« first day (892 days earlier)      last day (4023 days later) » 

user54412
1:21 AM
@David I agree, this should go to math: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61023/…
 
user54412
1:45 AM
@Manishearth I assume orbital hybridization is something covered on chem.SE? This probably belongs there then? physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61012/…
 
2:26 AM
@ChrisWhite Yep ;-)
 
2:41 AM
@ChrisWhite That I would say is in scope for us. Atomic and molecular orbitals fall under both physics and chemistry.
 
@DavidZaslavsky You're right on the orbitals. But, did you look at the answer..?
which deals with hybridization..!
That's why we can say it best suites Chem.SE
 
It doesn't matter whether it best suits Chemistry. The question is, is it off topic here? I say no.
and yes, I did look at the answer.
 
Okay... you're the "mod" :P
 
To be clear: "It doesn't matter whether it best suits Chemistry. The question is, is it off topic here?" is me speaking as a mod. "I say no." is me just speaking as a site member. So I'm not officially saying it shouldn't be migrated, but if it is to be migrated we should do so for the right reason.
 
3:02 AM
@DavidZaslavsky Ah... Okay ;-)
 
3:33 AM
@ChrisWhite Yep, very much on topic (I owe around 400 of my rep to it), but what David said
 
3:48 AM
0
A: Yes another closed question, question

David ZaslavskyTwo and a half years of evolution in site policy. The open question was asked in November 2010, early in our beta period, when the site was undergoing its initial burst of activity and its scope was still very much in flux. So it got a bunch of upvotes and then got forgotten. Since we don't go b...

(in the comments) a bunch of questions I would like to see accumulate some close votes/flags
 
4:04 AM
@DavidZaslavsky Ahh... Lemme do that..! :P
 
0
Q: Yes another closed question, question

MagpieWhat makes this closed question less worthy than this very similar question that did not get closed? Both questions are broad and open ended yet one gets a load of upvotes and the other gets shut down. I personally can't see a point in closing either of these questions, but the lack of consist...

 
 
2 hours later…
6:19 AM
@DavidZaslavsky I don't get a nice question in that list to be closed... except 1 or 2..! :(
 
@CrazyBuddy ?
 
I think we can leave those as such as you've already answered that "that's old-time"..!
 
Do you mean to say that all should not be closed except 1 or 2 or vice versa?
 
@Manishearth Oops.. sorry - I meant only 1 or 2 can be closed :P
But, again - it's not that necessary since they don't get further votes,...
 
why not the rest?
 
6:28 AM
@Manishearth some questions ask about "how to learn" Physics , problems, its difficulties, self-learn, etc...
which are all Physics....
some ask about the books which are not covered by our book recommendations,
 
@CrazyBuddy ..that means that they're not "off topic" by the close reason
they are still Not Constructive
 
@Manishearth why do you say so..?
 
They are suggestion questions/etc
 
BTW, before we can have our discussion - I'd say that the question can be closed anyways...
 
yep
 
6:31 AM
because as QMech says, it is a "non-constructive" or an "on-topic" over electronic.SE
@Manishearth So, shouldn't we ask about "how are we learning physics?"
how we see physics.., etc..
 
@CrazyBuddy not here, really
 
@Manishearth I don't know... But, thats bad..!
 
they're just too subjective
Quora/etc work much better for subjective posts
 
For instance, take this one:
11
Q: How to learn physics effectively and efficiently

CowardHow do you effectively study physics? How does one read a physics book instead or just staring at it for hours? (Apologies in advance if the question is ill-posed or too subjective in its current form to meet the requirements of the FAQ; I'd certainly appreciate any suggestions for its modifica...

 
Very, very subjective
 
6:34 AM
So, this site deals only with Physics Q&A's and NOT how to learn this etc...
 
Yes, it is about physics
Yes, it is helpful
Not here
@CrazyBuddy yep
 
If your argument is right, then we don't necessarily need any of the tags: , , etc... at alll..!
 
@CrazyBuddy true
but just because some questions of a topic are on/off topic doesn't make them all
Also, historical reasons
Also, there have been a lot of good soft questions
And a few good [education] questions
 
@Manishearth I know about the past...
But, we can still keep what we followed at first..! atleast
The presence of these questions unclosed makes others feel that they can post such subjective questions..!
@Manishearth There's only two choices then..!
Either we (you mods) modify our FAQ..! (which is next-to-impossible)
or we just have to close other questions too as expected...! :(
 
In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, templates, etc., editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Tro...
"other stuff exists" is not a good argument to use online
 
6:41 AM
@CrazyBuddy Yeah, is a pretty good indicator of a question that should be closed, usually as not constructive.
There are a few soft questions that I think are appropriate, but they're very rare.
 
