17

Generally speaking, mathematical physics questions are on-topic and more than welcome. Note that advanced questions naturally tend to have fewer views, upvotes, and potential answerers. But don't get discouraged by that. You'll just have to be patient. If Phys.SE currently don't have the expertise to answer them, we might get it in the future! Also it is a ...


14

While I do not speak on behalf of the other close voters, the facts are clear: If the velocity is constant, the acceleration is zero. If a quantity is constant, it does not depend on time (in this context). Zero is clearly a constant, and a constant can be zero. Therefore, constant acceleration comprises two cases: Uniformly-changing velocity, which means ...


12

With the remodeling of the review queues, users now have the option to explicitly mark their edits to closed questions as significant enough to warrant reopen reviews. So, as long as the editors refrain from marking their cosmetic edits as significant, there is no longer any reason to refrain from such edits.


11

In case you are talking about this question, it has been reopened by regular reopen review around the same time you posted this question. This site does not work in real-time and after I closed your question I had no further interaction with it, i.e. I neither actively refused to reopen it nor did I reopen it. Note that the first version I unilaterally ...


11

I for one think the question is unclear or too broad. “Inhabitable” is not really defined, and actually hard to define. One can imagine the surface of the Earth is cold but that doesn’t make it uninhabitable: some animals may thrive. The physics side is also vague. You do not specify anything about the black hole or its orbital parameter, so there is ...


10

Let's kick things off with the most important one - the homework close reason, which currently reads Homework-like questions and check-my-work questions are considered off-topic here, particularly when asking about specific computations instead of underlying physics concepts. Homework questions can be on-topic when they are useful to a broader audience. If ...


9

The SE will block your account from posting new questions if your existing questions are judged to be low quality, but the exact criteria they use have never been disclosed - presumably to stop people from gaming the system. I have read your existing questions, and you are obviously enthusiastic about physics. Can I suggest you ask in the Physics Stack ...


9

"Closed seconds after I wrote them" is a mischaracterization - your question was closed 6 minutes after it was posted. (While this might seem like a petty complaint, I want to make it clear I read the question before closing it.) You have presented no citations or support for your claims that "dual numbers represent Newtonian spacetime" ...


7

Yes, under certain technical circumstances it can happen that an answer is posted up to 4 hours after closure. See this meta.SE answer for more information.


6

Rapidly closing a valid and interesting question only because the questioner uses non-standard terminology seems to me to be very hostile. One of the closure reasons is "needs more detail and clarity". If the OP is using terminology in such a way that makes the question unclear, then that's a valid closure reason. Furthermore, I don't see any ...


6

Welcome to Physics! In its current form (v4) it’s unclear to me what your post is asking about. One symptom: it does not appear to contain a question that ends in a question mark. Your self-answer suggests that you have solved the problem you were having by locating a factor of two. That’s typical of check-my-work questions, which our community has decided ...


6

The possibility that someone else might ask a question with the word "tachyon" in it that's on topic doesn't seem germane to the issue of whether your question is, on its own merits, on topic. (That's before considering that some open questions probably should have been closed too but slipped through for some reason or another.) The comment by ...


5

Your question is asking about a name, and the names of ideas in physics are often historical accidents that have little significance. So in general it's a bit pointless asking why a particular name was chosen. In this case the name principle of least action is actually appropriate - well almost. It's because for any trajectory we can calculate the action and ...


5

I get the impression you are confusing the mathematical-physics tag on Physics SE with the one on Mathematics SE. They are not the same. Physics SE : Mathematical physics is the application of mathematics to problems in physics and mathematical methods suitable for such applications, e.g., partial differential equations (PDEs), functional analysis, ...


5

Yes, closing does seem to discourage a lot of askers, especially those who don't understand how Stack Exchange sites work, but it's supposed to encourage them to improve the question, when possible. We close questions that are off-topic, for obvious reasons. We close duplicates because they've already been answered. The point of early closure is not to ...


5

Your meta question is actually not a question. It is a comment that you cannot understand why a main site question of yours was closed. As a result: I dunno how your non-question in meta can be answered, Even if we understand your meta post as a kind of question, it is not possible to answer it in any way except by formulating a speculative opinion on the ...


4

I can actually see several reasons why this question doesn't fit, including the engineering reason that it is closed for. I'll go through my opinion on them. For off topic as engineering, I don't think that blurb you quoted gives the whole picture on why something could be seen as an "engineering" as opposed to physics question. The problem is ...


4

Briefly speaking, asking about faster-than-light tachyonic particles is non-mainstream/primarily opinion-based and usually$^1$ off-topic (unless it's about experimental searches), while asking about tachyonic fields can be on-topic. $^1$ No rule without exceptions, especially if the question is well-researched/well-documented, or illustrates in a ...


3

I think that if the question is about mathematics per se, it is out of scope, even if the mathematics is commonly used in physics. It would be in scope if the question was about how to apply or interpret the mathematics in relation to physics. For example, if someone were to ask how to solve a quadratic equation, that would stand on its own mathematically ...


3

Personally, I do not like tachyonic physics as a subject, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with Brick's and Qmechanic's point of view about the non-mainstreamness of the subject and this specific question for the following reasons: the subject "tachyons" is still nowadays present in serious papers published in reputable journals. A fast search on ...


3

I fully agree that this question should not have been closed and should be reopened. A teacher has asked an ambiguous and opinion-based multiple-choice question to a student followed by a wrong or poorly worded reasoning. The understandably confused student then asks on Physics SE what is right. From a physics point-of-view the answer to this is very clear. ...


2

As written, the question is not an ideal fit for the site. The complete answer to the question in the title of the OP is simply “Yes” but the OP is suggests that “ Speculations on solution would really be appreciated.” It is clear from the answers that these answers are primarily opinion-based or at least depend on the interpretation of the statement by the ...


2

Sounds to me like SE doesn't think this is a problem. I suggest you take a look at their response to this issue. Vote your conscience and leave a comment there.


2

I think you're somehow thinking closing questions means they are "undesirable". This is not true of this one: it just needs to be clarified. I did not participate in the VTC but reading it I have to admit that I would have voted to close this question because it lacks clarity. The onus is then on the OP to edit the question and clarify why a ...


2

This might be too late (I didn't notice this Meta post until after several half-lives of viewing activity had already elapsed), but I'll clarify the intent of my original comment. Here's a copy of the comment: Tachyons are not consistent with mainstream physics, so the only way to answer this "what if" question is to use a non-mainstream theory. ...


1

Perhaps it should be noted that the decision of this question is intimately linked with the question: What should Physics do with String theory heritage? It is an open secret among theoretical physicists that much of the String theory community has migrated during the past fifteen years to other questions than quantum gravity (the reasons are the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible