The h Bar

ACuriousMind

1:55 AM

@Jim: You have gained a new subject.

user54412

@ACuriousMind That message might go to the last Jim to say something in this room

ACuriousMind

sigh

The preview thingy shows two icons, I think I pinged them both

Kyle Kanos

2:15 AM

Interesting: Dimitri Mihalas wrote an Amazon review for Ya. Zel'dovich's book Physics of Shock Waves:

amazon.com/review/R3HYWYMOIIHUSD/…

NB: Milhals wrote a book or two on physics as well, e.g.

amazon.com/Foundations-Radiation-Hydrodynamics-Dover-Physics/dp/…

user54412

Cool

user54412

(Mihalas is also my academic grandfather)

vzn

3:18 AM

this QM experiment is making new waves in the media, any reactions? seems to point to "deeper than QM" type physical dynamics. Prediction and retrodiction for a continuously monitored superconducting qubit Tan et al

Jim

5:05 AM

Sorry I missed it.

But I am more of a Space Ghost (Coast to Coast) Jim

Physics Meta

6:21 AM

0

Q: How can I apply a "on hold" problem to be re-opened?

This question was put on hold recently, which was reedited and adjusted by myself. I do not question the decision but would appreciate any discuss on this issue. Also I would like to apply the question to be re-opened. The question is not a homework (I am not sure whether it is "homework-like")...

tpg2114

12:26 PM

@ACuriousMind @bolbteppa @ChrisWhite Since we discussed that no-Big-Bang paper in here on Monday, you guys might want to summarize your arguments against it and post answers here:

12

Q: How come people are claiming that the Big Bang never happened?

A news is going viral on social media networks claiming that two physicists have found a way to eliminate the big bang singularity, or in a layman's terms (as claimed by many sensationalist news articles); The Big Bang never happened at all. The paper was published in Phys. Lett. B, and it seems...

cosmology spacetime big-bang singularities

I should have asked it on the main site instead of here... but I figured a "I have absolutely no idea what this says, is it legit?" would have been off-topic.

@ChrisWhite We have been advised verbally by senior members of our department to never say anything negative to prospective students, to not be direct about how long we've been here, etc..

Nobody said it's a requirement or we'll get in trouble or anything

But the general advice is the more people who enter, the faster we can get out because our replacements will be here

So my experience is actually pretty much inline with StrongBad's answer on that one. We're not supposed to offer anything negative freely, and we're expected to spin things that may seem negative. For instance "How long have you been here?" is usually answered by "I passed quals in X and since then I've had the opportunity to work on several projects. Funding is never a problem here so we get to experience a wide range of topics!"

Which is really just a euphemism for "I've been in grad school for 6 years and have yet to propose my PhD because I've been bounced onto 10 different projects at the last minute due to poor recruiting practices and people not doing their work"

Sofia

2:04 PM

@ACuriousMind : ah, are you here?

ACuriousMind

@Sofia Yes, I'm here

Sofia

@ACuriousMind then, why don't I see you in the room?

@ACuriousMind Aaaa, now I see.

ACuriousMind

The icons are sometimes slow to update

Sofia

@ACuriousMind there is a problem that I see that has to be discussed. It appears under different formulations in many questions, but it's always the same issue, in essence. I wanted to discuss it with you maybe this evening, but I am now under big stress. I lost an extraordinary article, on which I wanted to base a proposal. I searched everywhere, but no trace of it.

@ACuriousMind : I'll try to rest a bit, and in the evening I'd like to talk with you n how to solve that general problem.

@ACuriousMind will you be here in the evening?

ACuriousMind

@Sofia I'll very likely be here, yes.

Sofia

2:12 PM

@ACuriousMind O.K. Then I'll try to discus those questions with you.

Kyle Kanos

Yeah, okay. I guess you guys need to go back to school. Everything outside of our galaxy is too far away to visibly see any movement, so I'd love to know how someone could have proven that. — Darryl Kinslow 10 mins ago

ACuriousMind

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

Can mods protect questions that aren't old enough, by the way?

