Is arXiv a sufficient source to discuss on PF?

[entropy1]

Are arXiv papers a sufficient source to discuss on Physics Forums?

 

[Frabjous]

Sometimes. If they are highly speculative, you will need peer-reviewed references.

 

[phinds]

Are arXiv papers a sufficient source to discuss on Physics Forums?

It's all in the rules (had you bothered to read them)

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields, we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere. References that appear only on viXra (http://www.vixra.org) are never allowed.

 

[entropy1]

As a side question: can I just ask a question about standard QM without reference (arXiv or other)?

 

[Dale]

It is safest to use arxiv as it is intended: an easily accessible archival site. The abstract page should identify the journal where the preprint was published.

 

[Frabjous]

As a side question: can I just ask a question about standard QM without reference (arXiv or other)?

Yes, but many times something inspired the question, in which case providing the reference will help people understand the question you are trying to ask better which will improve the quality of the answers.

 

[fresh_42]

And it depends on the author! E.g. T. Tao has his articles on arxiv.org and he is definitely quotable!

 

[entropy1]

Would a video with Sean Carroll laying out MWI suffice? (because mr. Carroll is a physicist)

 

[Frabjous]

It depends on what your question is. One should point out, that many users do not like watching entire videos, so you will probably get a better response if you point to a specific location in it.

 

[Dale]

Would a video with Sean Carroll laying out MWI suffice? (because mr. Carroll is a physicist)

As a moderator let me give you a bit of guidance and insight on how we approach these topics.

The key criterion is that all posts must be consistent with the professional scientific literature. That does not mean that all posts must cite the professional scientific literature, nor that only the professional scientific literature may be cited. You can cite other sources (e.g. wikipedia or arxiv) as long as the content is consistent with the professional scientific literature

Sean Carroll is a physicist, but that does not imply that all of the material that he produces meets that criterion. A video recording him giving a classroom lecture on a college level would, but a pop-sci video where he is informally sharing his opinions may not. Even Einstein produced "pop sci" material that must be scrutinized and personal letters that are simply not appropriate reference material here.

That said, we as moderators are more "relaxed" in applying that rule to questions than we are for answers. It very often happens that someone comes here with a confusion from a poor presentation in a "pop sci" source (yes, I am talking about you Brian Greene). We accept those as legitimate sources for relevant questions here, whereas we would not accept them as sources for answers.

We also look at the intent and subsequent behavior of the OP. Do they engage with the responses and attempt to learn, or do they stubbornly try to avoid learning? Are they trying to fix their own knowledge, or are they trying to fix the scientific community?

I hope this is helpful.