The Role of Open Forums in Scientific Research

[quantumdude]

I liked the TD forum.

You can keep it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/f-12

 

[Locrian]

Well here's to ya, TD. You were great fun while it lasted. Let's celebrate the greatest post ever made in that forum. A poem, read by the author.

Well, at least I still have the Philosophy of Science forum. It gets reasonable marks on the wacky scale.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, at least I still have the Philosophy of Science forum. It gets reasonable marks on the wacky scale.

Hey Locrian,

If you're bored and have nothing to do, find for me the penetration depth of 250 nm UV in diamond, won't you? For the life of me, I can't find it... yet.

That should keep you out of trouble for a while. :)

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

aren't diamonds transparent to UV? (no wait, that's quartz)

 

[Chronos]

Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments/FTIR/FTSoptprin.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments/FTIR/FTSoptprin.html

Thanks, Chronos. It's in the ball park, but unfortunately, I already have IR parameters. For some reason, the UV parameters are rather elusive. And since a number of people have kindly volunteered to look up stuff on this, I'll say exactly what I'm looking for. Anything "close" to these are acceptable:

material: UNCD (ultrananocrystalline diamond)
parameters: either penetration depth at 240 nm wavelength, or attenuation depth/skin depth at the same wavelength.

The best possible source would be an experimentally published result. And unfortunately, this has gone off-topic for this thread, so if you and anyone else have any more to ask or send to me, you are welcome to PM me with it.

Thanks!

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

I think this new forum is a great idea, and the submission rules are good, with the following exceptions:

1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship. Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.

PF can have any rules it wants of course, but I’ve found plenty of smart people to bounce ideas off from on other forums that let me post a link and with no posting limit. The copyright issue and the 60 post limit would keep me from submitting to this new forum. That does not mean it’s not a great idea—it’s just not for me.

 

[quantumdude]

1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.

I would not consider a link acceptable because it would effectively negate the 60 post limit. The discussion should be self-contained in the thread.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.

That requirement is in place because mathematical expressions can be downright illegible when typed out. Of course, I wouldn't reject a submission if it contained something like:

E=mc²,

which is perfectly legible in HTML code. But something like this?

(hbar^2/2m)del^2(Psi)=i*hbar(d Psi/dt)

No way, Jose. It's up to to submitter to make his thoughts clear, not up to the reviewers to clear things up on his behalf.

Besides, LaTeX is not hard to learn.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship.

Eh? It's the screening process that is censorship, not the 60 post limit. Once the submission makes it past the screening forum, its contents won't be removed from PF or edited in any way.

Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.

The 60 post limit is there for a few very good reasons.

First, it is a way to regulate the posting of people who come to PF just to push an agenda. We've had many such types in the past who aren't so much interested in talking about physics as they are in talking about their own ideas about physics. The 60 post limit is our way of saying, "You can have your say, but after 3 pages enough is enough. Find something else to talk about." We don't want personal agendas becoming a focal point of this site, and so we won't allow threads on homegrown, unverified theories to hang around open forever.

Second, it is a way to keep the thread quality high. Science Forums Network and Philosophy Forums both have "Debate Forums". There are two debaters, each makes exactly 10 posts, then it's over. As one might expect, those 20 post threads are among the most worthwhile reading on the site. Besides, a lesson that we learned well from the old Theory Development forum is that threads that are allowed to go on for pages upon pages tend to turn ugly.

Third, the new forum is for work that has not yet been peer reviewed. If someone can't make his point in 3 pages of posting and responding to others' posts, then we see no reason to host a 4th page of it. And if the content from a closed thread from the new forum ever does eventually make it past peer review, I'll personally graduate the thread to the main section of PF and unlock it.

Fourth, speaking directly to your comment, if the people here can't refute the theory in the thread inside of 60 posts, then I cannot see how allowing a 4th page would change things. If our formidable army of scientists and mathematicians cannot find a cool person in the armor, then that might just be an indicator that the thread is ready to move up to the next level.

As the moderator of the new forum, I am going to insist on highly substantive posts from both the "pro" and "con" camps. I'm not going to allow any cheap posts that do nothing but nitpick to eat up the thread. We will get more mileage out of 60 posts in the new forum than in any other part of the site.

 

[Zanket]

Thanks for the response.

I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post. The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.

Your last sentence especially is reassuring on the 60 post limit. I was thinking that, in other forums, it can often take 10 posts to clear up a minor misunderstanding.

 

[quantumdude]

I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post.

It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.

The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.

Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?

 

[Zanket]

It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.

Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?

Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?

Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.

 

[Garth]

I wouldn't submit exactly the same article to a journal that I had posted on PF!

Garth

 

[quantumdude]

Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?

I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. And when LaTeX is involved, the limit is imposed by the server itself, in that it can only process so much material in a post. I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.

Also if links to one's own website are allowed then it would be contrary to the screening process as well. Say a submission with a link to one's own site is approved. The owner of the site could then edit it after the fact in such a way that it would not have been accepted. At PF there is a 24 hour time limit on editing. By the time any submission is finished in the screening forum, that time limit will have expired, and the submission will appear "as is" if approved.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.

Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.

See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.

 

[Zanket]

I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. ... I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.

Then using a link would benefit, because it would not limit the size of the case being made. If a typical scientific paper does not fit into a single post, then the forum is significantly limited in usefulness.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.

Those are good reasons.

See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.

The articles need only make substantially the same points.

 

[Aer]

How were the following guidelines quoted below agreed upon? Since these theories are being discussed in a forum setting, I would suggest the following section format to be required:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Derivations
4. Results
5. Conclusions

The reason I propose this is because most people who are going to submit such papers here are doing so because they cannot get it reviewed anywhere else as they most likely do not have appropriate credentials and the formatting they would choose to write their paper has much to be desired. Any other sections than those listed above shouldn't be neccessary, including appendices. A reference to a paper available online should be sufficient. If it's not available online and important to the discussion, the author can choose to include it in the derivations section with appropriate references.

1. The opening post must contain an abstract stating the results obtained and how the new theory is at variance with currently accepted theories.

2. If an independently researched theory makes claims different from those made by currently accepted theories then the opening post must contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two.

3. If an independently researched theory is experimentally indistinguishable from a currently accepted theory then the opening post must contain a section that clearly explains the conceptual differences between the two, and what if anything is to be gained from the new perspective.

4. All references to relevant prior work must be documented in the opening post.

5. Quantitative predictions must be derived, wherever appropriate.

6. New theories must not be already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments.

7. If a new theory is strongly inconsistent with prior experiments, but the theorist is insisting that the experiments were either misconducted or misinterpreted by the scientific community, then the thread will be rejected. Instead the theorist should rebut the contradicting scientists in an appropriate journal.

8. Theories containing obvious mathematical or logical errors will not be accepted.


The decision to accept or reject a thread for this Subforum rests with the Staff and Science Advisors of Physics Forums. Decisions will be reached by consensus, and will be based entirely on the guidelines listed above. No Staff Member or Science Advisor will participate in the discussion of his or her own thread.

Action will be taken on all threads within 7 days of submission. If a thread is accepted then it will appear in this Subforum. If a thread is rejected the theorist will receive a PM from me that states the reason(s) for rejecting it.

Threads in this Subforum will not exceed 60 posts. I will take care to delete responses which are not relevant to the topic.

If rejected, theorists will be granted one opportunity to address the stated reasons for rejection, and to resubmit. Threads submitted to this Subforum that are not substantially different from previously terminated threads (after the 3 page limit) or threads that have been rejected twice will not be considered.

 

[quantumdude]

Then using a link would benefit, because it would not limit the size of the case being made. If a typical scientific paper does not fit into a single post, then the forum is significantly limited in usefulness.

Well, the guidelines aren't set in stone. We don't really know how to do this, because we've never done it before! We realize that some bridges won't be crossed until we get to them, and this just might be one of those bridges. I can think of a possible remedy though: If this does become an issue, then perhaps we can make it so the opening post doesn't count towards the 60 posts, and impose a separate limit on the number of posts that are used to start the thread.

I'd rather play around with those parameters than allow linked (and therefore unregulatable) material to qualify.

The articles need only make substantially the same points.

I'll look into this some more. We certainly don't want to confiscate other peoples' work.

 

[quantumdude]

How were the following guidelines quoted below agreed upon?

They were agreed upon in the Mentor's Private Forum, by the Staff.

Since these theories are being discussed in a forum setting, I would suggest the following section format to be required:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Derivations
4. Results
5. Conclusions

That's not a bad idea, and who knows? We may end up using something like it. But I didn't want to put too many rules into the guidelines, so I put in only those that I felt we couldn't live without.

 

[Zanket]

I'd rather play around with those parameters than allow linked (and therefore unregulatable) material to qualify.

OK, I think you have good reasons for disallowing a link, but if the rule changes, one thing that can mitigate the editable issue: as the mod, you could copy the site to your hard drive before allowing the original post, and then if editing was subsequently claimed, you could verify that by comparing to your copy.

 

[CarlB]

I think it's a good idea to get the non mainstream stuff out of the places where the general public might fail to recognize it as such. Eventually I may submit a series of topics to the new forum, but right now I'm too busy. But I thought I should coment on the idea.

The reason I propose this is because most people who are going to submit such papers here are doing so because they cannot get it reviewed anywhere else as they most likely do not have appropriate credentials and the formatting they would choose to write their paper has much to be desired.

I think that if this were all that the new TD forum would provide it would be a useless service. The fact is that it is possible to get a forum for any sort of physics by simply joining the APS and giving parallel talks at the APS meetings. It's a blast and I would suggest it for others so interested.

But what I really disagree with here is the assumption that only refereed journals can contain truth. For example, look at the articles published alongside de Broglie's announcement of matter waves. [L. de Broglie, Ondes et quanta, Comptes Rendus 177, 507 (1923)]

No, the reason for having non peer reviewed publishing forums like this is two-fold. First, they are an opportunity to discuss with like-minded professionals new ideas, but with the added feature of creating a permanent record of who wrote what.

