There is a proposal for a Physics Q&A site along the lines of Stack Overflow for computer stuff. Like many such projects, this largely conflates "physics" and "theoretical particle physics," so I'm not sure how much of a contribution I can really make. I've got plenty of theorist readers, though, so if this seems like the sort of thing you would like to have exist, click the link above.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Dennis Overbye is a terrific writer, but I have to say, I hate the way that he falls into the lazy shorthand of using "physics" to mean "theoretical particle physics" in this article about a recent conference built around debates about the state of particle physics. He's got lots of great quotes…
In which we look back on the ninth full year of this blog, and one of the most unpleasant incidents in the whole run, which nearly ruined what was otherwise a good year.
------------
This is probably going to be the longest of these posts, at least in terms of the number of links included-- I've…
In which we have the next round of the conversation with Puff the Mutant Dragon. Previous entries here and there.
------------
Amusingly, your post was singled out for high praise in the Knight Science Journalism Tracker review of the book. Probably because Deborah Blum, who wrote it, wrote a book…
This coming June will mark ten years since I started this blog (using Blogger on our own domain-- here's the very first post) and writing about physics on the Internet. This makes me one of the oldest science bloggers in the modern sense-- Derek Lowe is the only one I know for sure has been doing…
Hmmm, "Welcome to Stack Exchange Area 51!" I wonder what crowd that will attract .... OK I'm sure. One question I'd like to see someone wrangle: how to get real probability outcomes from the nebulous, hand-waving concept of "measure" applied to the splitting of states in the MWI. (And it's not the other, formal concept of "probability measure" either.) After all, say there are two superposed states and then they separate through whatever magic you prefer ... But if one has mod 0.8 and the other, mod 0.6; we need 64:36 probability.
Many attribute a mysterious property of "measure" to each of the two (or more) branches that is somehow equivalent to real probability or proportion. It sounds like a snow-job. I don't see how to get it without a genuine large set of worlds (and then, neither an arbitrary number nor Aleph null is satisfactory.) BTW no putdown of the OP hereby, who is aware of the muddles thereof. See my link and reflect.
Heh, is quantum computing under many-worlds a case of crowd-sourcing?
I'm glad you've posted this! I've been following this proposal for almost a month, and I was surprised to see a link on your blog.