Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
Sep 17, 2013 at 3:03 history edited dmckee --- ex-moderator kittenMod CC BY-SA 3.0
fix ebarassing wordo and spelling errors
Jan 5, 2013 at 17:56 comment added dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod To take the question seriously, the pratice of computation physics has more in common with other computational science then with the practice of other physics, and there is a seperate stack for them to go to. On the other hand attempts to get a stack for broadly defined experimental work have gone no where.
Jan 5, 2013 at 17:55 comment added dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod @tpg2114 Well, I didn't say "experimental design" but experiment and meant for the word to be taken broadly: things done by self-identified "experimenters". My personal experience with computational physicists is with lQCD types, and I claim that they are a breed of theorist. I know they talk about running "experiments" and term their results "data" (I can even see the distinction they wish to make), but I don't buy that. Anecdotably, a lQCD buddy in grad-school had a giddy revelation when he first settled an argument by going into the lab.
Jan 5, 2013 at 17:44 comment added tpg2114 Playing Devil's advocate here -- If experimental design is a pillar co-equal to theory, then should computational work be a co-equal as well? It is a numerical experiment. So the argument that experiment questions, including techniques and apparatuses, would be on topic could then extend to say that computational design, techniques, and apparatuses would be on topic. But the FAQ rules them out -- is this contradictory?
Jan 3, 2013 at 21:27 history answered dmckee --- ex-moderator kittenMod CC BY-SA 3.0