I've got my own interests (Clifford algebra and Euclidean relativity) and consequently I am a member of several Yahoo discussion groups on them. Yahoo allows threads that are not only moderated, but where you must be invited to post. These threads are completely free from clutter, but I prefer PF because on PF I can use LaTex. Consequently, I'd like to switch those discussion over to PF, but there is a bit of a threat of deletion hanging over PF.

Nowadays, even Arxiv.org is peer reviewed. And it is very difficult to get stuff eprinted there that is outside the mainstream. But that is not the point here. The point is that submitting a paper to Arxiv is a lot of work. One must make the paper meet specific standards. Even the effort required to upload the paper to Arxiv is a lot of effort. It is not the case that PF is providing an alternative to PRL or even Arxiv. What PF provides is a convenient place to have public discussion of interesting ideas with the ability to use LaTex.

There are ideas that are worth sharing but are too small for even an Arxiv article. PF is already mentioned at least once in the "Physics literature", if by that we mean the stuff that has passed muster at Arxiv. Look at reference #21 in this article:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0505/0505220.pdf

What I think PF should provide is a mechanism where several interested people can share non mainstream ideas without having to wade through crapola deposited into the thread. The best way of doing this is to mimic Yahoo and allow members to begin threads where posting is limited to invited members. And it should be clearly delineated as not mainstream thought.

Carl

 

[ZapperZ]

No, the reason for having non peer reviewed publishing forums like this is two-fold. First, they are an opportunity to discuss with like-minded professionals new ideas, but with the added feature of creating a permanent record of who wrote what.

How about discussing with like-minded professional directly? Given the choice of chatting with a "like-minded professional" on here or a coffee break in between conference session, I take the latter any day. And what is the guarantee you have that who wrote what remains permanently recorded? Yahoo could, on any given day, decide to remove the group you participate in without any advance warning (you did read the "fine print", didn't you?). So you will understand that the two reasons you gave are rather flimsy.

Nowadays, even Arxiv.org is peer reviewed. And it is very difficult to get stuff eprinted there that is outside the mainstream. But that is not the point here. The point is that submitting a paper to Arxiv is a lot of work. One must make the paper meet specific standards. Even the effort required to upload the paper to Arxiv is a lot of effort. It is not the case that PF is providing an alternative to PRL or even Arxiv. What PF provides is a convenient place to have public discussion of interesting ideas with the ability to use LaTex.

No, it isn't reviewed, not by a longshot. But after it was innundated by all kinds of cranky papers, new authors with no established affiliation are required to be endorsed by authors who are already registered. This is not "peer-reviewed" per journal standards. There are still jaw-dropping papers that sometime got through.

Zz.

 

[CarlB]

How about discussing with like-minded professional directly? Given the choice of chatting with a "like-minded professional" on here or a coffee break in between conference session, I take the latter any day.

It's a specialization issue.

First, one can't live in conference sessions all the time. Second, physics has become amazingly specialized and the other people in one's department may not have any great interest in (or even the mathematical specialization to understand) what you're doing. For example, the University of Washington is my nearest large university, but there is not a single physicist there who has ever written a paper in Clifford algebra.

One of my interests is in Schwinger's measurement algebra. There is a total of one paper on the subject in Arxiv.Org, by a physicist who lives in Albuquerque. If there is to be a community of people interested in the subject, it must form on the internet. We are too small and scattered.

I work in a specialty of Clifford algebra called "geometric algebra". It's fairly rare as a subset of Clifford algebra, but my work, in addition, is in "complexified" geometric algebra with applications to elementary particles and fields. There is only one other person in the world in that subfield and he lives many thousands of miles away. My guess is that a lot of other physicists are in the same boat.

And what is the guarantee you have that who wrote what remains permanently recorded? Yahoo could, on any given day, decide to remove the group you participate in without any advance warning (you did read the "fine print", didn't you?). So you will understand that the two reasons you gave are rather flimsy.

I really don't see your point here.

For years physicists have worked on physics in conversations over coffee and the result has been the discovery that the internet, deficient though it may be, is quite superior to human memory as far as making permanent records. The conferences you mention are far less reliable than Yahoo.

It's very difficult for me to imagine a mode of quick communication that is superior, in terms of storage of information, to forums on the internet. Maybe there are some physicists out there who wander through conferences with a tape recorder in one hand but I've never seen one. And digging through all that tape would have to be a tough duty.

If saving a copy is important to you, then you can simply copy the website down from Yahoo to your own hard disk. You can print it out. Compare this to conversations with other physicists, which in many states you would have legal difficulty in recording without the prior permission of those involved. No, the examples you give are far inferior to the internet.


The subject of Arxiv's tendency to avoid papers by certain authors and subjects is infamous in the physics community with long arguments and even lawsuits. Even a Nobel prize winner, Josephson, got in trouble with them. But Arxiv is rather off topic here. Arxiv is a preprint server. PF is a place where people post a few paragraphs about physics or math. They really are not at all comparable.

There are subjects in physics that so very few people are interested in that the only way that they can realistically get together is with the internet. PF is a very convenient way of doing this because it provides LaTex. Sure, it would be nice if I could move to Portugal, at least until my interests converged with someone who lived somewhere else. Sure it would be nice if I could go to conferences 52 weeks out of the year. But it is precisely the internet that has eliminated the necessity of doing either of those sorts of thing.