That one would be a prime candidate

Kyle Kanos

I think they can do it immediately. You may want to flag it

ACuriousMind

Hm, Qmechanic just edited the question, I think a flag is superfluous

Jim

3:51 PM

referring to @Jim A Challenger has appeared

Jim

4:16 PM

Ha!

tpg2114

Yeah, that won't be confusing or anything

Jim

One more subject for the kingdom of Jim

Jim

Hmm, I was thinking the same thing. So I suppose we fight to the death? Unless we are anti-Jims of each other....

tpg2114

Just don't change your gravitars to match. Or pick non-colorblind-safe colors for them

Not that I'll be able to distinguish by picture anyway

Kyle Kanos

Hmm. Someone needs to change their name

tpg2114

4:23 PM

I nominate Jim

ACuriousMind

If we all change your name to Jim, we could become Jim.SE

tpg2114

He's dead Jim!

►

Jim

hows this?

hmm didint work

xxx

xx

ugh name change didnt work

ACuriousMind

@Jim: Chat is a bit slow to pick up changes

Jim

ok

ACuriousMind

4:38 PM

I don't see a changed name on your user page, either, though

Jim

I'll be the one with the simplistic physics comments

ACuriousMind

Probably caching, as always

Kyle Kanos

It's changed on your SO page

Jiminion

Jim

I changed it back again

Kyle Kanos

Oh

Jim

4:39 PM

Yes, to supplicate to the TRUE Jim.

We'll see if it catches on here.

It should be Jiminion after a time.

tpg2114

One of you can be JimA, and the other can be Jim1. Or the Mongoose. The Fighting Mongoose!

Jim

So, what is your take/view on String Theory?

tpg2114

Man, striking out on my Futurama references today.

Kyle Kanos

I haven't watched Futurama since it was canceled the first time

Jim

I always think Zoidberg is Cthulhu

tpg2114

4:41 PM

It's a really good show

Jim

With a published proof!

tpg2114

@Jim I can honestly say I have never heard that one before

Jim

(I think published....)

@tpg2114 you are joking right?

tpg2114

No... I've really never heard that before

Jim

What 'bout the proof?

tpg2114

4:44 PM

Maybe Lovecraft was edgy for his day, but I don't find anything remotely suspenseful about his writing. Every "horrifying" thing is foreshadowed on every single page and then when you get there it's not nearly as scary as the build up seemed to make it

Poe's work is far more scary/suspenseful

Jim

It was a diff. era. I guess someone is finally filming Mountains of Madness.

tpg2114

Plus Poe wasn't overtly racist

Kyle Kanos

Was Lovecraft going for suspense?

I thought he was just going for creepy/eerie

tpg2114

See, Mountains of Madness was the first one I read and it was really boring

@KyleKanos I think they are kind of the same but even so, I didn't get any of that feeling either.

ACuriousMind

I don't like Lovecraft's writing itself, either, but it has spawned some pretty good board games and RPG settings.

tpg2114

4:48 PM

@ACuriousMind That I could get behind. I've never played CoC but I've listened to podcasts of sessions. It's an interesting system

Jim

Wow, so much Jim talk and I missed it

Jim

It's more the world than the stories. Best part about MofM was that life on earth was due to other creatures messing around here for some reason and leaving, with their stray microbes evolving into us. Delightfully nilihistic.

(I still havent changed yet, and going to lunch soon)

Jim

I suppose I could change my name

Kyle Kanos

Change it to Jimbo

Jim

to King Jim

Kyle Kanos

4:50 PM

:D

tpg2114

@Jim But see, I mean, that's entirely possible anyway. And maybe that's where the difference in era matters. We very well could have evolved from an alien's sneeze. The primordial soup could have just been alien excrement. That's kind of the beauty of evolution as a theory

Jim

Okay, this is getting confusing

Jim

No, I changed mine -- it hasn't percolated through yet...

