01:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

1:32 AM
0

Under construction Note: This is not a new policy, just a meta post about the old one. It will be linked to in the new close reasons. Is non mainstream physics allowed here? What defines non mainstream physics? What should I do if I see a question or answer containing non mainstream ph...

2:04 AM
@ArnavTripathy yeah, sometimes. But not always. Chat isn't only for physics discussion.

2:25 AM
@ArnavTripathy fwiw that whole 4 hour discussion was a scheduled chat session for working out the close reasons
We also have religious debates on programming languages
Oh oh and trolley cars
usually it's physics related though (or Physics.SE related)

1 hour later…
user54412
3:41 AM
@tpg2114 I'm here

Hey
So I don't really know what to think about some of those questions tagged that way and what is "engineering" vs "physics"
Is that at all physics really? Or just pure engineering?

user54412
hmmm

Statics problems are usually done in intro mechanics classes

user54412
most of the stuff in statics I think could be construed as physics

user54412
except for things like this

user54412
3:44 AM
0

Came across this question and just needed abit of help undertanding how i should go about this question I have also attempted to solve it to the best of my ability but im stuck. A concrete column of square cross-section of 250mm x 250mm & 1.5m long is required to support an axial compressive lo...

But our statics classes are in the College of Engineering for example
1

I am trying to build an aluminum stand (tree). The "trunk" is 72" (1.8288$\,$m) tall. There are four perpendicular (outstretching) "branches" along the top half of the trunk, each 36" (0.9144$\,$m) in length. These arms will be at different angles to the trunk, but all forward in one direction wi...

user54412
I'd be okay with closing that as engineering

user54412
I'd be more okay if we had a dedicated mech-E site

A whole tag isn't necessarily going to be on or off topic

@DavidZaslavsky I agree, but it's missing a tag-wiki
So if we can define somehow what "engineering-statics" is vs "physics-statics" and put that in the wiki
It would help

3:46 AM
Sure

Along with defining how should be used (which is what I originally suggested Chris talk about but got quickly sidetracked with )

I don't have any particularly good ideas beyond stating the obvious: that statics is for situations in which nothing is moving

user54412
aha - one day there may be Mechanical Engineering for us to point people toward

Yeah, that'll be good
but that's a long way off

user54412
@DavidZaslavsky you should make that the entirety of the wiki: "statics is for situations in which nothing is moving" :P

3:48 AM
lol :-P
well, if nobody else comes up with anything soon
We should also think about whether we should even have as a tag, given that engineering questions are supposed to be off topic

@DavidZaslavsky That's what I originally pinged Chris for

user54412
@DavidZaslavsky yeah that's the issue

To have that conversation and come up with a proposal to put on Meta

user54412
I think with an appropriate wiki (and importantly a good mouse-over summary) it can be good to have

Re : The study of stationary systems
I don't think it needs to be any more verbose than that honestly...

3:51 AM
@tpg2114 that works

What kinds of on-topic questions would still have ?

user54412
I mean, and exist, but that doesn't mean we condone "design my breadboard" or "how do I build a solar panel" questions

But we don't have

user54412
@tpg2114 I think the critical distinction is inspired by engineering

People do often take the existence of a tag as an indicator that the subject of the tag is largely on topic. They shouldn't, but they do.

3:52 AM
So if we say "engineering for engineering's sake" is OT, I don't know that is all that useful

I'm really just not seeing why that tag would be useful.

user54412
questions where a physical principle was brought to the forefront when investigating an engineering issue

user54412
well, I don't have any particular attachment to it

Nor do I, but before proposing to kill it off I'd like to find out if there's some reason to keep it
Your example of on-topic engineering, "Why do airplanes fly?"
Should that have ?
Does it add anything to have that tag?

user54412
wasn't my example - Manishearth picked that one out

3:55 AM
Heh, okay. Well "the example" then :)

user54412
it does seem strange to tag it as such - we have and

user54412
(which are fortunately synonyms)

Not entirely synonyms

user54412
I mean, we implemented synonymization

could include blimps, balloons technically
I guess it is a synonym here...

user54412
3:57 AM
true, which is why the directionality is is replaced by the more general

Oh well

user54412
well, if you think of a good blimp question...

