Comments on: Physics Stack Exchange

By: Joe Fitzsimons

Joe Fitzsimons — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:48:41 +0000

I hope you don’t mind me plugging it here, but there is also a proposal for a Theoretical Physics StackExchange. The reason for this proposal is that the current Physics SE site operates at a level similar to the Math StackExchange, but there seems to be substantial interest in a site focused on research level questions, similar to MathOverflow or the Computer Science Theory StackExchange. The idea is to build a community where the questions and answers are useful to practicing physicists, rather than one dominated by pop sci and coursework level questions. This isn’t meant as a slight against the Physics SE, but rather a complimentary site in a similar way to the relationship between Math SE and MathOverflow.

Anyway, if there are any physicists out there who have not joined, I would encourage you to. At the moment the site is fully through the definition stage and 38% of the way through the commit phase (where potential users are asked to sign up to answer or ask 10 or more questions with in the first 3 months of the site). This commitment isn’t really binding, its simply a way for the StackExchange folks to build a community before launching the beta so that there is a good userbase from day 1. At the moment (looking over the currently committed users) we are very strong on quantum information and a few other fields, but it would be a very good thing to have users from all areas of theoretical physics. If you are dubious about the potential for such a site, then I would encourage you to look at the CS Theory site (http://cstheory.stackexchange.com), which has rapidly become a fantastic resource for the computer science research community. So, if you think this might be a useful resource, please do come and sign up.

By: Joel Rice

Joel Rice — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:44:19 +0000

That is a neat site – just looked at ‘is angular momentum truely fundamental’ . Good stuff and Thanks.

By: David

David — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 04:25:28 +0000

wow, I really need to stop obsessively replying to this comment thread Jeff, thanks for pointing that out. I’ll bring it up at the meta-discussion site meta.physics.stackexchange.com and we can probably get that changed. Anyway, that wording was never intended to imply that only certain people can participate! It was only meant to identify the primary target audience. The site is open to anyone, and each post gets judged as crackpottery or not on its own merits.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:28:51 +0000

I like the idea of a physics crowd-sourcing tool that is not overrun by crackpots, but I’m not sure I like the big banner that proclaims the site as “for active researchers, academics, and students of physics.” I am none of those (formerly all of those), but I would humbly protest that I am not a crackpot. I think it would be better to define the scope of the discussion in terms of the subject matter of that discussion (e.g., “no crackpottery”) and not in terms of the allowable range of participants. In other words, those of us with alternative physics lifestyles might actually have something useful to add to the discussion.

By: David

David — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 21:34:12 +0000

@Jess: when the people of Stack Overflow first decided to expand to other topics besides computers, they first created a system, Stack Exchange 1.0 which would allow anyone to create a site using what was, at the time, essentially the same software as Stack Overflow. Most of the sites created using that system never really took off, probably in part because maintenance and promotion were the sole responsibility of the individual site owners. (Math Overflow is a notable exception, because it happened to have a larger group of committed supporters from the beginning)

At some point, the Stack Overflow team realized their system wasn’t working so well, so they called off SE 1.0 (leaving the existing sites in place, but blocking any new ones) and created a new system, Stack Exchange 2.0, in which sites would have to go through a community approval process to be created, presumably guaranteeing that they would have a critical mass of people right from the start. physics.stackexchange.com is one of these newer sites. It basically replaces Physics Overflow. All the sites in the SE 2.0 network have the support of the Stack Exchange team for site promotion and development to give them the best possible chance to succeed, and they’re kept up to date with all changes made to the software that underlies Stack Overflow (which was not the case for SE 1.0 sites).

By: Jonathan Lubin

Jonathan Lubin — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:46:26 +0000

I find MathOverflow much more addictive than Facebook, and what’s more, there’s no guilt involved!

By: Shecky R.

Shecky R. — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:29:54 +0000

other sciences and math have such sites, and such collaborative endeavors are one of the most positive, productive uses of the Web

By: Jess Riedel

Jess Riedel — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:28:01 +0000

Can someone explain the difference between this and PhysicsOverflow.com, which I think uses the same software?

Shortly after StackOverflow came out, MathOverflow and PhysicsOverflow both appeared. MathOverflow has become a phenomenal site as they have managed to keep the level of questions very high so that the site is useful for researchers. PhysicsOverflow, on the other hand, is filled with homework questions and crackpots.

Was Physics.StackExchange.com simply started with a more reliable userbase? Does it have a different relationship with the rest of the StackExchange universe?

By: Cosmonut

Cosmonut — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:18:38 +0000

Great link, Sean.
I just posted a question there which may be of interest to readers of this forum.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2838/total-energy-of-the-universe

By: David

David — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:49:31 +0000

I’ve been a member of physics.stackexchange.com since near the beginning, and I just wanted to say thanks for the nice review. We’ve put a lot of work into trying to make the site a good place to get well-reasoned answers to interesting questions, and it hasn’t always been easy, so it’s pretty gratifying when someone with your expertise looks at it and likes what they see. And of course we’d be thrilled to have you and/or any of your readers on the site to ask and answer questions – the more the merrier! (@Jason: we’re trying to learn from the mistakes of science forums before us, and taking a strong stance against crackpot questions.)

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:00:11 +0000

It’s not solid iron?

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:34:10 +0000

This family of sites is great, I use Stack Overflow all the time. Hopefully they don’t get overrun with crackpots who might see this as a way to push their special brand of crazy. The science forums I frequent always have ongoing threads with crackpots talking about an electric universe or tired light or how the surface of the sun is solid iron…