Jim

Or, maybe I should finally switch to Jimdalf the Grey

Kyle Kanos

Okay, yes. Do that

tpg2114

4:53 PM

@Jim For the record, that's the line in Futurama that triggered the Universe A and Universe 1 joke: theinfosphere.org/Universe_1

Jim

Yes, he wrote around the time of the Scopes trial, so it was a big twist for back then.

With box 1729?

Jim

@Jim I'll be Jim A and you can be Jim B

tpg2114

@Jim And his views on race, religion, etc. were pretty extreme. Even for that time. So I imagine how scary he pictured the big reveal in the story isn't the same as how others did

Jim

@tpg2114 fair enuff.

Jim

@KyleKanos physics.stackexchange.com/users/23473/…

Kyle Kanos

4:56 PM

Nice!

I approve of this change

Jim

I thought about posting a meta thread to determine the new name for our leader of the Jims

tpg2114

@Jim Do it. What's the worst that could happen? Somebody on meta has fun for a change?

Jim

@tpg2114 Exactly, the SE motto is We hate fun

Jim

There can be only one....

Kyle Kanos

Highlander (film)

Highlander is a 1986 British-American cult fantasy film directed by Russell Mulcahy and based on a story by Gregory Widen. It stars Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Clancy Brown, and Roxanne Hart. The film depicts the climax of an ages-old battle between immortal warriors, depicted through interwoven past and present day storylines. Despite having enjoyed little success in its initial U.S. release, the cult film launched Lambert to stardom and inspired a franchise that included film sequels and television spin-offs. The film's tagline, "There can be only one", has carried on throughout th...

tpg2114

4:58 PM

@Jim So phrase it as a ceremonial position election. They may hate fun, but they love bureaucracy!

Jim

Nah, the change is only temporary anyway. I'll be going back to Jim at some point

tpg2114

Annav brought up the same point I did in chat

Man, that question is just hashing out what we did in here 2 days ago. And getting a ton of rep for it. I seriously thought it would be off topic if I asked it

Jim

I thought it would be closed as primarily opinion based

tpg2114

Exactly, that's why I asked it here instead

The comments are actually just repeating the same discussion points we had in here

ACuriousMind

Then, um, why hasn't a single close vote been cast?

tpg2114

5:03 PM

It does have some valid points. Specifically "If it holds, does it eliminate the singularity?"

And I guess one could argue "Are these assumptions valid" could be a good question

ACuriousMind

I'm struggling with closing it as primarily opinion-based because it is essentially the kind of non-mainstream question we allow - evaluating a specific new theory within established physics.

The main problem is that the paper indeed contains no argument - all the crucial stuff is either hidden in the papers cited, or just pulled out of a... hat.

So one could say it is opinion-based because there is no physics to actually evaluate, but that is again already an opinion about the paper...

tpg2114

0

Q: Is this question about a recent paper on topic?

Is this question on topic? Or should it be? How come people are claiming that the Big Bang never happened? I actually had the same question (namely how valid is the conclusion) but felt it would be opinion based so I asked it in chat. Now that it's on the main page (and the "Hot Questions" bar)...

discussion scope

I'll beat the robot to posting it

ACuriousMind

@tpg2114 It'll post it again, anyway

Jim

5:30 PM

0

Q: A Jim for all seasons

So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well. But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of ...

discussion

Physics Meta

1

Q: Is this question about a recent paper on topic?

Is this question on topic? Or should it be? How come people are claiming that the Big Bang never happened? I actually had the same question (namely how valid is the conclusion) but felt it would be opinion based so I asked it in chat. Now that it's on the main page (and the "Hot Questions" bar)...

discussion scope

0

Q: A Jim for all seasons

So there has been a recent influx of new Jims (meaning maybe 2 in a while). Now, we all know that I am the one true Jim, lord of all other Jims, but nonetheless it gets confusing when someone pings Jim and Jim gets pinged as well. But that's just extra fluff. As supreme leader of the kingdom of ...

discussion

ACuriousMind

@Jim I am very conflicted whether to cast a close vote on that or not

Kyle Kanos

I second that notion

Jim

@ACuriousMind It's an excellent opportunity to suggest "A Curious Jim"

@Kyle you second the notion of closing or of being conflicted on whether to close?