I'll come up with one :)

user54412
"How much hydrogen do I need to lift my zeppelin?"

user54412
It may be an "actual problem you have faced" for someone I suppose

3:58 AM
The navy actually started designing a new fleet of blimps
They're slightly heavier-than-air if I recall
Heck, apparently yesterday they were testing them in Florida to track drug runners in the Gulf

user54412
heavier than air? umm.... I may not be a pilot, but...

{| |} The MZ-3A is a blimp owned by the United States Navy since 2006. It is a modified American Blimp Corporation A-170 series commercial blimp and given the USN type/model/series (T/M/S) designation MZ-3A and Bureau Number (BuNo) 167811. After delivery to the Navy, the airship began operations as an advanced flying laboratory used to evaluate affordable sensor payloads, the development of new lighter-than-air (LTA) technologies and general flight support for other related research and development/science and technology (R&D/S&T) projects. In May 2006, Air Test and Evaluation Squadr...
It just means they have to use some engine power to help it stay in the air
As opposed to traditional blimps that just floated freely
Every airplane is "heavier-than-air"
Anyway, sidetracked again
I'm looking through the questions and a) I don't see many that should be left open and b) I don't see any that should be left open that couldn't do without the tag
Which also opens the question about as well

user54412
my take on the 5 most recent [tag:engineering] questions:
1) [No idea](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70245)
2) [Good - material properties](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69885)
3) [okay - units inspired by engineering](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69885)
4) [bad - homeworky and too complicated an engineering issue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69199)
5) [good - physics underlying a device](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69175)

user54412
^ No idea why those links didn't format

The heat sink one and the structure tipping over I'm not sure about really
As posed, it's more like "Help me design this object" which is engineering
As opposed to "How do I analyze a physical structure set up like..." or "What material properties are important for a heat sink"
Respectively

user54412
4:09 AM
6) [the engineering part is the bad part; takes focus away from physical limits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68656)
7) [that this was inspired by engineering is irrelevant](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67843)
8) [just plain engineering; not physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67518)
9) [not engineering (or even EE); just circuits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67381)
10) [would be physics with a diagram perhaps; but with words undefined terms sounds like engineering](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67184)

user54412
@tpg2114 yeah, I can see that

user54412
that might be a good point for the faq: "help me design" vs. analysis of something fundamental

Okay, so I think I'm with @DavidZaslavsky on this one... I don't see a need for the tag really. Questions that should still be open don't really need the tag and the ones that seem to need it are off-topic

user54412
that seems reasonable

user54412
I wonder what has to offer

user54412
4:13 AM
I always felt applied physics was materials and optics and nanostuff

user54412
but this meta post: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4304/… indicates some people use it synonymously with engineering

From an outsider and in a naive way, I took applied physics to mean "Physics that has an influence in every day life"

user54412
and a brief look at tells me it is used synonymously with engineering

Like... if the Higgs exists, it doesn't change how I get to work in the morning

user54412
hmm

4:16 AM
FWIW, the association of applied physics with engineering seems to go back to early days
4

What would be the real-world implications of the Kessler Syndrome? is essentially an engineering (applied physics) question. If we ignore the specifics of that question, should we accept applied physics questions here? To suggest another example in the same category: "Can you use any semiconduc...

user54412
I guess I just knew enough applied physics majors as an undergrad, and basically all they did was cool things in labs involving optics benches and poisons and really cold things

I'm an engineer, so I didn't get to make that distinction. Although I could see it as "physics that can measure tangible things"
As opposed to the thought-experiment kind of physics

user54412
hmmm - I always though measuring things was experimental physics

That could be too
I don't really know what the distinctions are

user54412
and applied physics was engineering but with not-so-tangible things (or at least, things that required an SEM to see)

user54412
4:19 AM
probably depends on the school

0

Given the discussion related to whether Engineering questions are on topic, we also need to consider whether the engineering tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms...

user54412
I don't know why the other engineering disciplines have been so slow to get sites of their own

My Solid/Fluid Mechanics proposal was deleted :(
Inactive for 30 days

user54412
:(

For the FAQ: "Questions about the physical reasons and analysis that lead to design decisions are on topic; questions seeking help designing or building something is off topic."
"physical reasoning" is probably a better phrase

user54412
4:26 AM
sounds good - feel free to add it

Done
Any other tags that need to be sorted out based on the close reasons?

user54412
I think and already have good summaries

user54412
perhaps we should create a tag :P

user54412

4:35 AM
The only engineer tags we have are

user54412
is a mixed bag - it certainly has its fair share of closeable questions

Yeah, and it has some questions that don't really need it
0

I was wondering this: would it be possible to "construct" elements by arranging their constituent particles in high-energy environments? So apart from just fusion, could you sub-atomically manufacture elements?

