-3
$\begingroup$

I asked this question a few months ago-

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/479846/proof-of-ohms-law (auto-deleted; screenshot)

I was looking for a particular proof and explicitly mentioned it, but still it was moderator hammered even though the comments state that the questions being linked are different.

None of the answers are doing justice to my query, and that is because they aren't supposed to. They were answered keeping in mind the original question which may seem related in terms of looking for a proof, however, they are widely different as they look for proofs in different domains of physics, namely classical mechanics and quantum mechanics

Please reopen the question and if not possible please state a proper justification for closing it as the closing notes are not helpful.

As S.V. pointed out in the comments, my question is not a duplicate because of the following-

I am specifically asking for a quantum mechanics based proof and claiming it exists on the basis of a reputed source.

The other question is asking for the possibility of there being proofs based on Maxwell's theory.

One of the other questions had no accepted answers which in any case weren't appropriate for my question.

Note: In case anyone's wondering why I am asking this after such a long time, it's because I was inactive for a while and just started using SE again recently.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Standard procedure is to just edit your question to explain why the proposed duplicates are not actually duplicates. Honestly, the way the question is now I would vote to close it as too broad anyway. More detail would make the question way better $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Sep 18 '19 at 19:34
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In any case, I don't think people on here respond well to demands $\endgroup$ – BioPhysicist Sep 18 '19 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @AaronStevens is it better now? $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 18 '19 at 19:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Frankly, the question at issue is so thin on background and details that I'd be extremely reluctant to reopen it even if it were crystal clear that it isn't answered in the linked duplicates. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '19 at 20:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ So a lecturer mentioned in passing about Ohms law and quantum mechanics (and to get details I'd have to listen to / watch all of the particular OCW material), and you seem to think that implies some particular proof (how would you know that it was one and not another), and that you explicitly mentioned it by pointing to an entire undergraduate course. Is that correct? Having looked at the proposed duplicate, I'd say they did a pretty good job of answering. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Sep 18 '19 at 20:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "the questions being linked are unanswered" - there's nine answers in the linked duplicate targets. What do you mean by this statement? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '19 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @JonCuster I've mentioned all details now in the original question and updated the meta question as well so it might be more helpful $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ @StackUpPhysics the timestamps on the question closure and on the answers at the duplicates are clearly and publicly visible; basically all were several years old at the question closure. I don't see how the word "unanswered" in this thread is at all helpful or reflective of reality, and I don't see how doubling down on obviously incorrect timelines is helpful, either. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 19 '19 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty by unanswered I meant to make two points firstly that for one of the questions none of the answers is accepted ( I agree it might've been due to inactivity or negligence on part of OP) and secondly none of the answers are answering my question. They are either using classical mechanics or Maxwell's equations but not quantum mechanics and I do agree I was misinformed by reading the comments and hadn't checked the time stamp myself I apologise for that $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty but still my point remains that none of the answers are doing justice to my query and that is because they aren't supposed to they were answered keeping in mind the original question which may seem related in terms of looking for a proof however they are widely different as they look for proofs in different domains of Physics namely classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. I've also updated the meta question again to avoid any false information $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 9:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StackUpPhysics - I would suggest Ashcroft & Mermin's Solid State Physics book, Chapter 13, The Semiclassical Theory of Conduction in Metals. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Sep 19 '19 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @JonCuster Thanks for the recommendation I'll look it up whenever possible $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 14:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @StackUpPhysics - Glad to be of (perhaps) some help. However, while you may feel that none of the (nominally duplicate question) answers do justice to your query, I still think the point stands that your query, as written, is not particularly well formed. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Sep 19 '19 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ @JonCuster I think we won't reach a consensus so it's better to leave things like this especially since the site has debarred me from asking questions due to my actions. ( I'm not blaming anybody I know it's an automatic policy of website based on the the user activities) $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 18:12
3
$\begingroup$

In its current form, I think the question is "too broad," which is another reason that we close questions. In general we don't change the close reasons on closed questions that don't survive the reopen queue; we just leave them closed.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand what you mean by too broad. I've added the sources of my claims now but I'm asking for a proof via a specific field of study $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 2:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @StackUpPhysics you’re asking someone to do all the work on your behalf. Why don’t you start writing a proof and if you have a conceptual problem ask a related question. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 19 '19 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ @ZeroTheHero I know the basics but I don't know where to start at all that's why I was asking for a proof but even a good beginning point would be helpful. I've also mentioned in the question that showing how to prove it is also sufficient which means that a beginning or a general way to follow is quite helpful $\endgroup$ – user204000 Sep 19 '19 at 4:44

You must log in to answer this question.