Timeline for Level of questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2010 at 18:41 | comment | added | Joe Fitzsimons | @Noldorin: I usually call myself a physicist. I don't really accept the premise of your question though. My research is in an interdisciplinary area, and I consider myself competent to answer questions related to that area whether they come from physicists or computer scientists, and I have published at a high level in both fields. I am not an expert on other areas of CS or physics, but that is the nature of academia. You specialize. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 16:00 | comment | added | Noldorin | @Joe: That's probably true, I'd agree. Since you're split across fields, would you actually call yourself a physicist or computer scientist? Inevitably, your knowledge/skill in one area is going to be lacking behind academics that are purely within that field. I'm just curious as to where you're coming from here. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 15:57 | comment | added | Noldorin | I'm glad there's a proposal for advanced theoretical physics; it really belongs in a separate site. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 15:56 | comment | added | Joe Fitzsimons | @Noldorin: My research is on the edge of physics and CS. I spend a lot of time on CSTheory, and find it a fantastic resource, and really would like to see a physics version of it and MathOverflow. However, this site clearly isn't heading in that direction. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 15:50 | comment | added | Noldorin | @Joe: That's true; I just feel that the audience of researchers is so narrow. There is plenty of graduate-level physics that most researches may be unfamiliar with. To be honest, if I were a researcher, I'm not sure how much I'd be using a site like this anyway. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 7:58 | comment | added | Joe Fitzsimons | @Noldorin: Yes there is. But there is also a huge gulf between these and questions that are likely to be of use to researchers. | |
| Nov 14, 2010 at 2:32 | comment | added | Noldorin | There is a significant gap between pop. sci. and basic undergrad physics, let it be known! | |
| Nov 13, 2010 at 20:23 | comment | added | Joe Fitzsimons | Yes, there is also an AMO one. My thinking was that these are perhaps to specific to take off. MathOverflow is a pretty amazing resource, and the CSTheory one is progressing very well. With this in mind it seems like a TP site is prehaps the way to go. | |
| Nov 13, 2010 at 20:10 | comment | added | Matt Reece | I like the idea of the theory research proposal. There's currently a proposal for a combined theory/experiment stack exchange site for high energy physics, which seems to be having trouble getting enough people to sign on. Making a site that includes all branches of theoretical physics sounds to me like it might work better. | |
| Nov 13, 2010 at 18:12 | history | edited | Joe Fitzsimons | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 143 characters in body |
| Nov 13, 2010 at 17:22 | history | answered | Joe Fitzsimons | CC BY-SA 2.5 |