That doesn't seem to be what I would define

user54412
on the other hand, it keeps free of junk and focused on the finer points of, well, nuclear physics

To me, nuke-engineering is the design/operation/physics behind power systems based on radiation
Although I guess it also includes medical uses of radiation

user54412
agreed

4:39 AM
I guess that one could become or something

user54412
while we're at it, what on earth is going on with ?

How did that even get created

user54412
is that question even about nuclear isomers?

People create all sorts of random tags

What's the rep barrier? I thought it was higher than 1700

4:40 AM
Nah, tag creation is possible without much reputation

user54412

Anyway, the question does actually concern nuclear isomers, and while it probably didn't need that tag, I don't think it hurts

Submitted a tag-wiki for
But I don't have enough rep so it's pending...

user54412
it's strange to hear the word "manufacture" used in the context of short-lived metastable states

Well, an excerpt anyway
Is there a way to search for tags that have no tag-wiki?

user54412
4:44 AM
the review for that is quite hidden - I don't know if I would have ever known there was a pending edit without being told

user54412
not that I know of - I just browse all tags and visually pick out the ones without exerpts

@tpg2114 Maybe using data.SE, but I don't think there's any way in the site search

I think we should also kill off , and
Although mixed feelings about . I mean, we have tags for Navier-Stokes and Fokker-Planck and some other famous equations
But that seems a bit too specific to me

@tpg2114 I think that one could stay

That works for me

4:48 AM
I'm ambivalent about it, but it's a thing that people can ask questions about, so I don't think it's really inappropriate as a tag.

Yeah, agreed

user54412
hmm - when exactly did and get mapped to ?

2

Given the discussion related to whether Engineering questions are on topic, we also need to consider whether the engineering tag has any reason to exist. We discussed it in the chat room using the most recent questions, the transcript of which can be found at: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms...

user54412
especially given that the synonym was proposed the other way:

user54412

user54412
4:54 AM
@tpg2114 log-graphs should definitely go (and I'm saying this as an astronomer - I've never plotted something that wasn't a logarithm)

Yeah, that's a sort of silly, oddly specific tag for our site. It might make sense on Cross Validated or something

user54412
to be fair, I don't know what else to tag that question as

Would be appropriate

user54412
good call

I didn't know that tag existed... huh
Learn something new every day
I would have proposed creating it

user54412
4:58 AM
well, there are no more questions anymore ;)

Also true :)
I'm putting in tag-wiki's
There should be several more to review

OK, just took care of those
...busy day on chat today :-P I haven't done any work the whole day

I spent all day setting up a bunch of cases on a supercomputer
And then they emailed out an unannounced outage for 2 weeks to deal with some system upgrades
So I lost the day of work

user54412
:: continues to touch up unnecessarily long paper ::

user54412
observational astronomy - wayyy too much data analysis per unit publication

5:03 AM
I have the opposite problem... I'm trying to make up analysis to fill out a paper
Unfortunately, high explosives are well studied but not well understood
So there's only like 2 numbers to compare to and little additional analysis
Hrm... how do we handle tags like where it could mean "Physical structure whose length greatly exceeds it's height and thickness" and "Light beam"

user54412
LOL - it really has been used for both

I know...

user54412
Tag wiki suggestion: "A near-continuous stream of metal bars moving at high velocity"

@tpg2114 come up with two more specific tags to refer to the two cases, and edit the existing questions to assign the appropriate more specific tag
lol

and ? Is there another possible meaning in particle physics or something I don't know about?

5:07 AM
Beam theory is actually a thing that could use a tag
@tpg2114 The beam of particles in an accelerator is also called a beam, but that doesn't necessarily need a tag

I guess light isn't correct
Electromagnetic energy?
There's no requirement it has to be in the visible spectrum to be a beam

Honestly, would just be replaced with or as appropriate
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory (also known as engineer's beam theory or classical beam theory) is a simplification of the linear theory of elasticity which provides a means of calculating the load-carrying and deflection characteristics of beams. It covers the case for small deflections of a beam that is subjected to lateral loads only. It is thus a special case of Timoshenko beam theory that accounts for shear deformation and is applicable for thick beams. It was first enunciated circa 1750, but was not applied on a large scale until the development of the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris wheel...

