Modern and Theoretical Physics Forum

[StringJunky]

Is it any wonder people put speculative ideas in this forum when it has the word "Theoretical" in its title?

[swansont]

They put speculations everywhere, though.

[StringJunky]

They put speculations everywhere, though.

I just thought I'd point it out, as it struck me earlier that it seemed a bit too obviously tempting for forum noobs.

[imatfaal]

I just thought I'd point it out, as it struck me earlier that it seemed a bit too obviously tempting for forum noobs.

 

Yeah. Theoretical physics must encompass that part of physics in which technology has not advanced enough to allow us to properly experiment; as most speculations are maths-free zones an area which has no possibility of testing means that neo-galileos feel free to "express themselves" without the constraint of either rigour or empiricism.

[StringJunky]

 

Yeah. Theoretical physics must encompass that part of physics in which technology has not advanced enough to allow us to properly experiment; as most speculations are maths-free zones an area which has no possibility of testing means that neo-galileos feel free to "express themselves" without the constraint of either rigour or empiricism.

One mustn't let facts get in the way of a good idea.

 

Maybe you could call Speculations Galileo's Corner.

[ajb]

What is the alternative? Just label that section "Modern Physics"?

 

I am not sure how much of a difference that would make. As Swansont points out, 'speculations' get posted everywhere.

[StringJunky]

Yeah, you all likely right. Yes AJB, just call it Modern Physics... might help.

[ajb]

Changing to 'Modern Physics' could be an idea. It should course no problems, and indeed I think 'Theoretical Physics' is too wide a term; it just means looking at the equations rather than the experiments. Thus, theoretical physics can be discussed in any of the physics sub-sections. But then 'Modern Physics' is also a bit of a wide term.

 

Getting rid of that section completely could be an idea and create some new subsections; particle physics, atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter and solid state physics, statistical physics etc. The list goes on and on... But then maybe this is why it is kind of all grouped together.

[timo]

I find the adjective "modern" much worse. Last statement about the meaning I got (years ago when we re-organized the forums) was "it means what is written in the sub-title". Begs the question why the sub-title isn't the title in the first place ("Nuclear, atomic and particle physics").

[ajb]

Begs the question why the sub-title isn't the title in the first place ("Nuclear, atomic and particle physics").

This would be a much better change. Modern and Theoretical are just too loose terms that cover just about all of physics!

[StringJunky]

This would be a much better change. Modern and Theoretical are just too loose terms that cover just about all of physics!

I just had a look at the forum listing while Timo posted and came to nearly the same conclusion: Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

[ajb]

I just had a look at the forum listing while Timo posted and came to nearly the same conclusion: Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

Indeed.

 

I also notice that there are plenty of threads in the Modern and Theoretical section that could quite comfortably be moved to Relativity or Quantum theory. Maybe a change to 'Atomic, Nuclear and Particle Physics' could reduce this crossover. The trouble is, and will always be, where to post when you want to discuss say 'theoretical aspects of particle cosmology'!

[StringJunky]

Indeed.

 

I also notice that there are plenty of threads in the Modern and Theoretical section that could quite comfortably be moved to Relativity or Quantum theory. Maybe a change to 'Atomic, Nuclear and Particle Physics' could reduce this crossover. The trouble is, and will always be, where to post when you want to discuss say 'theoretical aspects of particle cosmology'!

In Atomic, Nuclear and Particle Physics. If the theoretical science, in the eyes of you experts, is by authentic scientists then it should be in the relevant mainstream sections. The line between 'theoretical' and 'established' is a continuum really anyway. I think, in the face of opposition, you've just got to say "That's not science, and it doesn't belong here". SFN is not a democracy, so sod 'em when they moan!

Edited June 1, 2015 by StringJunky

[ajb]

The line between 'theoretical' and 'established' is a continuum really anyway.

Theoretical just means you are looking at the equations rather than conducting an experiment. This is different to 'theoretical' meaning "imagined rather than to what is known to be true or real".

[StringJunky]

Theoretical just means you are looking at the equations rather than conducting an experiment. This is different to 'theoretical' meaning "imagined rather than to what is known to be true or real".

Right. Can't you let the two mix?