ACuriousMind

@Jim That...is true. But it would make me complicit in... fun

Kyle Kanos

5:36 PM

On the confliction

Jim

Far be it from me to encourage anyone to partake in fun

Kyle Kanos

> This question does not appear to be about Physics Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center.

That's the close reason

And your question isn't really about Physics.SE

Or the powers of the SE network

ACuriousMind

Well, lol:

A Jim is never too off-topic. Nor is he not off-topic enough. He is precisely as far removed from the topic as he means to be. — Jimdalf the Grey 34 secs ago

Jim

It's about me and I'm part of Physics.SE

Kyle Kanos

But you aren't Physics.SE

Jim

5:39 PM

not with that attitude

Sofia

@ACuriousMind : may I have a private chat with you, sir?

Kyle Kanos

Jim isn't actually my first name. I use it to avoid people easily identifying me. It is a name of mine, but including my surname would defeat the purpose of using Jim in the first place — Jimdalf the Grey 1 min ago

Jim isn't a Jim but claims to be King of the Jims?

ACuriousMind

@Sofia Alright. Shall I open a room or will you?

Jim

Woah, Jim is a name of mine, just not my first name

Sofia

@ACuriousMind yes, please.

Jim

5:45 PM

Also, I don't know if I can vote on any of the answers. I think I may be too partial

ACuriousMind

Discussion between Sofia and ACurious…

Sofia

@ACuriousMind no, I can't. I was in that room, but it doesn't let me type.

@ACuriousMind The room doesn't accept me.

ACuriousMind

@Sofia Okay, try it again

Idle wondering: The Higgs field is a tachyon before condensation. Why is no-one bothered by that?

tpg2114

@KyleKanos Names are part of the software that powers SE

@Jim Ruler of Jimland

Jim

6:01 PM

@tpg2114 Emir of Jimistan

Kyle Kanos

Jimnasium

Jimdalf the Grey

Head Coach of Jimnasium

ACuriousMind

Do people in Jimistan vow on New Year's Eve to go to the Jim more often?

Kyle Kanos

Jimtopia

Jimdalf the Grey

Hmmm, it seems I can only change once every 30 days

Guess we have a month to determine what comes after Jimdalf the Grey

Kyle Kanos

6:05 PM

So you're stuck with Jimdalf for a bit, huh?

Jimdalf the Grey

Yup. We could make this a monthly contest

@KyleKanos not going to suggest that as an answer?

infinitesimal

I now have convincing evidence that trolling is a Science

Jiminion

6:36 PM

finally changed.

Jiminion

6:58 PM

So I'm stuff with this name for a month? I changed it back and forth a dew times earlier....

Jimdalf the Grey

@Jiminion Now that you mention it, I recall others being able to change more frequently. I'm going to check mother meta

ACuriousMind

@Jiminion Heh, yes, you'll have to be Jimdalf's minion for a month now

Jimdalf the Grey

Good point. I command Jiminion to check for me :P

Jiminion

yes master

Ugh it barked at me. I guess when I changed it B4, I changed it too quickly to be registered or whatever.

We are stuck for a month....

Crap! Now I know how Mike Tyson felt after getting that facial tattoo....

3

Jimdalf the Grey

Seems it was changed over 5 years ago to be this way. I'm curious why they decided on a month. Why not a week?

Emilio Pisanty

7:18 PM

Man, this is ridiculous.

spublishinggroup.net/unsubscribe

"Yeah, we know we just spammed you and we're probably on Beall's List of Terrible People. Would you mind giving us more of your data? We promise we'll leave you alone after that."

2

ACuriousMind

@EmilioPisanty I bet the collection of "names" they get from that form is quite hilarious to read

Jiminion

I never know what to do about those. I think the reputable ones (whichever they are...) are OK, but others not so much. Is NEVER the best strategy?

infinitesimal

Never say never.