So replace with ? Cause there's other beam theories

Sure, sounds good

Euler-Bernoulli is one, Timoshenko is another

5:09 AM
Oh right, that's the one I was thinking of
According to the wiki excerpt, E-B is a special case of Timoshenko

Timoshenko includes shear
E-B ignores shear

and I remember this now, because I wrote a blog post using it
a long time ago

I just took a computational structural mechanics class in the spring

@tpg2114 Anyway, seems like a fine tag. I'd say go through the tag and for anything where it refers to light or EM radiation, remove and replace it with either or as appropriate. Then I can rename to using the mod interface.

Okay, I was creating anyway, there's only 14 questions total
But I'll stop changing beam over and let you do it, give me a few mins

5:13 AM
Sure, or if you wanted to manually edit all into , that does the same thing
Figured I'd save you some effort though

Do we bother to retag closed questions?

hm... I would
just to keep things proper
4

There are many applications for orbital space mirrors in astronomy (better telescopes) and space propulsion (solar power for deep space probes), but this is limited by the minimum beam divergence achievable with current technology So, i'm trying to understand what physical and technological limi...

I would have thought for that one
Nothing seems specific to visible light as far as I can tell
Actually this too:
0

I know that in free space, the width of a Gaussian beam can be written as $W=W_0\sqrt{1+(\frac{z}{z_0})^{2}}$. However, I was wondering if it was possible to express this width as a function of refractive index instead (since I don't believe a Gaussian beam originating in say, glass, will diverge...

@tpg2114 oh wait, I just remembered, the reason not to edit -> manually is so we don't push all those questions to the top of the site at once

I stopped, I only did it on 2
And you can reject those edits
Cause I'm not at 2k rep yet

Nah, I approved, because why not :-P
It doesn't really matter for only 14 questions
less than that even

-1

muon neutrino momentum distribution I have read the public data of T2K ,KEK to find this subject, I'm curiously that it's coincides with my prediction perfectly: The neutrino get its momemtum by its effect-partner, which is obvious in the reactional formula, especialy that by me. You can find t...

What about that? It's a really bad question, but it looks like right?

5:19 AM
Yeah

So create a new tag with that one?

Maybe, or maybe just drop and don't put a replacement
Actually, it could use

Done
That should be all of them, let me double check

is a tag? I didn't know that was a thing ;-)

It was a tag, I didn't know it was either
But it popped up so I figured it was used at least once before, might as well give it a second one :)

5:21 AM
huh, weird, I didn't see any other questions using it in the list
Maybe there's a deleted question or something
anyway
it does fit the question

There's 2
Now, one other
0

Helmoltz equation describes the evolution of the bulk electromagnetic field, even when doing scalar optics as an approximation. Beam Propagation Method is a common approximation that assumes certain simplifications, in particular only forward propagation is taken in consideration. The benefit of...

Oh, I must have looked at the list before approving the edit
I wasn't paying attention... I'm tired ;-)

Let me know when you rename, I'll edit the new wiki

OK, done

user54412
such a mess of tags in general

5:24 AM
I guess you didn't actually need to wait for me

Yeah, it's all good...

user54412
@tpg2114 aiming to be the first person on the site to get research assistant?

@ChrisWhite indeed. But I think SE handles it about as well as any site I've seen

@ChrisWhite No, unable to sleep and unwilling to do any of my actual work :)

5:36 AM
I don't want to define things like ...

user54412
"the thing you are currently using"

Yeah...
Too bad my edits still need to be approved
I can't Easter Egg things in

user54412
David and I are both tired - you probably can

user54412
especially given the broken parsing of the edit-review diff engine - if you mix tex and markdown thoroughly enough, the diff it shows probably will omit some parts of the edit

I want to put as "A gathering of similar-minded people"

user54412
5:40 AM
LOL

user54412
"A chance to network with people in your field"

: "Presently happening or still relevant. To be contrasted with historical or antiquated"
Okay, I think I'm done before I start putting in jokes for everything
I'm at like +50 rep for edits in the past 30 minutes. Sadly, one of my higher earning days

user54412
@tpg2114 that's quite a lot

Too bad there's no rep for flagging

user54412
@tpg2114 congrats - you no longer need approval to edit Q's and A's

user54412
5:51 AM
:)

I know... I just saw that
Sad, I can't make people approve my work :(

user54412
I may have upvoted an answer of yours so I would no longer have to peer review your work :P

user54412

I figured that's what happened... :)

6:18 AM
If you want to keep upvoting...
0

What does it mean? The reason they are conservative or non-conservative has to do with the splitting of the derivatives. Consider the conservative derivative: $$\frac{\partial \rho u}{\partial x}$$ When we discretize this, using a simple numerical derivative just to highlight the point, we g...