Carl

 

[ZapperZ]

It's a specialization issue.

First, one can't live in conference sessions all the time. Second, physics has become amazingly specialized and the other people in one's department may not have any great interest in (or even the mathematical specialization to understand) what you're doing. For example, the University of Washington is my nearest large university, but there is not a single physicist there who has ever written a paper in Clifford algebra.

One of my interests is in Schwinger's measurement algebra. There is a total of one paper on the subject in Arxiv.Org, by a physicist who lives in Albuquerque. If there is to be a community of people interested in the subject, it must form on the internet. We are too small and scattered.

I work in a specialty of Clifford algebra called "geometric algebra". It's fairly rare as a subset of Clifford algebra, but my work, in addition, is in "complexified" geometric algebra with applications to elementary particles and fields. There is only one other person in the world in that subfield and he lives many thousands of miles away. My guess is that a lot of other physicists are in the same boat.

And doing this in an "open forum" is better? Maybe your experience is different than mine. Have you seen any internet open forum discussion that has actually resulted in (i) peer-reviewed journal article AND (ii) made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of a field of study?

I really don't see your point here.

For years physicists have worked on physics in conversations over coffee and the result has been the discovery that the internet, deficient though it may be, is quite superior to human memory as far as making permanent records. The conferences you mention are far less reliable than Yahoo.

It's very difficult for me to imagine a mode of quick communication that is superior, in terms of storage of information, to forums on the internet. Maybe there are some physicists out there who wander through conferences with a tape recorder in one hand but I've never seen one. And digging through all that tape would have to be a tough duty.

If saving a copy is important to you, then you can simply copy the website down from Yahoo to your own hard disk. You can print it out. Compare this to conversations with other physicists, which in many states you would have legal difficulty in recording without the prior permission of those involved. No, the examples you give are far inferior to the internet.

No, this was your point that there being a "recorded" transaction of who said who. My point being that PF and Yahoo and every thing else could just go POOF with no obligation to you as being a "permanent" record of any transaction. If you saved it, there is nothing to indicate that what you have is authentic and have not been edited. It is no more permanent than an editable document.

The subject of Arxiv's tendency to avoid papers by certain authors and subjects is infamous in the physics community with long arguments and even lawsuits. Even a Nobel prize winner, Josephson, got in trouble with them. But Arxiv is rather off topic here. Arxiv is a preprint server. PF is a place where people post a few paragraphs about physics or math. They really are not at all comparable.

I'm not making the comparison of arxiv to PF. I was making a comparison of arxiv to peer-reviewed journal since it was you who claim that it is "peer-reviwed". So it's my turn to tell you that I don't see your point here in relation to what is being discussed.

There are subjects in physics that so very few people are interested in that the only way that they can realistically get together is with the internet.

And you have a greater probability to actually find these very few people hanging around a particular internet open forum than going to a conference specific to that subject area? I find that VERY hard to believe. I specialized in high-Tc superconductors and strongly-correlated electron system. It's a very large field with a large number of people practicing in it (just go to the APS March meeting if you don't believe me). So I should have a larger probability of bumping into people on one of these open forums than your field, no? I will give you one guess on how many I have bumped into just on PF alone. If I have THAT kind of probability with a field of study as popular as that, what does it say about other less popular field of study? You know your Clifford Algebra - you do the math.

Zz.

 

[CarlB]

And doing this in an "open forum" is better? And you have a greater probability to actually find these very few people hanging around a particular internet open forum than going to a conference specific to that subject area? I find that VERY hard to believe.

First of all, I never stated that there was a "greater probability" to find people interested in your subject here than at a conference. I am quite certain that there is not even a single person here who understands complexified geometric algebra. But to make this point you miss what I am saying entirely.

In suggesting that the people who read a forum are limited to "those very few people hanging around", you are severely limiting the ability of the human species to self organize. PF has a notification scheme where one can arrange for an email to arrive when a post is made to a forum of interest. There's no need to "hang around". And any intelligent person will realize that the way you arrange for the people who share your interests to subscribe to the forum of interest is simply to tell them that you are posting on it.

Maybe I'm being too mysterious here. It works like this. You send an email to the other person interested in what you're doing and you say something like "instead of sending emails back and forth, I'm going to post over on PF, where you can use LaTex, at this link: http://www.etc"

There. You've arranged for exactly the audience you desired.

And the issue is that international travel is quite expensive. You're basically suggesting that I travel to Portugal in preference to using the internet. You're just not being realistic. Nor are you realistic in assuming that I don't know how to use the internet to contact people who share my interests. You're simply failing to take into account the ability of the human race to self organize.

Also, you probably didn't notice the detail, but my post was asking for forums that were not "open", except that they could be read by all. What I would like is the same thing that happens on Yahoo, which is that to post to a special sort of forum, you have to be specifically invited by the person who started it.

I specialized in high-Tc superconductors and strongly-correlated electron system. It's a very large field with a large number of people practicing in it (just go to the APS March meeting if you don't believe me). So I should have a larger probability of bumping into people on one of these open forums than your field, no?