Whatever that means.

Emilio Pisanty

@ACuriousMind Yeah, I could do that. They already have my name, though. "You received this email because we got your email address from your paper titled (real paper) which was published in (journal)". I guess maybe feed them the info they have and nothing else? I can't really pretend that the email address is no longer current.

Kyle Kanos

I find it easier to just mark it as Spam in Gmail and it'll be deleted automatically

Emilio Pisanty

7:27 PM

Still, not usually a good idea to let a spammer know you're there.

@infinitesimal It means you may later on be tempted to send a SCIgen paper to that journal, just to see what happens.

infinitesimal

:D

G'day @SabreTooth

ACuriousMind

7:58 PM

Gah

Seeing gibberish and being out of close votes is annoying

Kyle Kanos

The where does time go?

ACuriousMind

@KyleKanos Yep

Kyle Kanos

Yeah, Lemon's comment to that isn't very kind

But where does OP get such bad information?

ACuriousMind

8:15 PM

@KyleKanos I fear they've read some kook's book or website

Kyle Kanos

I am not sure of that. I suspect that they've read/skimmed a popularized account of GR and misunderstood what was written

ACuriousMind

Some days, I am not sure if I can even properly distinguish crackpots and popularizers.

Emilio Pisanty

8:35 PM

Any thoughts on this?

0

A: Is this question about a recent paper on topic?

I personally don't have that much patience for this sort of hullaballoo, which seems to come and go periodically. Nevertheless we do play a role in it, and I think it's important that we respond to these sorts of questions appropriately. The flow goes something like Scientist comes up with...

ACuriousMind

8:52 PM

@EmilioPisanty I think you're essentially right

David Z

Makes sense to me too

Jiminion

Isn't that because of the timeless universe folks? Who think there is no beginning to the time of the universe?

David Z

This brings to mind something to think about... on one hand, we want to give information based on mainstream physics, since the site as a whole is not qualified to perform anything akin to peer review, but on the other hand I do see it being part of our role to help people make sense of new results

Jiminion

If one can deftly correct mainstream media mistakes, that's probably one of the more important things the site can do.

I dunno why that part. paper got so much purchase....

ACuriousMind

@DavidZ It's a bit contradictory, but I don't see what we could do about it

@Jiminion Because people love the idea of those "wacky egghead scientists" being wrong.

3

Especially when it is about something so emotionally charged as the beginning of the universe

Jiminion

8:59 PM

Not to be dim, but you mean the wacky egghead scientists who believe in the big bang, not the ones who think time is infinite?

ACuriousMind

@Jiminion "Wacky egghead scientists" = scientists

So, yes, I mean us who largely trust in the Big Bang

Everytime someone claims to have overthrown established science, they invariably get a lot of media attention, no matter how unsubstantial their claim. Having a peer-reviewed paper published is really one of the more credible claims of this sort

Scientists, at least in most fiction, are very often portrayed to be out of touch with reality, and most media outlets are all too happy to further that picture by reporting how wrong these people living in their ivory tower have been all these years.

(Yes, the public perception of science makes me quite angry, why do you ask? ;) )

infinitesimal

@Jiminion what makes you believe that time is infinite?

Jiminion

9:17 PM

@infinitesimal Personally, I don't think it is, but Ali and Das think there is no beginning to time, which is sort of like it being infinite.

infinitesimal

Who are Ali and Das?

Emilio Pisanty

@infinitesimal The authors of the paper in question, arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

ACuriousMind

@infinitesimal The people who wrote the paper that has busied this room for the last two days or so

infinitesimal

Sorry guys, I'm not a regular. Thanks for the link.

