Can I ask theoretical physics questions on physics.stackexchange?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
10
-
2$\begingroup$ Related: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5919/2451 $\endgroup$– Qmechanic ModCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 18:54
-
$\begingroup$ Seems theoretical physics was begrudgingly merged with physics, and non-mainstream isn't allowed. I am spoonfed my physics from television not science weekly, so how do I know if its mainstream or not? $\endgroup$– Andrew HoffmanCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:08
-
1$\begingroup$ may be it helps meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433 $\endgroup$– hcarraskoCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:15
-
$\begingroup$ I'd probably argue that physics from television is more-than-likely mainstream (assuming that it comes from something like Science Channel or Discovery Channel). $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:24
-
$\begingroup$ I'm familiar with other SE's rules about questions, add onto that "cannot evaluate new theories" and that pretty much restricts anything that I am capable of asking. No math, just abstract ideas. :\ $\endgroup$– Andrew HoffmanCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:31
-
$\begingroup$ Hi Andrew Hoffman: If you want to ask Can I ask wildly speculative, abstract questions on physics.stackexchange?, then ask a new meta question, but chances are it is already covered by this meta post. $\endgroup$– Qmechanic ModCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:44
-
$\begingroup$ @Qmechanic I actually think your note is the most valuable answer to that question. It may seem cynical, but it is plain, to the point, and answered the question that I really meant to ask. To me and people like me, my idea of theoretical physics is 'wildly speculative and abstract'. You should edit it back, since the theoretical physics question has been asked many times. $\endgroup$– Andrew HoffmanCommented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:46
-
$\begingroup$ @AndrewHoffman Theoretical Physics was part of our scope from the start. Some people wanted a separate site, they broke off onto a new site, and it didn't succeed. The community and questions were merged. Nothing happened to the scope. (In contrast, when Astronomy v1 was merged, the scope of our site did change) $\endgroup$– ManishearthCommented Jul 2, 2014 at 4:05
-
2$\begingroup$ @AndrewHoffman Are the wildly speculative things still accepted as valid ideas in mainstream, peer reviewed physics? This is not a place to get your own personal theories verified. This is a place to discuss theoretical, mainstream physics like string theory and the rest. It need not be experimentally verified to be mainstream, but the theories shoul have some peer validation. $\endgroup$– ManishearthCommented Jul 2, 2014 at 4:07
-
$\begingroup$ @Manishearth I have no idea. $\endgroup$– Andrew HoffmanCommented Jul 2, 2014 at 14:56
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Sure. Phys.SE is for all areas of physics, from theoretical1 to experimental physics. To get a quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in this Phys.SE answer.
1 Note that the words 'theoretical' and 'theory' have specific meanings in physics, which differ from the more common use as, say, 'wildly speculative'; see e.g. Wikipedia for more details.
answered Jul 1, 2014 at 19:15
-
1$\begingroup$ Don't leave out the phenomenologists or the computationalists. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1, 2014 at 19:36