No, I never spoke for you, just myself. It's wonderful that you're in a crowded field with lots of people. It must be very convenient.

I will give you one guess on how many I have bumped into just on PF alone.

I never suggested "bumping" into anyone on PF. I never suggested relying on any sort of random chance whatsoever. These are your ideas, not mine.

I think that there is an underlying difference in the way you perceive PF and the way I perceive it. I'm guessing that, as far as non mainstream theories go, you see PF being abused as a way of advertising idiocy to random viewers.

I agree that this happens, but I don't see the utility of PF as being zero because of this any more than I see the telephone being useless since it is used for crank calls.

Try looking on the other side of the coin. I see PF as a method of communicating between people who share a common interest. When you create a forum (or thread or whatever the word is) on Yahoo, you specifically have the option of making it invisible to all but the people who have asked to participate in it and were then allowed by the forum starter. That might be an idea that is sufficiently protective of the public that it would satisfy any worries along that line.

Carl

 

[ZapperZ]

Maybe I'm being too mysterious here. It works like this. You send an email to the other person interested in what you're doing and you say something like "instead of sending emails back and forth, I'm going to post over on PF, where you can use LaTex, at this link: http://www.etc"

There. You've arranged for exactly the audience you desired.

Let's go back to what started all this. You said

No, the reason for having non peer reviewed publishing forums like this is two-fold. First, they are an opportunity to discuss with like-minded professionals new ideas, but with the added feature of creating a permanent record of who wrote what.

Did you actually had both occurring? Or did you speculate on that possiblity that both can happen? Note that if you have followed this thread, there have been endless speculation on the "usefulness" of the old TD section, since it MIGHT produce spectacular work that has been discarded by mainstream physics, etc... Yet, these are nothing more than speculation on scenario that has NEVER happened. Thus, I asked if what you said has actually occured, or is this simply another speculation.

I also do not understand another thing. If you can communicate via e-mail of people who are actually working in that particular field, why would you need to actually visit an internet forum in the first place? Couldn't you just write an e-mail to the relevant people directly? Isn't this more direct, and you don't actually have to wait for the remote chance that someone in that field visited an open internet forum AND started posting in a subject area to your liking?

Call me nuts, but this is a very strange way of trying to seek communication with people in your field.

Zz.

 

[CarlB]

Did you actually had both occurring? Or did you speculate on that possiblity that both can happen?

I gave you an example of a post on Physics Forums getting referenced in Arxiv. Since Arxiv has higher levels of standard for publishing, this is an indication of at least some sort of utility in Physics Forums.

But that's not really my point. My point is that Yahoo already contributes to the physics community, why not let it happen here too.

I didn't get around to it, but there are plenty of examples of Yahoo forums that do not get out of control, and are used by communities of physicists who share an interest. Here are some examples:

Euclidean Relativity (membership requires approval from Jose B. Almeida, a full professor of physics at a university in Portugal, about 10 posts per month):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euclideanrelativity/

Quantum Mechanics From General Relativity (membership requires approval from "straycat". Mark J. Hadley, Prof at U. Warwick, answers questions about his quantum foam and gravitation theory, about 20 posts per month)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QM_from_GR/?yguid=144051339

Clifford and Geometric Algebra (membership requires approval from me. About 1 post per month):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Clifford_Geometric_Algebra/

These are just what I know from my own small circle of interests. There are a total of 1642 forums in Yahoo under "physics". My guess is that most of them are useless. But that doesn't mean that all are.

Note that if you have followed this thread, there have been endless speculation on the "usefulness" of the old TD section, since it MIGHT produce spectacular work that has been discarded by mainstream physics, etc... Yet, these are nothing more than speculation on scenario that has NEVER happened. Thus, I asked if what you said has actually occured, or is this simply another speculation.

As far as I know, the old TD was quite useless. I agree with you completely on this. But that does not mean that Physics Forums itself is useless in physics, or more exactly, "can not be used" in physics.

To make Physics Forums useful, we need to make just a few changes to it. The primary one I was asking for is that the person who starts a thread on the subject of "new research", should be allowed to control who may write to it. This is what Yahoo has that Physics Forums does not, and it is one of the characteristics, that the useful forums that I know of, share.

I also do not understand another thing. If you can communicate via e-mail of people who are actually working in that particular field, why would you need to actually visit an internet forum in the first place? Couldn't you just write an e-mail to the relevant people directly? Isn't this more direct, and you don't actually have to wait for the remote chance that someone in that field visited an open internet forum AND started posting in a subject area to your liking?

Perhaps the many examples of physics forums that are healthy on Yahoo will allow you to understand this mystery. The advantage that Physics Forums could bring would be all that Yahoo gives, plus LaTex.

Call me nuts, but this is a very strange way of trying to seek communication with people in your field.

I haven't said anything about forums being a way to "seek communication". It's a way of communicating. You simply invite the people you want. But a reason for making forums searchable on google is to allow other people interested in the subject to find it.