:)
That one was actually a question on my qualifying exams... shudder

user54412

user54412
not sure what prompted that person to post on mathoverflow originally

stackoverflow*

user54412
derp

user54412

user54412
6:22 AM
still an unfortunate choice

That's where I get confused sometimes about what is homework or not... Proving conservation/non-conservation was a homework problem for us
And then it reappeared as a quals question

user54412
were your quals oral or written?

Oral
3 subject areas, each with 2 professors. 1 hour for each area
Each area had 2 classes primarily, but anything they considered background or anything you were stupid enough to bring up was fair game

user54412
hmm, mine was oral - 4 subjects, 1 prof each, all together for 2-2.5 hours total

user54412
oh - we didn't even have to bring stuff up

user54412
6:25 AM
our profs told us they intended to explore the boundary of our knowledge, not the interior

Ours were separate... They would get together afterwards and vote. 5 of 6 or 6 of 6 passed
We didn't have to bring stuff up either... but they might say "Tell me how an airplane flies"
And if somebody said "well, the batteries turn on the engines when the pilot turns the key," they might start grilling you for the full hour about how batteries work
Or why it's a key and not a button

user54412
I didn't get asked a single question about topics I was comfortable with (GR, dynamics, planets, stellar structure) - instead it was all stuff I was completely clueless on (galaxy evolution, how radio telescopes work)

For us, it depends on the exam... for shear flows, it was a guarantee we'd get a question about Einstein summation notation

user54412
I like the sound of that

But then for gas dynamics, those guys just liked to give people a hard time. They made me spend 10 minutes deriving an equation from undergrad and then told me I didn't actually need it and wasted time
And then I derived something else and he said "That's wrong." but it wasn't, he just wanted me to defend it a different way

user54412
6:31 AM
I have to remember what I got wrong in quals - apparently various faculty in my department have a habit of re-asking the questions we bombed on during our thesis defense

Even if it has nothing to do with your thesis?

user54412
indeed ;)

Ouch

user54412
hmmm... that reminds me - I need to settle on a thesis topic/adviser pretty soon

I think our thesis defenses are already so rough when they rip apart what we did, they don't need to bring up our past failures
I have to do my proposal by Sept

user54412
6:35 AM
basically, i'm deciding between hydrodynamics + stellar structure, hydrodynamics + star formation, hydrodynamics + supernovae, hydrodynamics + neutron stars, or hydrodynamics + plasmas

user54412
lots of simulations in my future...

We have people in our lab that work on plasma and MHD
More from a fundamental level... turbulence and mixing mostly
Lots of boxes with imposed fields
I'd go for star formation
That sounds cooler

user54412
something sounds cooler than supernovae EXPLOSIONS!?

I get enough of explosions in my work :)

user54412
well, my latest recompiled tex crashed my pdf viewer - time to head to bed

6:46 AM
Goodnight, thanks for approving lots of edits!

boo!
@ChrisWhite use writelatex.org
Oh, pdf viewer. O_0
Whoa, chat has been busy.
@tpg2114 Nope. However, it's a type of physics question that sounds like an engineering one. Which is why I gave it as an example

1 hour later…
8:02 AM
2

The GPS is a very handy example in explaining a broad audience, how general relativity influences our lives: it just so nicely bridges the abstract theory with daily life technologies! I'd like to know an analogous example, but for the quantum theory (I guess that I should say quantum mechanics, ...

List question?

Broad, but not that bad. I'd refer it if it restricted itself to past tech

4 hours later…
12:08 PM
the question- life without QM is speculative. Does anyone agree?

12:28 PM
@Nix nope :-). Asking for a corresponding example to demonstrate the usefulness in everyday-live of QM as we have it with GPS for GR is a reasonable question. Calling the question speculative because of this specific formulation is just (language-) nitpicking, it could easily be reformulated without changing the essence of the question.
I also disagree with @DavidZaslavsky that the question should be closed as a list question, just because it ask for an example to demonstrate something. As I understand it the question is meant to find one (or a small number of) good example, there may not exist an indefinite number of them when thinking rationally about it.

Is anyone keeping a record of the best PSE question titles? This qualifies surely: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70573/…

Hi @twistor59, did you see my last comment directed at you ;-)
There are some good questions in the reopen queue now that should be reopend and they already have 4 of the 5 votes needed ...

12:57 PM
@Dilaton I'll have a look. Haven't checked that queue for a while...

@twistor59 thanks cool :-). I think in particular this should not stay closed (but the others with 4 reopen votes neither...), as the experts knowledgable in the topics such as Lumo and pho etc finally agree that the question is a good one and could get interesting answers. And I vaguely remember that Lumo sometimes writes about Moonshine, Monstergoups, and their importance in ST on TRF etc ... Have you been away?
I did not see you for some time and was already worried ;-). The slapping an insect into unconciousness question is funny indeed :-D

There were only two in the queue, both of which I thought were perfectly reasonable.
@Dilaton No, not been away, just very busy with real work that pays my bills!

1:21 PM
@twistor59 there is also this question ...
... and that one. No idea how they have disappeared out of the queue
Good to see that you are still around :-). I'll be a be a bit busy too, since I want to prepare a talk to show some colleagues that applying renormalization to turbulence theory is cool...

1:39 PM
@Dilaton In that case ... reformulate it. Remember, the tone of the question sets the type of answer it will get
imo it's not speculative, but it is a list question. But it's not that bad

2:06 PM
@ManishEarth ok I'll try one. The title of the questions seems not to represent very good what the question really asks. And I am not sure if the big-list tag is really needed as I expect the resulting list (if any) of examples to not that big ...?

Meh, I don't like the much in the first place

user54412
well the life without QM OP is getting what he deserves - ask a question that doesn't make sense (what if everything else stayed the same but this one big thing changed?), get answers that don't say anything

user54412
he now has a list of a dozen technologies that were developed without quantum theory

user54412
plus another half dozen techs that don't affect anyone on the planet at the moment

user54412
physicists - stealing credit from engineers for the past century

2:19 PM
Gosh, I had some problems with the length of the title, but now it is done :-)

2:33 PM
Anybody know how the rev counter at the Ashes works? They seem to be able to deduce the revs of the cricket ball almost instantly. How do they do that?

user54412
::asks self: is this about crickets revving up? perhaps they should be slapped into unconsciousness?::

lol

user54412
@Gugg but seriously, are you talking about how fast the ball is spinning?

Yup. I remember that they can also do that at the golf driving range, but where's the radar on the cricket pitch? Shouldn't it be close?

user54412
actually that's a good point - baseball has a similar issue

2:45 PM
I wanted to send a picture, but... they are having tea now.

user54412
I remember hearing that in fact even the supposed speed of baseball pitches is more or less made up - they can't get accurate radar readings for such a small object at such a large distance

OK, but that's speed. This is rotational velocity. Must be more difficult.

user54412
indeed

@dmckee: I don't think that Applications of QM question is a duplicate.
One question is asking for physical phenomena where the quantum nature of reality is readily apparent.
The one you just closed is asking for examples of technologies we couldn't have developed without knowing the rules of quantum physics.

user54412
@Qmechanic I just realized and now point to , but isn't that the opposite direction from your own proposal on meta?

2:55 PM
@ChrisWhite Yeah, should be the other way around imo
Fortunately, synonyms are reversible. (merger aren't, not really)

@ChrisWhite : Yes, you recalled correctly. Originally I proposed and later implemented the other way around. However, approximately a week ago, I swapped the synonyms quantum computation -> quantum computer, because people misused the quantum computation tag for apparently any calculation in QM. My thinking is that people will hesitate a bit more to apply the quantum computer tag.

@Qmechanic did you reapply the merge?
(to rename the base tag)

@dmckee At any rate, not a duplicate of the question you closed it as a duplicate of.

Because tags which are synonyms of another but still exist as a tag are very strange

@ManishEarth : Not for now. I want to see how it works.

2:59 PM
kk

01:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00