum-form

That question involves mapping master equations (I'd say definitely quantum optics and therefore in the domain of physics) to operator-sum form (arguably more CS-theory). I imagine many questions tagged quantum-information will be similar. I'd urge against automating QI questions to any site other than Physics by default.

Is there a way of asking question owners where they'd like a question to go, perhaps with a deadline before an automated transfer? There are only 400 or so questions on TP.SE, so this may or may not be asking a lot. How about a poll on each question?

1 hour later…

Artem Kaznatcheev

2:58 AM

@MarkSEveritt There isn't enough activity on TP.SE for a poll to result in something meaningful for that community. On the other hand, if a poll was held with the cstheory and physics communities, then there would be a size issue. If you have specific questions you don't want to go to cstheory, flag them on TP.SE and in your flag comment say: "I am OP and I want this question migrated to blah"... I have done this with my only TP.SE question

On a quick browse by me (I have a background in quantum-info/computing, mostly from the TCS perspective based on preference, but I do have an undergrad in physics) most of the quant-info questions seemed fine for cstheory. If after mass migration to cstheory it seems the question doesn't fit, then we can migrate it using normal procedures from cstheory to physics

however, trying to sort everything manually pre-migration before May 4th is just too much effort.

@MarkSEveritt here is my full pitch for why we should migrate to cstheory, also check out the meta discussion at cstheory

Sorry that I wasn't able to make it during the normal chat time

David Zaslavsky

3:43 AM

@ArtemKaznatcheev no problem, your input has been very helpful anyway.

@Mark and @Artem, just FYI (in case this wasn't already mentioned in the chat messages you read), it's basically going to be up to the Theoretical Physics and CS Theory communities to decide which questions should go where and to migrate anything that shouldn't come to Physics. On Friday, or whenever you're done with those migrations, the SE team will transfer all remaining questions and answers here. (But of course it will still be possible to do manual migrations afterwards.)

3 hours later…

Mark S. Everitt

6:34 AM

@ArtemKaznatcheev: I took a look at your pitch and, although not 100% comfortable, I agree. It seems that QI is well within the scope, so hopefully 50:50 questions will be fit for the site too. [As I mentioned to David elsewhere](http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/a/251/569) I also think that putting research level questions on Physics.SE could be a mistake due to noise. The problem I had was with the scope.

I guess someone should also mention the QI proposal on Area 51. I've no idea if this proposal will graduate to beta, or even if it should if CS takes on QI "officially", …

Pygmalion

@DavidZaslavsky: I'm on vacation as you can guess yourself from my non-activity. But my opinion is that P.SE does not change its name. At most universities undergraduate study of astronomy is just one special program of physics. Cheers.

David Zaslavsky

7:35 AM

@Pygmalion really? At almost all universities I've seen, astronomy/astrophysics is a separate department from physics, although they often work closely with each other. Anyway... your opinion is noted ;-) (and enjoy your vacation)

Pygmalion

8:05 AM

@DavidZaslavsky Really? Maybe this difference has something to do with Europe/US difference, or perhaps, smaller universities have all physics bonded together?

David Zaslavsky

8:19 AM

@Pygmalion yeah, that might be the case

3 hours later…

Manishearth

11:08 AM

(rears head from internetless vacation; will be back tomorrow)

Could you post the results of the chat session on meta? Looks like we're doing a full merge minus astrophotography (does that include observational astro??).

Also, looks like you got the attention of GraceNote.. Which means that SE is in our swallow-the-sites loop, so they know our plans and the merger won't require nagging on out part :)

back to no-internet mode

2 hours later…

Dan Neely

12:48 PM

I attended a large US University (pitt.edu); and it's physics and astronomy programs were part of the same dept.

2 hours later…

Qmechanic

2:41 PM

I agree we should grant full and unconditional asylum to existing TP.SE and astronomy.SE questions because of this dreadful emergency situation. However, any change of Physics.SE site name and scope should not be rushed through to meet an arbitrary deadline. Instead it should be carefully investigated/discussed/evaluated at meta.physics.SE to ensure a representative decision among Physics.SE users.

3 hours later…

Colin K

5:20 PM

I think that the natural assumption would be that physics includes astronomy, and theoretical physics. I always found it wrong that the were separate sites to begin with

I'm with @DanNeely: at my university physics and astronomy are the same department.

TP.SE always seemed to me to exist only so that a couple guys could feel superior, and so we didn't have to be subjected to internet tears every time somebody asked a question that didn't involve string theory.

1 hour later…

Dilaton

6:52 PM

I agree with you Colin, and as I together with some other people said elsewhere some other people said elsewhere they probably should have lowered the level to ask questions a little bit at TP.SE . But I dont understand the last sentence; picking at ST in a discussion about the merging of the sites would be off topic, not constructive, and unnecessary :-( ...

I think we should be helpful and kind to each other and to the people who will lose their sites :-)

Colin K

@Dilaton: You're right, sorry about that

David Zaslavsky

7:32 PM

@Manishearth Sure, I'll summarize it (later, when I have time). The chat session transcript is bookmarked for anyone who wants to read it over.

The plan that emerged is basically that we will be taking over everything from Astro and TP, including observational astronomy, except for selected questions which the Astro people think will find a better home on Photo.SE.

Similarly, we are taking in everything from theoretical physics except for quantum computation questions, which may find a better home on cstheory.SE.

Those sites' respective communities will be taking care of migrating away (or at least identifying) any questions that should be sent anywhere other than Physics.

Colin K

8:29 PM

Just a note about photo.SE: Some astrophotography questions will definitely be happy there, but some might not be. Photo.SE is VERY averse to physics-based explanations for anything.

I used to try answering questions there because I'm an optical engineer, so if people had questions about sensors, image processing, or optics... I mean I literally design that stuff for a living.

but they will often show a strong preference for answers phrased in terms of old photographic rules of thumb, even if they are physically incorrect.

1 hour later…

David Zaslavsky

9:37 PM

Yeah, but that's something for the astro people to work out.

« first day (544 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4547 days later) »

all rooms