Carl

 

[ZapperZ]

I gave you an example of a post on Physics Forums getting referenced in Arxiv. Since Arxiv has higher levels of standard for publishing, this is an indication of at least some sort of utility in Physics Forums.

I disagree. Arxiv has NO refereeing. I could post a paper on there tomorrow and it'll get through since I have already submitted several of them. I could cite the National Enquirer in my references and it will still be online.

But that's not really my point. My point is that Yahoo already contributes to the physics community, why not let it happen here too.

I didn't get around to it, but there are plenty of examples of Yahoo forums that do not get out of control, and are used by communities of physicists who share an interest. Here are some examples:

Euclidean Relativity (membership requires approval from Jose B. Almeida, a full professor of physics at a university in Portugal, about 10 posts per month):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euclideanrelativity/

Quantum Mechanics From General Relativity (membership requires approval from "straycat". Mark J. Hadley, Prof at U. Warwick, answers questions about his quantum foam and gravitation theory, about 20 posts per month)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QM_from_GR/?yguid=144051339

Clifford and Geometric Algebra (membership requires approval from me. About 1 post per month):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Clifford_Geometric_Algebra/

These are just what I know from my own small circle of interests. There are a total of 1642 forums in Yahoo under "physics". My guess is that most of them are useless. But that doesn't mean that all are.

And if you ask Straycat, he'll tell you about me, and the Yahoo group that *I* run since he's a member of it also. However, I haven't seen ANY of them produced anything to expand the body of knowledge of the field. Can you point to important published paper that actually CAME out of such discussion?

An avenue for people to chat and discuss, sure. But is this what I was asking for? I don't think so.

As far as I know, the old TD was quite useless. I agree with you completely on this. But that does not mean that Physics Forums itself is useless in physics, or more exactly, "can not be used" in physics.

To make Physics Forums useful, we need to make just a few changes to it. The primary one I was asking for is that the person who starts a thread on the subject of "new research", should be allowed to control who may write to it. This is what Yahoo has that Physics Forums does not, and it is one of the characteristics, that the useful forums that I know of, share.

Nowhere did I say that a physics forum is useless, especially in case of PF. There's a huge amount of info especially for someone just learning physics and learning ABOUT physics. However, for professionals and people trying to expand the body of knowledge? This is, after all, what *I* was referring to especially in relation to the purpose of having a "forum" like TD. The "logistics" of working out a highly specialized subject matter on an open forum like this is nothing more than a crapshoot! You'd be LUCKY to run into someone who is an expert in the very field you are working in.

Again, how about contacting someone who is really an expert in that field of study directly instead of engaging strangers that you don't know on something this important. If the work means THAT much to you, then I would think you'd give it the respect it deserves by having it reviewed or discussed by someone you'd consider an expert and not on some online forum.

Zz.

 

[CarlB]

I disagree.

My claim was that Arxiv is more restrictive than Physics Forums. Do you really disagree? Do you also think that Arxiv is useless? Do you have an explanation for why so many physicists use it?

And if you ask Straycat, he'll tell you about me, and the Yahoo group that *I* run since he's a member of it also. However, I haven't seen ANY of them produced anything to expand the body of knowledge of the field. Can you point to important published paper that actually CAME out of such discussion?

I've never claimed that you could run a Yahoo group that would be of any interest to the physics world whatsoever.

[EDIT] I just visited your Yahoo website and sure enough, just like you say, it's totally useless:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/undernetphysics/
This explains why you fail to see how such a thing could be useful. [/EDIT]

My assertion is that there are physics groups that are useful. I suppose you're hanging out on Yahoo in order to prove that it's useless.

I'm still waiting for a proof that Yahoo (and Physics Forums) provide no useful contribution to the physics community (in terms of professionals and "people trying to expand the body of knowledge").

Nowhere did I say that a physics forum is useless, especially in case of PF. There's a huge amount of info especially for someone just learning physics and learning ABOUT physics. However, for professionals and people trying to expand the body of knowledge? This is, after all, what *I* was referring to especially in relation to the purpose of having a "forum" like TD. The "logistics" of working out a highly specialized subject matter on an open forum like this is nothing more than a crapshoot!

I repeat that I never said anything different. What I'm asking for is CLOSED forums like what are available on Yahoo, but with LaTex.

You'd be LUCKY to run into someone who is an expert in the very field you are working in.

We all know who are the experts in our field. If I want one to comment on Yahoo, I simply send him an email. Despite the fact that you apparently can't imagine how this works, it happens all the time. One must make one's own LUCK.

Again, how about contacting someone who is really an expert in that field of study directly instead of engaging strangers that you don't know on something this important.

Again, you're missing the point. I never suggested what you are implying here. As with Yahoo, one gets other experts to join a forum by invitation.

If the work means THAT much to you, then I would think you'd give it the respect it deserves by having it reviewed or discussed by someone you'd consider an expert and not on some online forum.

The two things you're comparing here are not mutually exclusive. If one does the first, one is not restricted from also doing the second. And it's easy enough to get an expert to join an online forum. It happens all the time on Yahoo. I never would have gone to any physics forums on Yahoo if I hadn't first been invited there by Professor Almeida.