Jiminion

I guess if time suddenly ended in their theory, it would be a ray..... :)

What I don't get about the paper is what do they act. say about the Big Bang? In terms of all the other evidence (Hubble Flow, etc.)? Shouldn't that have to be addressed for it to get published?

user54412

9:26 PM

@Jiminion There's a difference between modeling the first few nano-nano-nano seconds after the big bang, and modeling the evolution of the universe since then.

user54412

Really the only direct evidence we have is from recombination, which took place a few hundred thousand years after the big bang

ACuriousMind

@Jiminion They say (rather trivally) that their Bohmian trajectories do not cross, and that therefore, the worldlines of particles, which they claim are the Bohmian trajectories, can be infinitely extended into the past, while the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems show that this is impossible for geodesics, usually

From worldlines extending infinitely into the past, they conclude there was no (physically relevant) Big Bang singularity

user54412

so altering whether or not there was an actual singularity (which many doubt at some level) can be done without conflicting with the evidence we have

Pyraminx

???

Jiminion

@ChrisWhite Absolutely, agreed. I was referring to evidence of something that looked like it just banged....

infinitesimal

9:37 PM

@KyleKanos excellent comment.

ACuriousMind

@infinitesimal Why on earth has that question three upvotes?!

infinitesimal

Dunno

ACuriousMind

Yeah, not a question to you specifically, I know :P

infinitesimal

Perhaps ignorance?

ACuriousMind

Well, voting something up must mean you think that it is a good question

So, at least three people thought that rather incoherent question is good

infinitesimal

9:40 PM

Einstein did say it is infinite :P

Pyraminx

What, my iq?

ACuriousMind

It's stupidity and not ignorance in the original quote, but certainly both are infinite

Pyraminx

True.

infinitesimal

Thanks @ACuriousMind for the correction :-)

Jiminion

um, just finally got all of that....

tpg2114

9:49 PM

@DavidZ That could be an interesting discussion some time. What exactly the role is and how the site fits in. The hard part is being objective in the analysis such that it's not opinion-based.

user54412

10:46 PM

@Jiminion My point is we don't have any evidence that anything banged. All we ever actually do is run physics backwards to earlier and earlier times to see if things make sense. This works extremely well back to the beginning of nucleosynthesis (0.1 s "after the Big Bang"), different people will give you different numbers as to how much further back they can confidently go. We never start with an actual singularity in our theories, since the theory breaks down at that point.

user54412

But for instance all nucleosynthesis requires is that the universe was a plasma of a certain temperature when it was a certain fraction of its current size, and that physics we understand works between then and now. Whether or not Bohmian magic happens at earlier times won't affect most any measurement we have.

tpg2114

11:10 PM

@ChrisWhite Bohemian Magic would be a great band name

ACuriousMind

@tpg2114 Well, we already have Bohemian Gravity ;)

Jiminion

11:24 PM

@ChrisWhite I think we are in agreement. We don't have proof of the Big Bang. Just some thoughtful speculation.

ACuriousMind

@Jiminion We don't have proof of anything. Proof is the realm of mathematics. Science deals in evidence.

user54412

@ACuriousMind I'd go further and see we don't even have (direct) evidence of the Big Bang proper

user54412

after all, time t=0 is always an extrapolation in the standard models

user54412

I think all too often there's a conflation between the Big Bang singularity and the Big Bang model (which is pretty much everything except the singularity)

tpg2114

So @ChrisWhite do you guys actually march your simulations backwards in time to see what happened, or make initial assumptions and march forward in time to see if you get close to what is observable now?

user54412

11:35 PM

@tpg2114 The philosopher in me isn't sure there's a difference :P

user54412

Really, though, the answer is no one does it all in one fell swoop

ACuriousMind

@ChrisWhite So, you're saying the evidence indicates a period of a very small and dense universe, but nothing actually requires it to have been pointlike/singular so far? (I.e. that would be a "prediction" of the models disjoint from everything else)

tpg2114

@ChrisWhite The practitioner of numerical simulations in my wonders what numerical methods allow you to reverse time during solution procedures :)

user54412

Nucleosynthesis people evolve elemental abundances in their patch of history, galaxy evolution people consider their own patch, etc.

tpg2114

A reverse-time diffusion equation would be interesting for example. It's ill-posed. Take any field you want and march it forward in time until it's all constant. Then try to march backwards

There's no unique initial solution to give the solution at end time

user54412

11:37 PM

@ACuriousMind That's my take on it. I suppose cosmologists are always looking for an imprint in the CMB of time 0, but that's a bit hard to do.

vzn

@DavidZ actually feel se sites are highly qualified to engage in peer review, dont know why you say otherwise. think se & internet in general has a lot of untapped potential wrt peer review. have seen a few isolated cases on se. the high votes on the question indicate general enthusiasm for the rough idea (of cyber peer review by se in some cases)

tpg2114

@vzn I think it actually just indicates a lot of non-physicists who saw the same claim on Facebook and then saw the question pop up all day long in the "Hot Questions" list

ACuriousMind

@vzn We cannot be peer reviewers because participation here does not require you to be an actual academic physicist.

Also, what tpg said

user54412

@tpg2114 I'm not an actual cosmologist, much less an early-universe one, but my impression is that the field is moving toward forward-evolving populations of initial conditions to see what they can learn from statistics.

vzn

no argument, hot questions bring in "outsiders" but thats both bug and feature.

user54412

11:39 PM

"If I draw my Gaussian random phase initial conditions like this, what types of present-day universes to I generally see?"

tpg2114

@ChrisWhite I feel like the only way to do it is a shooting-type method. Start with some guesses, see where you end up and how far it is from what you observe, tweak your initial conditions and repeat

Until you get the closest answer to what is observed

vzn

there are (2) aspects of peer review. there is a technical term, involving ppl with credentials and pro journals etc., scientific convention going back centuries etc, then there is another term, just "peer review". se can participate in the later. its already highly oriented around it by nature/ design.

tpg2114

@vzn I disagree that SE would be a good platform for that. SE abhors opinions and any sort of "review" is likely to be opinion-based.

Objective review would be limited to "is the math correct" type analysis which is uninteresting

Voting for example -- people could vote for/against the opinion they share rather than which is more technically correct

vzn

reviews have significant objective aspects to them. se can focus on that.

science is objective.

there are a lot of objective issues outside of narrow math issues.

tpg2114

It isn't though -- I can tell you first hand that even reviews from journals are not always based on objective issues

vzn

11:43 PM

agreed se is not for highly subjective questions (except maybe in meta). but se mgt themselves have clarified the nature of "subjectivity" quite a bit wrt new sites such as "parenting" etc., theres a blog on that.

user54412

@tpg2114 What makes cosmology confusing is that it's a mixture of simulations, analytic formulas, semi-analytic approximations (whatever that really means), and even people recasting the entire problem with Feynman diagrams (and probably getting rid of explicit time while they're at it).

tpg2114

I agree there is a market for "public" peer reviews. But I don't think the SE model is how to do it. It would be shoehorning in something else to what is already successful

vzn

Blog - Stack Exchange: Good Subjective, Bad Subjective

Robert Cartaino on September 29, 2010

Stack Exchange is about questions with objective, factual answers. We’ve been crystal clear about this for as long as I can remember, even back to the earliest, pre-beta days of Stack Overflow. It’s right there in the standard Stack Exchange FAQ:

What kind of questions should I not ask here?

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!

Thus, questions that are not answerable — discussions, debates, opinions — should be closed as subjective. It seems simple enough: Fact good; opinion and discussion bad. But why? …

am not suggesting a lot of peer reviews should be done on the site. but in notable cases, it seems to work. have collected a few cases of that.

tpg2114

@vzn Yes, I've read it. I don't think an open-ended peer-review type system fits the good subjective criteria, and I don't think how the voting works on SE sites would be beneficial for reviews either

@ChrisWhite Sounds like cosmology is closer to engineering

And weather forecasting

user54412

@vzn I think the big issue with your idea is that it doesn't work with anonymity and non-exclusivity. Journals only trust the judgments of experts in the fields, which is why we trust that system at all. If SE were to have review, it would need to be with verified experts and it would need to exclude everyone else.

