3
$\begingroup$

Can I ask theoretical physics questions on physics.stackexchange?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5919/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 1 '14 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ Seems theoretical physics was begrudgingly merged with physics, and non-mainstream isn't allowed. I am spoonfed my physics from television not science weekly, so how do I know if its mainstream or not? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Hoffman Jul 1 '14 at 19:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ may be it helps meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/4539/7433 $\endgroup$ – HCarrasko Jul 1 '14 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ I'd probably argue that physics from television is more-than-likely mainstream (assuming that it comes from something like Science Channel or Discovery Channel). $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Jul 1 '14 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ I'm familiar with other SE's rules about questions, add onto that "cannot evaluate new theories" and that pretty much restricts anything that I am capable of asking. No math, just abstract ideas. :\ $\endgroup$ – Andrew Hoffman Jul 1 '14 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Andrew Hoffman: If you want to ask Can I ask wildly speculative, abstract questions on physics.stackexchange?, then ask a new meta question, but chances are it is already covered by this meta post. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 1 '14 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic I actually think your note is the most valuable answer to that question. It may seem cynical, but it is plain, to the point, and answered the question that I really meant to ask. To me and people like me, my idea of theoretical physics is 'wildly speculative and abstract'. You should edit it back, since the theoretical physics question has been asked many times. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Hoffman Jul 1 '14 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrewHoffman Theoretical Physics was part of our scope from the start. Some people wanted a separate site, they broke off onto a new site, and it didn't succeed. The community and questions were merged. Nothing happened to the scope. (In contrast, when Astronomy v1 was merged, the scope of our site did change) $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 2 '14 at 4:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AndrewHoffman Are the wildly speculative things still accepted as valid ideas in mainstream, peer reviewed physics? This is not a place to get your own personal theories verified. This is a place to discuss theoretical, mainstream physics like string theory and the rest. It need not be experimentally verified to be mainstream, but the theories shoul have some peer validation. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jul 2 '14 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Manishearth I have no idea. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Hoffman Jul 2 '14 at 14:56
8
$\begingroup$

Sure. Phys.SE is for all areas of physics, from theoretical1 to experimental physics. To get a quick idea of various topics of physics, see e.g. the list in this Phys.SE answer.


1 Note that the words 'theoretical' and 'theory' have specific meanings in physics, which differ from the more common use as, say, 'wildly speculative'; see e.g. Wikipedia for more details.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Don't leave out the phenomenologists or the computationalists. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Jul 1 '14 at 19:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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