Carl

 

[ZapperZ]

My claim was that Arxiv is more restrictive than Physics Forums. Do you really disagree? Do you also think that Arxiv is useless? Do you have an explanation for why so many physicists use it?

It's amazing that you quoted my response to you that said

"Nowhere did I say that a physics forum is useless, especially in case of PF. There's a huge amount of info especially for someone just learning physics and learning ABOUT physics."

And yet, you still ask me that question. I believe it is YOU who used the word "useless" and decided to put it into my mouth. I didn't. I look at the arxiv page EVERY weekday morning. It's the first thing I do. I have even uploaded several of my papers there. If that's the behavior of something who thinks it is useless, then go with it.

However, and read what I'm going to say carefully, it is NOT peer-reviewed! You cannot claim that just because PF was cited on a paper that appeared in Arxiv, that means that PF has played any significant role in (i) that paper and (ii) the advancement of the body of knowledge of that field! That's a HUGE leap of logic to make! I can make citation to the National Enquirer in the paper I uploaded to Arxiv. In no part of my argument here am I claiming that Arxiv is "useless"! So stop that!

Look back at all the things I've said in reponse to you first posting in this thread. What EXACTLY was I questioning you on? Was it the usefulness of physics forums? Or was it really questioning if there REALLY is a product that actually have produced an advancement in the body of knowledge of physics? Give me citations of important peer-reviewed physics papers that actually came out of internet forum? That will shut me up.

I've never claimed that you could run a Yahoo group that would be of any interest to the physics world whatsoever.

[EDIT] I just visited your Yahoo website and sure enough, just like you say, it's totally useless:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/undernetphysics/
This explains why you fail to see how such a thing could be useful. [/EDIT]

And I will again ask you where I said those things are "useless", especially AFTER you quoted my statement. This is very puzzling. It's as if you don't read what I wrote, but what you WANT me to write.

And the usefulness of the site I run isn't tailored for you. We have enough feedback from students and especially high school teachers to know the job we're doing.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

First, one can't live in conference sessions all the time. Second, physics has become amazingly specialized and the other people in one's department may not have any great interest in (or even the mathematical specialization to understand) what you're doing. For example, the University of Washington is my nearest large university, but there is not a single physicist there who has ever written a paper in Clifford algebra.

One of my interests is in Schwinger's measurement algebra. There is a total of one paper on the subject in Arxiv.Org, by a physicist who lives in Albuquerque. If there is to be a community of people interested in the subject, it must form on the internet. We are too small and scattered.

I don't understand why this would make such a discussion better here? Isn't it easier to just pick up the phone or type up a letter or email to the person in Albuquerque so you know who you're discussing your ideas with and that they are the person who is most qualified to discuss them with you rather than waiting for some random person to stray through here who might have that expertise and communicate with them via a pseudonym?

Collaborations have existed among people at various institutions long before internet forums have existed. You read someone's papers and contact them, or you meet them at conferences and exchange contact information. You don't ONLY communicate with them during conferences, that is just your opportunity to formally present your most recent findings for group discussion, but then you leave with a pocket full of business cards of people with whom you'll continue to communicate after the conference.

 

[Zanket]

I don't understand why this would make such a discussion better here? Isn't it easier to just pick up the phone or type up a letter or email to the person in Albuquerque so you know who you're discussing your ideas with and that they are the person who is most qualified to discuss them with you rather than waiting for some random person to stray through here who might have that expertise and communicate with them via a pseudonym?

Seems to me that CarlB is saying that it'd be nice if PF had the benefit of Yahoo Groups, in terms of having invite-only threads or forums, so that there'd be a place that has that benefit plus the ability to use LaTeX. That would certainly be easier than everyone in the group communicating via newsletters (letters to a group) or conference phone calls. CarlB wouldn't have to wait for experts to stray through; the experts could be invited just like on Yahoo Groups.

 

[Zanket]

The articles need only make substantially the same points.

I'll look into this some more. We certainly don't want to confiscate other peoples' work.

Any news on this? I can discuss my "outside the mainstream" idea on many physics sites, but not here on PF. On the other sites I've linked to the paper; it doesn't seem like that has lowered the quality of the thread. I'm not using LaTeX or an equivalent, but the equations are pretty simple—nobody’s yet complained that they’re unwieldy. During discussion I changed the paper at the link, to improve its readability based on the feedback I was getting. That seemed to have helped the discussion rather than hinder it.

I'd sure like to tap into the minds at PF. My suggestion is for PF to loosen the rules on this new forum. I really like the idea of a more moderated forum, where the original post must be of high quality and junk posts will be removed. But I think the forum is too restrictive as it stands. Just my two cents on it.

Also I was thinking: what about images? If a paper is put into a post, images will still be a link, won’t they?

 

[CarlB]

I don't understand why this would make such a discussion better here? Isn't it easier to just pick up the phone or type up a letter or email to the person in Albuquerque so you know who you're discussing your ideas with and that they are the person who is most qualified to discuss them with you rather than waiting for some random person to stray through here who might have that expertise and communicate with them via a pseudonym?

