I have a very well defined mathematical problem ABOUT physical systems that I put a lot of work into trying to state clearly but it was closed as unclear: Superluminal change in moment implies Superluminal travel

Commenters had requested info and I answered each of their requests, one of them requested clarification and I made sure to edit the body to clarify.

But the community closed the question stating it's not clear what my question was.

Do the mods still actually feel that way? Or did they just feel my question was NOT relevant to physics.stackexchange?

Because I went to the help site as requested, revisited the question and am not confident I understand what is missing here, other than perhaps "relevancy" in the sense that the question is trying to classify ALL the ways the schrodinger model can break, and some people may not be interested in this type of classification.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that when you edited the question a few minutes ago, it entered the reopen queue. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 19:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I didn't realize, well lets see what the final evaluation is. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2019 at 19:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your question seems to be a request for someone to prove your conjecture. I don’t think that is the kind of thing we do here, especially if the conjecture doesn’t seem interesting. However, I wish you success in proving it yourself. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 2:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I no longer consider your question unclear, so I have voted to reopen it. (Note: I am not a moderator.) I am not actually sure whether proving/disproving conjectures is on-topic or off-topic. $\endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 4:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ While the technical problems appear to have been resolved, I really don't see what the point is, or what the physics is. The question presents no motivation at all for why your conjecture (in the full specifics of its formulation) should be interesting at all, so why should any of us spend any time trying to find a proof? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 8:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Moreover: you start right off the bat with an unphysical state (a Dirac delta in position space, previously discussed at physics.stackexchange.com/q/129978) which will immediately fill all of space. Trying to talk about any superluminal behaviour that follows is at best an intricate and elegant exercise in pointlessness. Your question is intricate, but definitely not in an elegant way. Any superluminal behaviour simply comes down to an unphysical initial state. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty Your points are valid, but the OP just wants to know if his logic & maths are valid, he doesn't particularly care that the setup is unphysical. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/500262/… $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 9:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OTOH, questions asking us to check work come under the "homework-like" policy, and I guess that kind of applies here. $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 9:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PM2Ring so... OP is saying that this is a maths question and should be migrated to the maths site? I really don't see how this ton of math on a configuration which is explicitly physically uninteresting is on topic here. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty That's probably a good idea. I think the question is now clear enough, but I agree with you that its unphysicality means it's not a good fit for Physics.SE. However, it may require some minor changes, mathematicians are not big fans of the Dirac delta distribution, especially if you call it a function. :) $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ Note that there isn't actually a question asked. You've posted a bunch of maths & that's it, so are we to make up a question you want to ask & answer that? $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos the question is the conjecture. I guess let me make it more explicit in my post, but how do I prove that conjecture $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 14:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @frogeyedpeas Conjectures are a dime a dozen. (OK, no, not really. I've never seen conjectures be that expensive.) Without a justification of why you think that specific formulation can tell us something interesting is it is proved, why should anyone care? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ yes this question appears to be about validation of a conjecture (or the math behind it) rather than about physics. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2019 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty i've been playing with a lot of thought experiments involving relativistic wave functions and this came up as a conclusion to my thought experiments. Because its such a general conjecture (the choice of $F$ function can be made truly arbitrarily) it seemed beautiful to me so I wanted to prove it, but because its so general, I have no idea how to prove it, so I asked it here. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2019 at 15:26


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .