-7
$\begingroup$

Well Thank you folks. This is wonderful site. I got on to it recently and think should have found it long back. Answers here helped me to get rid of the mystery surrounding my mind in context of quantum entanglement. Now the observed behavior makes complete sense, which is a big relief for me.

I suggest/request adding experiment groups where people can collaborate with local folks to carry out interesting experiments. This is specially applicable to quantum entanglement experiments because it is hard to get access to such equipment.

I personally wish to do few variations of the experiment to verify a semi quantum semi classical explanation of entanglement behavior. Thanks

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In what way would that fit into the concept of a question and answer site? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Feb 9, 2016 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ Very simple - Because all questions can not be answered right away. Some may be answered right away and a few only after doing some experiments. Doing experiments is about verifying and answering questions. You may be right in questioning the request. My perspective is that there are unanswered questions and what if people are given a group to collaborate to try to find such answers. Any way, I did not expect a negative mark on a meta question. Just say no... $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 9, 2016 at 19:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Downvotes on a meta question mean that the voter disagrees with the proposal, not that it is a "bad" question. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind Mod
    Feb 9, 2016 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ Why you have to jump on disagreement. It is not taking anything away from you or anybody else in terms of what you already got on the site? $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 9, 2016 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ @kpv if you're responding to ACuriousMind's comment: the point was that, just because your question is getting downvoted, it doesn't mean it was bad or that you shouldn't have asked it (as it might on the main site). That's often not clear to relative newcomers. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Feb 11, 2016 at 4:53
  • $\begingroup$ David Z, thank you for the clarification. Initially I thought it this way, but then it was clarified by ACuriousMind. Even after clarification, down vote on a meta questions did not make sense to me for some time. Then it did. So, I am ok with the question taking its own course. One part still little unclear to me is that there is no visibility of what are the other better alternatives that cause the down votes to a particular suggestion. I mean voting down a suggestion without known better alternatives is something that may be avoided. $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 11, 2016 at 6:08
  • $\begingroup$ Aside from the total mismatch with the SE philosophy, lets think this through a little bit. Lets say I had a lab with equipment to do cool physics experiments (well, actually, I do). Why on earth would I open up the lab, which is working on funded projects, to random people on the internet? Its not like good ideas are in short supply - the hard part is putting together a proposal that makes the folks with money have to invest in it. Somebody off the street has no money, and likely not enough context to frame an experiment properly. $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Feb 11, 2016 at 14:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, funds is the tricky part, that is in part, the reason I put this suggestion. Good ideas are not in short supply, but there are some topics like "is it only the wave function, or something additional is also at work" in case of observed entanglement correlation, still remain open. Even if an explanation is verified positively, it will not add anything to the research except the explanation itself. Because the math already works for practical purposes. So, such topics do not make any good sense for funding. $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 11, 2016 at 16:52

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

I suggest/request adding experiment groups where people can collaborate [...]

This is a dead end on Stack Exchange. These site were designed from the ground up to be good at one thing: getting good answers to good questions quickly.

What you propose requires a different interaction model, so it's not going to happen. But you don't need to take my word for it: go over to the mother meta and poke around for questions suggesting way to use Stack Overflow or Stack Exchange as a collaboration platform (that search isn't as good as I'd like, but it is not an easy thing to search for) and see how they were met.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you dmckee. How these are decided? Only based upon the up/down votes? If so, then I have done my part and will leave it here. $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 9, 2016 at 20:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, based upon your experience, any idea what is the reason people down vote feature requests while it does not take away anything from existing features. I can understand up vote, or no vote. I am having hard time to grasp the need of the down vote for such requests. $\endgroup$
    – kpv
    Feb 9, 2016 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ @kpv: how else should we express disagreements if not by downvotes? $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Feb 9, 2016 at 21:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @kpv Ultimately the decision is made by the Stack Overflow Inc. team, but they take input from the meta sites. They usually accept proposals that are heavily voted up (with a few exceptions) and generally do not implement ideas voted down. Which also explains the downvotes: they are how the users says "don't do this". We don't live in a fantasy land where ideas only have upsides: at a bare minimum they represent an opportunity cost taken away from more other (presumptive more worthy in the downvoter's opinion) proposals. $\endgroup$ Feb 9, 2016 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .