0
$\begingroup$

Shortly after a very mild online altercation with an extremely high-reputation user who had overlooked the fact that Einstein-Cartan theory (ECT) requires (as I was obligated to point out, vis-a-vis his response to a badly-formulated and unacceptably simplistic question that I had posted on PSE) that fermions have spatial extent, I found myself faced with a 6-month question ban, which is inconvenient because it also bars access to the question-formulation motor that is normally available to provide enough "similar questions" (and their answers) that I'm left with no need to post most of my own.

I'd left a few of my unanswered questions unattended, and, following the system's recommendation to consider editing my questions, I'd edited and answered one of them myself on the basis of information on Wikipedia, which I've since found to be simplistic and very possibly incorrect.

I've been able to locate, through PSE, a compatriot who happens to be one of the very rare participants who is (unlike myself) familiar with ECT's extreme mathematical complexity. Would it be acceptable to delete the "probably incorrect" answer and "ping" that participant with a request that he considers posting a comment on my question in view of his familiarity with the theory addressed in it (that currently lacks any tag), or would any such request put him "on the spot" to an unacceptable degree?

(My inclination is toward the latter possibility, but I imagine that suggestions on such issues have already been formulated, although I've made little use of Q&A sites before discovering PSE.)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As far as I know, the @ mechanism for pinging won’t do anything if that member isn’t participating in whatever question or answer you are referring to. You could consider offering a bounty. Or checking whether the member’s profile has any contact info. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 7 at 2:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I’m confused about what “the question-formulation motor” is. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 7 at 2:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What does the issue of soliciting comments have to do with the issue that there is no tag for ECT? Your title seems to unite these. $\endgroup$ – G. Smith May 7 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ What I've called the question-formulating motor brings up, in response to the draft of a question and before its posting, a list of "similar questions", & a synopsis of each: Since it requires inclusion of relevant tags in the draft, the lack of an "Einstein-Cartan" (or "ECT", or "ECSK") tag brought me into contact with someone who seemed to have been unaware that ECT gives a spatial extent to fermions, which is a concept I'd seen in at least one pop-sci text (written after the 1928 completion of conversations between Einstein & Cartan) that I'd read in high school, half a century ago! $\endgroup$ – Edouard May 7 at 4:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you tried the chatroom? $\endgroup$ – Nat May 7 at 8:35
  • $\begingroup$ @G Smith I would've had no desire to solicit comments, except that I'd posted a question whose answer would, for any improvement in my own (very limited) knowledge to result from it, have required a response from someone actually familiar with ECT: If an ECT tag would've been available, I could've shown it as the primary one (which I'm assuming to be at the left, or foremost, end of the usual horizontal list of them), which I believe would've saved me a lot of time and effort, as well as the mild altercation with a very high-reputation user who did appear to be unfamiliar with the theory. $\endgroup$ – Edouard May 7 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ By "unfamiliar", I mean that they seemed unfamiliar with ECT's workings, not with its existence: I doubt if many physicists are unaware of that theory's existence, which, as I was saying, had percolated down into the pop-sci level within a few decades after its formulation. For resolution of the relativistic singularity, ECT now has a rival in quantum theories which have manifested much technological success, and even bringing it up seems to spur the kind of resentments that any threat to someone's employment can elicit. But resentment prevention may not be the site's function in society. $\endgroup$ – Edouard May 7 at 14:11
9
$\begingroup$

Stack Exchange isn't a social network, and tools to contact specific users have been intentionally left limited. Write interesting questions and answers, and active users who share your interests will find their way to you.

Note that the algorithm which restricts users with "negative contribution records" from asking or answering questions considers a deleted post as a "negative contribution." You currently have six visible and seven deleted questions, and now your privilege of asking questions is suspended. I would advise caution before you start deleting answers.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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