[Phi for All]

Right. Can't you let the two mix?

 

If the methodology is sound, it might not make a difference. The problem is, a lot of folks come here with lots of enthusiasm and interest but little education in science, and they don't know enough to evaluate the equations. They don't know enough to realize when an idea is simply wrong.

 

I think of it like exploring. If you walk the area carefully, testing every foothold and mapping the good paths and the bad, you'll know the difference between them, and you can retrace your steps to get back on a good path, and others can duplicate your travels. But a lot of newbies start with a non-mainstream concept, so it's like they parachuted down to the site they want to explore. If the idea is no good, they have no way to get back, no way to see that their idea is wrong, no way to retrace their steps.

[swansont]

We've had discussion about the physics categories in the past. It's a trade-off between having ones that are too vague, overlaps, and having too many sections.

 

Modern physics sort of removes the question about where relativity goes, if you were sorting between classical and modern in the new vs old sense, rather than quantum vs not quantum. But we have categories for both quantum and relativity.

 

The elephant in the room is would anyone want to re-sort the posts if we changed category classifications. I call "not it".

[StringJunky]

We've had discussion about the physics categories in the past. It's a trade-off between having ones that are too vague, overlaps, and having too many sections.

 

Modern physics sort of removes the question about where relativity goes, if you were sorting between classical and modern in the new vs old sense, rather than quantum vs not quantum. But we have categories for both quantum and relativity.

 

The elephant in the room is would anyone want to re-sort the posts if we changed category classifications. I call "not it".

Why have Modern? What's wrong with Classical and Quantum for the major division? Modern is Quantum isn't it?

[swansont]

Why have Modern? What's wrong with Classical and Quantum for the major division? Modern is Quantum isn't it?

 

That's what I was trying to point out. We have no need of a "modern physics" section the way modern is usually used.

[StringJunky]

 

That's what I was trying to point out. We have no need of a "modern physics" section the way modern is usually used.

Right. Just call me thick.

[MigL]

"so sod 'em when they moan" StringJunky ?

Never heard that one before.

[StringJunky]

"so sod 'em when they moan" StringJunky ?

Never heard that one before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28insult%29

[Theoretical]

Thus, theoretical physics can be discussed in any of the physics sub-sections.

Yeah that's the way it should be, but if you're on their irritation list because your theoretical work completely disagrees with what they believe then you'll be lucky to not get banned from the site for merely mentioning your work. This is in reference to theoretical work that is based on experiments and mathematics.

 

BTW I may not see the replies here since the admins stripped my email alert notification feature. :/

That's the way it's been four months. Yes the email notification options are selected in my settings.

[swansont]

Yeah that's the way it should be, but if you're on their irritation list because your theoretical work completely disagrees with what they believe then you'll be lucky to not get banned from the site for merely mentioning your work. This is in reference to theoretical work that is based on experiments and mathematics.

 

The underlying assumption in ajb's statement is that you follow the rules when you post. If you don't, all bets are off.

BTW I may not see the replies here since the admins stripped my email alert notification feature. :/

That's the way it's been four months. Yes the email notification options are selected in my settings.

 

I sincerely doubt that any admin targeted you. More likely there's a problem with email notifications in general, and you are affected. It's not like this is unprecedented.

 

What you should have done is specifically report the problem, rather than casually mentioning it in a thread that discusses a different topic. (Hmm, that sounds familiar)

[Phi for All]

Yeah that's the way it should be, but if you're on their irritation list because your theoretical work completely disagrees with what they believe then you'll be lucky to not get banned from the site for merely mentioning your work. This is in reference to theoretical work that is based on experiments and mathematics.

 

If we want to keep a reputation for a moderate amount of rigor, we need to channel the guesswork in threads like yours into productive, reasoned arguments. You may base your new ideas on science that has been based on empirical evidence, but you don't supply support for these new ideas. So people keep asking you for it, and you keep misinterpreting the problem as a disagreement with what we "believe".

 

 

 

 

I hate to give in to the pop-sci hostile takeover of the definition of theory/theoretical, but in this case, I think we probably do need to change the names of the physics sub-sections. Theories used to be the most trusted explanations we had; now they're just stuff we can just think up and then "believe" in.