# The same question, little interest in the maths community and blind opposition here

I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: A new way to define matrix-vector products, to relate physical fundamental constants and units of measure

I wonder why such a question could have been considered so "harmful" here.

I cut-paste the last version (3 edits, all rejected: check timeline) in the math community and nobody got scared or offended.

While here, people wasted their and my time just to prevent me from asking a question and discussing an idea.

What is wrong with these people?

• If you actually want to ask about why your question was poorly received, please edit this question to ask that. In its current form, this is just complaining and will likely be closed in short order.
– Chris Mod
Feb 12, 2022 at 2:08
• close it, if that makes you feel better. I'm ok with the answer below: "it's your community" and "you decided the rules": well, "so long and thanks for all the fish" - I'll get another account if I need those "physical hortodoxy helpdesk services" that you're so happy to provide for free... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:41
• By "maths community" (the title), do you mean the community at the Stack Exchange site "Mathematics"? If you do, can you change the title to make it clearer? Feb 12, 2022 at 17:39
• @PeterMortensen well, if that's so important for you, you choose a better title and I'd be more than happy to do the changes Feb 12, 2022 at 19:43
• I can't find where anyone said your post was harmful or where anyone said they were scared or offended. Feb 13, 2022 at 21:11

After a quick skim, some obvious issues:

1. Your primary question seems to be "is this correct?" Such questions are off-topic.

2. Your secondary question of "is this new/interesting/useful?" seems like a request for peer review, which we don't do either.

3. The question seems to be mostly about mathematics in a physics context, rather than a question about physics.

4. You have posted a photograph of your question rather than your actual question.

I do not see evidence in the comments under your question of harmfulness, fear, or offense. It's just not good fit for us in its present form. I don't know whether your question could be edited into an on-topic form or not.

• good to know... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:18
• This community is only for asking, with a lot of formalities on how to properly do it, only about stuff we already know as "the hortodoxy". Any "perfectly reasonable deviation from the beaten tracks" must be killed in his grave, with the excuse that "we don't do this", i.e. that somehow you decided to limit this community to "physical hortodoxy helpdesk"... That's what you do, while... see next comment... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:26
• cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/IntroductionLQG.pdf The problem is even more serious: our successful theories are based on contradictory hypotheses. A good student following a general-relativity class in the morning and a quantum-field-theory class in the afternoon must think her teachers are chumps, or haven’t been talking to one another for decades. They teach two totally different worlds. ... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:27
• ...In the morning, spacetime is curved and everything is smooth and deterministic. In the afternoon, the world is formed by discrete quanta jumping over a flat spacetime, governed by global symmetries (Poincar ́e) that the morning teacher has carefully explained not to be features of our world. Contradiction between empirically successful theories is not a curse: it is a ter- rific opportunity. ... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:28
• ...Several of the major jumps ahead in physics have been the result of efforts to resolve precisely such contradictions. Newton discovered universal gravitation by combining Galileo’s parabolas with Kepler’s ellipses. Einstein discovered special relativity to solve the “irreconcilable” contradiction between mechanics and electrodynamics. Ten years later, he discovered that spacetime is curved in an effort to reconcile Newtonian gravitation with special relativity. ... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:29
• ... Notice that these and other major steps in science have been achieved without virtually any new empirical data. Copernicus for instance constructed the heliocentric model and was able to compute the distances of the planets from the Sun using only the data in the book of Ptolemy. Feb 12, 2022 at 9:29
• and by the way all those "rules" you mentioned are also likely to apply to the maths community, right? but they didn't put so much effort in censorship, they just "let it be", while here the same question is still considered something terrible that should not "pollute" our precious Q/A set... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:35
• there is evidently something wrong with you folks... Feb 12, 2022 at 9:35
• there is something evidently wrong in the whole academia - and not just in Italy: raiplay.it/video/2022/02/… should I go to these people, for "peer review" or "debating" or any other help? Feb 12, 2022 at 9:48
• by the way, for those who need explanations and won't get ideas on the fly... I quoted Rovelli's argument just to show how coherent is the orthodoxy you're so willing to provide free helpdesk support for, here Feb 12, 2022 at 11:11
• All these comments are just a long rant. The point remains: this is not a site for peer review or checking calculations. Feb 12, 2022 at 14:07
• @ccampisano: I don't know what you are alluding to (quantum gravity is an active area of research), but there is only science and pseudoscience. Feb 12, 2022 at 17:20
• @ZeroTheHero ok, I got that: it's not the right community for users to discuss their own ideas... I wonder about other communities' policy, as the platform itself looks like it's made for "digital peer review"... you know, sort of using a bazooka to kill a fly. Feb 12, 2022 at 19:49
• @PeterMortensen I absolutely agree with you and the wiki: "The field of quantum gravity is actively developing, and theorists are exploring a variety of approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular being M-theory and loop quantum gravity". To me, ST is the approach to reach "GUT" starting from QFT and LQG is the one starting from GR. Notice I'm using an "high level approach" to relate these well proven theories (QFT and GR) and those theoretical attempts (ST and LQG). (...) Feb 12, 2022 at 19:55
• I do not think the platform is made for peer review. In the specific case of PhysicsSE, it is certainly not, or else it would dilute its value as a resource through bloating my nutcases and fringe dilettantes. Feb 12, 2022 at 20:34

I think you taught me a though lesson, thanks.

Indeed, nothing to compare to what I've gone thru when, in 2016, I tried to come up with something new on SR... sacrilege!

Except for a topologist in Bononia, who spent some time trying to understand my point, and maybe Rovelli too, nobody would listen... A topologist, one that doesn't care for the measurements and metrix, helped me with semi-norms, that's what spacetime distances are... I'll come back, that was not BS!

It didn't end up well with me, I'll spare you details, but when I saw my question blocked for no meaningful reasons... not again please no!

Then your reasons became increasingly meaningful, while the underlying hostility didn't go away.

I'd have dozen of question to ask on both the representation and the map, as to me they're related: what's the model behind Planck's units? or at least the interpretation he tried to give? I recall about orbiting photons... Of course I have another model, and a set of units whose "regular matrix" is not an I, but is full of $$\pi$$s on the diagonal. Let alone this model fits perfectly in the map, explaining the apparent "broken symmetry" there... my Galois-Noether conjecture is approaching fast!

But now I know this community is only to ask straight questions like "are there upper and/or lower limits to frequency values, for photons?", without any details in why I might be interested in that. I'd feel sorry for you, doing so!.

For some more constructive work, I'd go for HSM, where I already got something quite good done, not to mention those people do not have neither these obsessions of yours (with a rationale, but still annoying), nor that "here comes the inquisition" approach.

thanks again