We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
26

Topicality The basic problem is that thee is a conflict between what we say this site is: Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics and astronomy. and a very wide-spread belief that it is OK for complete newcomers to a subject to raise their question is absolutely any place on the web ...


24

Is non-mainstream physics allowed here? No, questions and answers about non-mainstream physics are not allowed here. We are not a substitute for peer-review, and cannot evaluate new theories. While some questions can lead to legitimate new theories, the question will need to be specific in order to fit this format. What defines mainstream physics? ...


20

Demanding that questions only deal with situations that unequivocally can occur in the real world rules out objects on infinite planes, point masses, Einsteinian trains, Maxwell's demon, supersymmetry, superstring theory, and any of the other standard thought experiments that form the underpinnings of a standard physics education. The ability of applying ...


18

No, questions involving magical situations are not generally on topic here. Our help center lists "questions about fictional physics" as one of the off-topic categories. The reason is basically what Kyle Kanos said in a comment, ...Pretend the laws of physics are broken, what does physics say happens later? Those questions just don't work. That being ...


18

I heartily support Emilio's proposal, but to explain why I support it will require a bit of rambling. So please bear with me and I'll try not to make this too painful. The Physics Stack Exchange has evolved into an educational resource. We hoped it would be a research tool akin to the MathOverflow but for whatever reason that didn't happen. It appears that ...


15

Is this OK with you, having reputable physicists (like Cosmas Zachos and Valter Moretti or Urs Schreiber to name a few) alongside crackpots? That's the wrong question. Let's suppose I'm not "OK" with that. What can we do? By SE policy (cf. e.g. this and this), you can pretty much link to anything you want in your profile as long as it's not egregious hate ...


12

Users are allowed to put what they want in their user profiles, within reason. Generally speaking, users are allowed to put whatever the heck they want in their user profile. This includes links, images, text... as long as they stick with two guidelines: It should be SFW, and has to be non-offensive to people. This means: No naked pictures, but a picture ...


12

General comments: When it comes to non-mainstream topics, such as, e.g., faster-than-light travel, tachyons, time travel, warp-drive, wormholes, antigravity, multiverses, parallel universes, pre-big-bang, etc, the question should be of high quality, well-defined, well-researched, well-documented, and preferably referring to a specific theory, before Phys.SE ...


10

I think you may be right. I'm not sure the scope of the close reason is meant to be quite as narrow as (it sounds like) you're proposing here, but it is good to be careful not to overuse it. We have an FAQ post describing the use of the non-mainstream close reason. And for further context, I went back and dug up the original proposal of this close reason as ...


10

I want to point out one aspect of the question closure procedure which is relevant here but is not apparent to <3k users (and even then takes a while to realize). When voting to close a question, one gets to choose between the multiple options, but after you have five close votes the question gets closed regardless of what the mix of options is. (That is, ...


9

Technically, this site is not a forum; it's a Q&A site. It's not for generating conversation at all, it's for questions and answers to those questions. So based on that alone, this sounds like the wrong place for what you want to do. You could bring up some of this stuff in our chat room (or create your own chat room), if other people are interested in ...


9

The simple answer is that science is a description of reality and not a speculative discipline. If you are speculating about a scenario that is not well understood, you can do it as part of hypothesis testing, but if something is well understood, like energy conservation in most regimes, then asking what would happen if it was strongly violated is simply not ...


9

Not here, and probably not anywhere on Stack Exchange. These sites are not for discussion. You should find some place that admits reviews of original research. (Well, actually what you should do is try to get it published, but that's a whole separate issue.) You could try bringing it up in chat to see if anyone would care to discuss it with you, but no ...


9

As spelled out in Is non-mainstream physics appropriate for this site? we accept only questions about mainstream physics, where mainstream physics is defined as: Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, ...


7

Despite my comment I didn't vote to reopen the question you mention. This is because after an initial burst of enthusiasm I took a closer look at the question and decided it didn't make sense. I suspect there is a language difficulty and result is that as it stands the question can't be answered. I did consider editing the question to make it clearer, but ...