Nice...
Whether I understand Physics or not..!, I need a lot of time to understand how this site works by various policy variables :(
 
has some uses, though - there is a formal field of physics education research, which I think could be on topic for us. (Maybe. I'm not sure.) But questions that just ask how to learn some subject in general are not what this site is for.
 
Exactly
 
Done... Then, I should use my VTC widely hereafter..! :O
 
 
2 hours later…
9:10 AM
@CrazyBuddy no, please dont to this :-( Please do not go closevoting a large number of older questions that have been considered as good in the past and which are still appreciated by many people as very helpful today. I think there is no consenscus towards these new policies (yet), see why I thinkg this in my answer here.
These question should not be closed, but people in power should stop enforcing the unneded new policeies by unilateral actions and zero tolerance.
 
9:29 AM
@Dilaton Nah... I was just kidding...
Hey, I've got other posts to read. I don't go search for a post to close.
BTW, My vote isn't the threshold. I'm not a mod..!
I just thought that you'd reply to my sentence :P
@Dilaton Manish said the reason - it's only because of the faq defined in the historical beta phase..
Now, the site has changed so much...
I do feel for subjective questions "not" on-topic here, but the reason was valid..!
 
 
2 hours later…
11:04 AM
Have any of you experienced that after upvoting an answer and returning to it some time later, the upvote magically appears at another answer? Perhaps this is due to being on different SE sites simultaneously and using different active/oldest/votes orderings?
 
@Gugg nope
 
@Dilaton This happened when I upvoted your answer on books. Half an hour later the upvote appeared at WiFO215's answer. And this wasn't the first time.
 
@Gugg are you using Chrome Dev?
It once happened to me during the SO election because I used Chrome Dev (Canary)
 
I'm using Safari (on a Mac) with AdBlock installed.
 
dunno then
 
11:30 AM
1
Q: Why are my upvotes displaced?

GuggI wanted to upvote this answer and so I did. However, half an hour later the upvote was registered to this answer. I upvoted the intended answer again. Then this appeared, suggesting I upvoted yet another answer. This time I didn't do anything and after a while, coming back, I got this. I've...

 
@Gugg I have your upvote now here, thanks for this ;-). Dont know why it can jump to the wrong post ...
 
 
6 hours later…
5:17 PM
Anyone interested in discussing...
-1
A: Why the direction of dipole moment is from negative charge to positive charge?

Crazy BuddyA dipole has equal and opposite charges. The field lines originate from positive charge and terminate with the negative charge. When we derive for the torque acting on a dipole placed at an angle $\theta$ with the field, we obtain $\tau=\vec{p}\times\vec{E}$. And for the potential energy, we obta...

 
 
2 hours later…
7:39 PM
@CrazyBuddy ..because the reason is more fundamental
Or no reason at all
It's just a convention
The reason it is a vector is because it transforms like one, as mentioned by Ben
Your logic would be hard to apply for a quadrupole or octopole
 
7:57 PM
@CrazyBuddy yeah, you should. Any time you think a question is off topic or inappropriate in some way, vote to close it. Your vote is nonbinding so no harm done if you vote for something that winds up not being closeable.
 
Also, remember that your VTC pushes it into the CV queue where others can have a look at it
 
0
Q: Is gravity not a force?

aepryusIn 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed the idea of Emergent Gravity, that perhaps gravity was emergent, i.e., not a result of a force. He did so because “many condensed matter systems give rise to emergent phenomena which are identical to general relativity”. On January 6, 2010, Erik Verlinde propos...

Promoting a personal theory, I think?
 
(I'm out)
 
8:50 PM
@DavidZaslavsky Why not just let it ride for a while? (Yes, I know why.) But still, perhaps a crackpot-tag would be nice, and I mean that in a friendly way: you could also name it revolutionary-ideas. :) I would love to see 't Hooft respond, but I guess he sort of left.
 
@Gugg That's not what tags are for. They're meant to indicate the subjects of a question. (There are a few tags that don't do this which have snuck into common use, like , , or , but we don't want any new ones)
 
@DavidZaslavsky I was (half) kidding. But still, the guy obviously spent some time on this, and it would be a bit of a shame if the question got closed even before he got some constructive criticism. But, hey, you're the boss, I guess.
 
9:06 PM
@Gugg not exactly the boss, just the one who is more familiar with how the SE system works, I think
Anyway, why would it matter whether the question is closed before he gets constructive criticism?
People can still comment and edit questions after they're closed.
 
@DavidZaslavsky I had a look at the FAQ, and indeed there is little room here. :) Thanks
 
user54412
anyone know (especially @Manishearth ) if there's a mathjax way to typeset left-superscripts?
 
You have to do something like ${}^1 F^2$
 
user54412
like for isotopes {}^2_1D doesn't quite work, and {}^12_6C is pretty awfully aligned
 
hm, well LaTeX doesn't have a natural syntax for putting a superscript or subscript on the left
...apparently in MathJax you can omit the braces, i.e. $^1 F^2$
$^1 F^2$, $^2_1D$
looks fine to me...
 
user54412
9:26 PM
@David You're clearly not as OCD as me ;)
 
user54412
but certainly you have to admit {}^{12}_6C doesn't work
 
let's see... ${}^{12}_6C$
yeah, that is a little off... but come on, it's LaTeX in Javascript, you can't expect too much ;-)
 
@DavidZaslavsky this is the correct place you are suggesting I chat?
 
This is the chat room, yes
 
Ok, so I guess to start, do you have any comment on it?
 
9:34 PM
Nope
 
You don't find it's ability to predict the gravitational time dilation at the Earth's surface using only Special Relativity compelling at all?
 
@aepryus "I have absolutely zero mechanism to discuss this with anyone who knows anything." Just wondering, how did you come to that conclusion?
 
@aepryus Nope, not really
 
@Gugg I have been out of academia for a while, so I don't have access to physicists any more. I have been trying for the past 5 days to figure out some way to talk to anyone about this, but so far have failed.
@Gugg by the way, thanks for engaging the questions and for your helpful edits.
 
Since you mentioned being unable to publish this on arXiv: that's by design. arXiv wants to see that you've gotten at least one person who is familiar with the field to review your work. The intended procedure is that you get in touch with a professor, or someone else who has submitted a few relevant papers in the field, get them to critique your work, and if they believe it has merit they will be your endorser.
Alternatively, in principle, you can submit something to a physics journal without having an endorser or an academic affiliation.
 
9:44 PM
I just haven't figured out how to do that, yet. At some point, I guess I'll just head to the U of Chicago or the U of Wisconsin physics department eventually. But, every time I try to imagine the conversation as I knock on someone's door, I cringe.
I really wasn't going out of my way to do all this. I had somehow managed to get through the U of C without a clear understanding of what the term "Expansion of the Universe" meant. I first learned about it on Mar 21. In trying to wrap my head around the concept I had an epiphany that lead to others.
At first it was exciting, but quickly I have grown to regret the whole thing ever happened.
 
@aepryus Again, that's by design. If you go through the process of learning about existing physics in detail, you'll know how to present your idea to an established physicist in such a way that he/she will take a serious look at it.
 
Again, if there is any understanding I have of existing physics that is wrong, I would be hugely appreciative of that information.
 
10:07 PM
@Gugg Would you mind if I briefly took you through my thought process?
 
@aepryus I know sh*t. My only interest is QM, and not even for physics reasons.
 
Actually, I became a physics major because of my "interest in QM, and not even for physics reasons."
Initially, I was a math major. I took physics because I felt that applying the math would help me understand it better.
But, quickly I realized that Physics was describing a very deterministic universe.
A friend pointed out the hiesenburg principle and so I decided to pursue Physics instead to understand the Heisenberg Principle and its ramifications on determinism.
 
Well, in my tentative opinion, determinism and its counterpart are scientifically indistinguishable.
 
10:24 PM
I kinda think of it being 3 options: random, set but undeterminable and determinable. But, yeah the distinction between at least the first 2 is questionable.
 
The issue is, that whatever position you wish to take, there will always be a loophole that allows for another position. The question, in my tentative opinion, therefore isn't scientific.
 
Is that, in fact, the source of your interest in QM?
 
Game theory (is the source).
 
How does QM apply to game theory?
 
Well, if you have a moment.
 
10:31 PM
sure
 
I'll be right back.
 
kk
 
The probabilistic predictions of QM can be modelled as strategic interactions in game theory. That sounds weird, but it is kind of logical given that both theories are expressions of probability theory. The connection doesn't imply anything more, but it was interesting for a while.
 
it has ceased being interesting?
 
Once one has the idea/feeling/etc that it is trivial, it stops being interesting.
 
10:42 PM
gotcha
 
Just to clarify, I think that claims for determinism or otherwise are preposterous. From either position, once the ghost of the counterposition is out of the bottle, it can't be put back.
 
counterposition?
 
Determinism/non-determinism.
 
perhaps not looking at the universe, but certainly systems exist that are determinable?
 
There's a difference between deterministic and determinable. Current understanding says that no real system is determinable (by us).
 
10:55 PM
Have you read Penrose's Emperor's New Mind? It's been a while, but I recall a lively discussion on the whole issue.
 
Yes, but I don't recall anything of it.
 
heh ya my memory is a bit faded... I should read it again one of these days
 
As I said, I don't think it's an issue. It's a non-issue.
 
Yeah, I stopped worrying about it long ago
@Gugg at any rate, thanks again. I appreciate your help.
 
Yeah, good luck!
 
11:01 PM
It appears I'm going to need it.
 

« first day (892 days earlier)      last day (4023 days later) »