Phones are great, but they're kind of expensive when used to talk between people on opposite sides of the world. Letters are slow and require a lot of postage for cross world conversations. Email is the best, but it doesn't support LaTex.

I never suggested waiting for "some random person to stray through here". If I want someone to read a post here, I'll send them an email with a link. This is 2005 and most people know how to use the internet to do this.

The groups I'd like to shift from Yahoo over to PF are already connected on Yahoo. There is no need for randomness. All I have to do is to post a message on the yahoo group telling them that further posts will be on PF.

My only problem with coming over here is that there is no restriction on who can post. That makes threads on PF tend to fill up with garbage posts by random people.

Carl

 

[CarlB]

Well now it's mid August, and still no posts in "Outside the Mainstream". Has anyone actually asked to be included?

I thought about the requirements for starting up things in that area and I suspect that that they are too restrictive.

Other than the obvious problems in terms of limitations on the number of posts, the restriction that there be no links to outside work is going to restrict the posts to the thread to be fairly small. Everyone's work is going to be based on other people's stuff, and in addition, there will likely be a lot of graphics.

As a test, here's a LaTex "picture" from one of my papers, with all the extraneous information such as comments, containing figure and caption eliminated:

$$\begin{picture}(235,170) \thinlines \put(35,30){\vector(1,0){113}} \put( 40,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 90,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put(140,27){\line(0,1){6}} \put( 25,15){-0.5} \put( 85,15){0.0} \put(135,15){0.5} \put(120,8){t_3} \put(30,35){\vector(0,1){133}} \put(27, 40){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27, 70){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,100){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,130){\line(1,0){6}} \put(27,160){\line(1,0){6}} \put(10, 40){-1.0} \put(10, 70){-0.5} \put(10,100){ 0.0} \put(10,130){ 0.5} \put(10,160){ 1.0} \put( 5,150){t_0} \thinlines \put( 40,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 90,100){\line(0,-1){60}} \put(140,130){\line(0,-1){60}} \put( 40, 70){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90,160){\line(5,-3){50}} \put( 90, 40){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 90,100){\line(5, 3){50}} \put( 40,130){\line(5, 3){50}} \put(205,100){\vector(0,-1){30}} \put(195, 70){n} \put(205,100){\vector(3, 2){25}} \put(235,115){l} \put(205,100){\vector(-3,2){25}} \put(170,116){m} \put( 40, 70){\circle*{3}} \put( 40, 90){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,110){\circle*{3}} \put( 40,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 40){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 60){\circle*{3}} \put( 90, 80){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,100){\circle*{3}} \put( 90,120){\circle{3}} \put( 90,140){\circle{3}} \put( 90,160){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 70){\circle*{3}} \put(140, 90){\circle*{3}} \put(140,110){\circle*{3}} \put(140,130){\circle*{3}} \put( 45, 70){e_L } \put( 45, 90){\bar{u}_{*R}} \put( 45,110){d_{*L} } \put( 50,128){\bar{\nu}_R } \put( 95, 38){e_R } \put( 95, 55){\bar{u}_{*L}} \put( 95, 75){d_{*R} } \put( 95, 95){\bar{\nu}_L } \put( 95,115){\bar{d}_{*L}} \put( 95,135){u_{*R} } \put( 98,159){\bar{e}_L } \put(145, 70){\nu_L } \put(145, 90){\bar{d}_{*R}} \put(145,110){u_{*L} } \put(145,130){\bar{e}_R } \end{picture}$$

As you can see, Physics Forums doesn't support pictures drawn in xypic, despite this being a standard feature of LaTex:
http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/tex/figures.html#picture

By restricting submitters to submissions that fit in the rather limited LaTex used on PF, I believe that you will ensure that nothing useful gets submitted. Any theory that replaces the standard model will have to allow us to derive the standard model. But the standard model is too complex to be derived under the restrictions of the proposed PF theory development. All that fits under the restriction suggested would be junk.

Instead, if you really want to make PF a useful adjunct to the physics community, you should simply follow the lead of Yahoo and allow posters to start forums where posting is restricted to a list of posters maintained by the person who started the forum. If you want to avoid confusing the general public about what is and what is not physics, then sure, put it under "theory development" or something like that.

As far as confusing the general public, PF already allows people with no knowledge of physics whatsoever to give advice to college students. With that sort of stuff going on, how much worse do you think it can get? Just what is it that we are trying to protect here?

Carl

 

[jma2001]

Carl,

It sounds like your needs are outside the boundaries of what PF is willing to support at this time. Why don't you set up a discussion site of your own? Then you can tailor it exactly to your specifications. I believe most of your requirements could be supported with a MediaWiki installation. It is not too difficult to set up a Wiki with LaTex support, I did it myself a few months ago. You can also configure the Wiki so that only certain users are permitted to edit the pages.

 

[Zanket]

My only problem with coming over here is that there is no restriction on who can post. That makes threads on PF tend to fill up with garbage posts by random people.

Tom (the mod) said he'll cull garbage posts. That could meet your needs without preventing posts from anyone. Non-garbage posts from random people should be okay, right? I suspect that the software underlying PF would need to be significantly modified to allow threads to be invite-only.