vzn

11:47 PM

understood its a tough sell to se power users. floating what in politics is known as "trial balloon". pop lol

tpg2114

@vzn It's more that SE is very successful within it's narrowly defined scope (which I guess is becoming infinitely broad with the Area 51 concept for SE 2.0 sites)

And tacking on other types of features to the usual Q&A just dillutes what it is good at

vzn

se has experts based on rep. it has a massive rep system. understood ppl dont think it works for scientific peer review. but literally/ technically the se rep system is a peer review system....

am not asking for any new features at all.

tpg2114

Which is not to say that there isn't a need for a "public" peer review service somewhere. Just that it shouldn't be integrated with the Q&A model that SE as a whole is good at

No, but an expanded scope for sure

vzn

am just saying, think this use of se has worked out in this narrow question case & others could be explored conservatively/ cautiously

ACuriousMind

@vzn Yeah, for a broad value of "peer". I think there is, for example, a substantial amount of upvotes cast by people who do not fully understand the content of a post.

alarge

11:50 PM

It is my understanding that the type of peer review we have nowadays doesn't have a long history. For example, from what I've heard, Einstein was shocked to learn that Phys Rev had sent a paper of his for review and he then proceeded to retract the article.

vzn

no question, votes are questionable on some questions. but all peer review systems will have flaws....

because they are human oriented/ focused....

tpg2114

@alarge I've actually been able to mostly identify people who have reviewed my articles because we are publishing competing models and they are insistent theirs is the only way to do things because they make a fortune doing it

vzn

alarge afaik scientific peer review goes back centuries (to the birth of journals & scientific societies) but its a convention not exactly a rigorous set of protocols. and varies widely. etc.

tpg2114

So the review system isn't very good and often devolves into political posturing rather than scientific merits

ACuriousMind

@vzn I think it would be another nasty possibility for people to create drama if we began to review actual papers. Not really what this SE needs ;)

vzn

11:52 PM

exactly, the existing peer review systems have some serious issues....

user54412

@alarge Haha. I'm picturing someone telling Einstein to "revise and resubmit"

alarge

@vzn Scientific method where you report what you did and how to replicate it goes back a long time, not sure of peer review

tpg2114

@ChrisWhite "Major revision"

ACuriousMind

@alarge Do you happen to know which paper?

tpg2114

@vzn There's also the issue that it's virtually impossible to replicate results for many things in a reasonable amount of time, which a good peer review would need to do

vzn

11:54 PM

so the trial balloon goes over like led zeppelin/ hindenberg thx for all your feedback :) :p

user54412

This sounds like a question for @Danu and company: when did peer review in its current form develop? It seems like there was a shift from publishing investigations and observations to publishing accepted facts.

user54412

I wonder if something similar happened in mathematics

ACuriousMind

@tpg2114 Heh. Imagine the reviewer of an LHC paper saying something like "Will try to replicate findings. Check back in a few decades".

alarge

@tpg2114 Exactly. I won't go into too much detail, but I've had terrible experiences with the peet review system, particularly when I've written about the flaws of others' work (in these cases I could explicitly show that they essentially broke the second law of thermodynamics in their models, so it wasn't as if it were a subjective issue)

user54412

In fact maybe it's all math's fault, forcing science to be "right" before it's printed in a journal

ACuriousMind

11:57 PM

@ChrisWhite But, ironically, modern math seems to put less emphasis on peer review than before. I've heard many mathematicians say that people's impression of your abilities (e.g. from your papers on the ArXiv) tends to be more and more important than your actual publications.

alarge

@ACuriousMind I'm afraid I don't remember, and I'm on my phone so don't wabt to google for it now. I believe that it actually wasn't a particularly good paper (the preprints had issues), but agaon, can't remember

ACuriousMind

@alarge No problem, found something about it

Discussion between Sofia and ACurious…

Transcript for