6

I'd like to address your second example (here for 10k+; screenshot) and questions along that vein. In a nutshell, that question follows the broad strokes of a rather common class of questions that get closed as non-mainstream and which basically read I know that the laws of physics say that X can never happen. Suppose that X happened. Then what do ...


5

I would personally have used the "too broad" close reason rather than "non-mainstream" to close your off-topic question. The experimental evidence supporting conservation of energy is a central part of a year-long introductory physics course, talking up most of two chapters of a typical introductory textbook. Your question is answerable, but it contains so ...


4

This isn't the Physics Forum, it's Physics Stack Exchange. Anyway, you've got two things going on in this question. First, you are presenting evidence to support the claim that dark matter is ruled out. The experiments at LUX and Xenon500... ...is quickly approaching the probability of purple unicorns None of that is relevant to this meta post. The ...


4

Look at the second set of bullet point in the "What topics can I ask about here?" page of the help center. A partial quote reads: Some kinds of questions should not be asked here: [...] Pitches for your own personal theories or work We deal with mainstream physics here. Anything that couldn't be published in a reputable journal is not ...


4

It's not possible to change the flag/VTC reasons, other than the few custom reasons that appear under "off topic" (and that's only for questions). I mean, it would be technically possible, but the feature doesn't exist in the SE system. So I think we can safely conclude that adding a custom flag reason to catch non-mainstream answers won't happen. We have ...


4

I have read through the responses and am one of those individuals who did not understand the actual purpose of this site was for the active researcher, the academic and for students with an eye toward becoming a physicist or an astronomer. It was only after I had posed my first question and moved on to my second that I began to realize the nature of this ...


4

This is any many ways a "we'll know it when we see it" thing, but there are some reliable indicators that you will be able to defend the question from accusations of non-mainstream-ness. Material that appears in major textbooks. This is golden. Material that has be treated by more than one research group in major journals. Also golden. (If it is new you ...


4

First of all, thanks for asking about it here. We always appreciate it when people take the time to learn more about why the community made a decision (rather than, say, ranting about how we are all closed-minded fools :p). After a quick look at your question, it looks like this is at the core of people's objections: building an FTL drive (assuming that ...


4

To me, it would appear that the sum of the parts is non-mainstream - probably due to a very large number of misconceptions you have about mainstream physics. An Alcubierre drive is "main-stream physics" in the isolated context of analyzing a hypothetical solution to Einstein's Field Equations (it does break some energy conditions though so most physicists ...


3

It's not possible to change the text of an existing close reason. We'd have to create a whole new one, presumably with the same text except for the link URL. Personally, I don't think it's worth the trouble, although you're right that it would be best not to have a user ID in the URL. If we ever decide that the text of the close reason is somehow inadequate ...


3

I have some ideas about sub-quarks and sub-leptons and the structure of them. Stack Exchange sites are not places to share ideas. I generally wouldn't read too much into your word choice, but the fact that you say "ideas" instead of "questions" does suggest that Stack Exchange is not the place for the kind of post you may want to make, regardless of whether ...


3

I agree that it's not non-mainstream, but I think the question is overly broad, asking what the "rotational motion" would be in such a place. This is not or less going to require a very lengthy response, probably chapter-of-a-textbook kind of answer to address the question. I'm also of the opinion that only OP should be the one make changes to reduce the ...


3

In addition to John's points, which are enough to make this a non-starter: As mentioned in the comments: the tag you're proposing is a meta tag. Those are very seductive, sure, but they're extremely hard to get working correctly - it always starts with good intentions, say, a poster would presumably tag his post with additional existing tags that more ...


2

Only one of the two linked questions in the OP was closed as "not mainstream". The "light in another universe" question was voted "not mainsteam" by Alfred Centauri, Brandon Enright and Qmechanic and two others voted to close for other reasons. The "rotating black hole" question had at least one customized reason that mentioned not being mainstream, but ...


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