-5
$\begingroup$

I made several edits to a question about wavelengths. Each version of this question was marked as off-topic. Since I cannot post new question on the Physics site, I need to work on improving my existing questions by editing them to comply with the site's guidelines and address any feedback I have received. So, what improvement to the wavelength question will make it on-topic on the Physics site?
Even on the Spanish site, I had to make several edits to get an on-topic question.

UPDATE: "Stephen G" says:

it's arguably a question (even in the form I suggested) which is opinion based or which is a moving target (the extremes we can measure will change with technology as it improves). So it's a problem to answer this question beyond stating roughly what low and high wavelengths we can measure.

So, what question based on facts could I ask about wavelengths?

I have made several edits, but I am getting frustrated that the question is not getting reopened. One question on the English site took several edits before it finally reopened.

Now the question has finally reopened and I have two answers, still the question has 6 downvotes and 1 upvote. Why is the question still attracting downvotes?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

The question is posed without context: basically, it's a link followed by a simple question. The question should be self-contained and clear, and I'm not sure why the OP expects people to read another webpage.

A more interesting version would summarize the contents of many sources (not just one) on this, maybe summarize the latest results and provide some sort of physics motivation for the question. If not the answers could be not very illuminating, such "this many picometers" or "that many kilometers", both of which are trivia facts and do not bring much value to the site.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

I did not vote on this question, but off-hand I can see two potential issues with the question.

Firstly "all wavelengths" is either vague (what start and what end range ?) or kind of impossible, as we cannot realistically measure a spectrum at every wavelength from zero to infinity. An infinitely long wavelength is kind of meaningless - it's equivalent to zero energy. A zero wavelength is kind of meaningless to as it's infinite energy. So we cannot really measure those limits.

We sometimes integrate model functions over these ranges, but realistically when measuring, we cannot cover that range ever.

So that "all wavelengths" seems too vague. It might be better to ask what extremes of wavelengths we can measure.

The second issue I see is that it's arguably a question (even in the form I suggested) which is opinion based or which is a moving target (the extremes we can measure will change with technology as it improves). So it's a problem to answer this question beyond stating roughly what low and high wavelengths we can measure.

I suspect this is also why it's attracted some down votes. Technically we're supposed to use down votes to say "a question is not useful for the purposes of the site", which some people may feel to be the case.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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